I'm not exactly sure what he thinks he's protecting them from. It seems than nothing can escape his wrath. Less than a week after the "Hot Coffee" scandal, he named his new target. Next in his firing line, is the immensely popular The Sims 2. Yes, he's decided to take on Electronic Arts. Good luck with that.
Is he somehow unaware that EA are the biggest games publishers on the planet? Their turnover last year was in excess of $3 billion. The Sims franchise makes a healthy contribution to that figure, so EA are going to want to defend it. I don't care how much of a hotshot lawyer you think you are, Mr Thompson, EA can afford ten of you.
His case doesn't exactly make the most sense either. He insists that The Sims 2 contains full-frontal nudity, including "nipples, penises, labia, and pubic hair", and citing his sources as "video game news sites". He even goes sofar as to state "pedophiles around the globe... can rehearse, in virtual reality, for their abuse" - a lit powderkeg of a statement, perfectly worded to catch the attention of child protection agencies.
I'd love to know what version of The Sims 2 he played, if any, and exactly which "game news sites" he visited to get his information. The Sims 2 features the kind of blur you'd see on any reality TV show, and while a cheat code can be entered to disable the blur, all you'd be looking at are Barbie and Ken-style bodies (click here for hot uncensored action). (It begs the question, is Mattel next? They make Barbie, so they must also be responsible for the tainting of chilrdrens minds, right?) And although it is possible to download and install 3rd party skins, which may include rather more graphic detail, they are not the responsibility of either EA or Maxis, because they are not part of the shipped code. So ultimately, who exactly is Mr Thompson saying he thinks are responsible, and for what? Unfortunately, I was unable to find a complete copy of his letter, as he only forwards it to certain news outlets - such as Gamespot. I was surprised they even received a copy, as he has said before, it's not the gamers he's trying to reach [Edit: someone tried again ].
He's no doubt feeling high from his 'victory' against Rockstar and Take Two last week. There's no other reason he'd even think about taking on such a goliath as EA. Nevermind the fact that the results of which likely had far more to do with certain politicians throwing their self-righteous weight around than he'd care to admit. His open letter to the ESA -which is more of a personal attack on head of ESA Doug Lowenstein than anything else- was perfectly timed to coincide with Hilary Clinton's assault on the San Andreas "Hot Coffee" mess. In the same letter, he makes it clear that he's a Christian. Nothing wrong with that, you may think - but when you consider some of the graphic content of the Bible, I have to wonder whether he even realises he's sounding a touch hypocritical.
Part of the problem stems from the stigma that video games are soley for kids. Politicians, activists and evangelists can't seem to grasp the concept that this is no longer true. The generation that first played Pacman and Space Invaders in the '70s and '80s has grown up. They still play actively games, and make for a significant portion of todays market. Why should they not have games made for them? If every single book was a Dr Seuss, people would stop reading, and if every single film made was a Disney cartoon, people would stop watching movies. The Godfather is ranked the No.1 film of all time. Does this mean these people would allow their 10 year old son to watch it?
The whole "Hot Coffee" case has illustrated certain faults with the American rating system, while making me thankful of the systems we have in place here in the UK - the differences between BBFC classifications are much less ambiguous than the ESRB's, and are enforced by the law. At the same time, it shines an even greater light on the attitude of parents as a whole. Instead of taking an active role in monitoring what their kids see and play, many seem content to sit back, watch some TV, and then cry foul to their lawyers after little Johnny commits some immoral, unAmerican act of indecency.
It never ceases to amaze me how such people will blindly accuse wildly and point fingers, without any thought of the technical aspect of the production of games. Perhaps Rockstar North was indeed going to include the "Hot Coffee" section in the final product, but then pulled it - not because it was no fun, but for fear of exactly this sort of outcry. The last thing a programmer wants - particularly when already pressured by looming deadlines- is to have to waste time and effort on removing something completely, when it was no doubt much easier and quicker (and thus cheaper) to simply comment out the code and break any links to it. At the end of the day, Rockstar is a business, with an eye for the bottom line. And what could be more American?
Rockstar has been accused of everything from outright lying about the origins of the mod ( which they never actually did - their statement was very carefully worded) to deliberately circumventing legislation ( even though publisher Take Two probably had no idea the code even existed). Again, it seems there is a overcrowded bandwagon barrelling straight towards Congress, with ever more politicians eager for the moral vote, so-called 'concerned parents', and attention seekers desperate for a few more minutes in the media spotlight, all trying to jump on at every opportunity.
So, maybe Rockstar did make a mistake in leaving the code in the game. Surely someone there should have realised that as soon as the PC version was released, modders around the world would diessect and splice the game, and it was only a matter of time before the dead content was found? Nevertheless, the long-term implications for the modding community are far-reaching. While even those such as Valve and Sims creator Will Wright actively encouraging the creative thinking and skills to create custom content, I wonder how long it will take before developers start completely locking down their games - a move that will only hurt the industry. Anyone trying to develop skills, either to enter the industry or just for fun, will find themselves without a canvas for creative outlet, and increased protection will only make crackers more determined.
What I also don't understand, is the fact that such people are essentially saying that violence is fine -almost encouraged- while anything regarding sex must be sent back to the very depths of the hells from whence it came. Which is going to be more damaging for future genarations?
February's EGM had this article, in which Mr Thompson gives some wonderful answers:
In a pefrect example of irony at it's finest, this Miami lawyer accuses someone he seems to have a personal grudge against of lying and manipulating statisitcs to his own advantage for money. Incredible.EGM: You once compared Doug Lowenstein, president of the Entertainment Software Association, to Saddam Hussein.
JT: If I did, I want to apologize to Saddam Hussein. Doug is a propagandist to whom the facts don't matter. He's paid to lie and he does it very well. Doug is paid a handsome salary, probably seven figures, to say there are no studies that indicate [violent games have] an effect on anyone. If this is true, why is the military using them to create killing simulators?
The problem is, people like Mr Thompson have made a carreer out of lies, chichanery and misinformation, and he's becoming rather good at it. And while I don't believe he has actually won any of the lawsuits he's filed, he does have the attention of a number of powerful individuals and groups. It seems that he's no longer the lone, tiny little naysayer at the back of the room. I'm not worried. Every entertainment medium has been attacked at one point or another, from TV to music to comics. Video games are no different.
No comments:
Post a Comment