FYI.

This story is over 5 years old.

Tech

After Supreme Court Victory, The Freedom To Game Vs The Freedom To Game Well

In the moments after the announcement of Monday's landmark Supreme Court decision, which at long last established videogames as a protected form of creative expression under the United States Constitution, the general response I kept hearing went...
Janus Rose
New York, US

In the moments after the announcement of Monday’s landmark Supreme Court decision, which at long last established videogames as a protected form of creative expression under the United States Constitution, the general response I kept hearing went something like this:

“Supreme Court rules videogames are protected speech; Now if only videogames could think of something to say…”

Maybe it’s just that my Twitter feed is populated mainly by jaded independent game developers with whom I can relate. Or perhaps it’s the usual curmudgeonly knee-jerking that occurs in the aftermath of any creative victory within the legal system. But it was nevertheless a notion that neither I nor anyone else intimately familiar with the games industry could easily dismiss.

Advertisement

Then the talking heads rolled in. Game company spokespeople lined up left and right to have their poignant-sounding blurbs about how significant this moment was for the industry, and for videogames as a medium. But try as we might, it tends to leave a bad taste in your mouth hearing giant companies like EA and Activision, publishers of multi-billion dollar franchises that thrive by sticking to the most profitable design templates, all of a sudden espousing the virtues of “creative freedom” in game development.

Here’s one from Activision president Bobby Kotick, a man so notoriously out of touch with gamers that the first result of a Google search for his name conjures an image involving horns and a pitchfork:

We are pleased with the ruling, which is an important affirmation of First Amendment rights and a victory against an unwarranted, selective attack on our industry. Protecting children from age inappropriate content is important and that’s why we have an industry-standard ratings system that is clear and unambiguous.

And EA boss John Riccitiello:

Throughout American history, every new creative medium has to fight to establish its rights. Like books and film, videogames have had to face down censors and stand up for creative freedom.

The list goes on, and it’s just what you’d expect from corporate entities that have everything to gain from a court decision which effectively abolishes age limitations on the sale of videogames. But it’s that common language of “First Amendment” and “freedom” that’s particularly hard to swallow.

Advertisement

Is there really anything truly liberating about working on the next gritty cinematic war shooter? Or deceptively addictive smartphone app-game that relies heavily on “alternative revenue models”? Who needs censorship when 7 out of every 10 games coming out in 2011 are either shoddily-masked marketing ploys or action hero-style gun simulators that look like this?

But that’s not the kind of freedom Kotick and the others are talking about. With no clear drive to innovate, it’s indeed the freedom of larger profits that’s being celebrated, a freedom which seems vastly redundant with the games industry projected to rake in $21 billion this year. It’s also the kind of freedom that suggests the riding of coattails, and in some cases, debate as to whether these entities even deserve to reap the benefits of victory.

It’s not all about a lack of contribution in game content, however. Even if mainstream gaming publishers weren’t keeping the medium creatively stagnant or waging marketing campaigns that undermine the potential and respectability of games, there are still instances where they’re just not pulling their weight at all.

Activision’s Kotick can feed us the “all in it together” victory monologue all he wants, but that won’t stop his company from looking like a bunch of freeloaders. The company, as Ars’ Ben Kuchera points out, wasn’t exactly on the front lines fighting this battle, at least not financially — That honor goes solely to the Entertainment Software Association, a coalition of industry advocates that collectively spent over $2 million combating California’s anti-videogame legislation. Activision, while contributing an amicus brief, didn’t give a dime to the ESA’s fight, and has not been a member of the organization since 2008.

For better or worse, big publishers are still a major part of why the videogames industry has risen to prominence in recent years. But driving up interest and shaping games into a major genre of entertainment is only one part of being a good neighbor. Now that games and their associated market has been assured protection in the courts, maybe it’s time for more of these publishers to step forward and stop cheering from the sidelines.

Big companies are good at making money — so why not use that to the advantage of the larger gaming community? Why not give something back to the industry they belong to, encouraging the advancement of games as a form of expression that transcends profits?

The key to making the most of this legislative shift is not to sit back and collect the benjamins, but to unite big-budget AAA and independent studios in a common desire to explore, innovate and elevate a still-fledgling medium into its proper place of cultural prominence.

. photo via