Category: Gaming News

hatred_960pxfb_hedimgA powerfully built man in a black overcoat stands in a dark and dilapidated room. From a table in front of him he picks up an assault rifle and tucks in under his arm. He then selects additional ammo clips, a stout knife, and several grenades for good measure, and stows them in his coat’s deep pockets. The man then takes three long strides to his front door, steps outside into the night, and unleashes a bloody rampage on an unsuspecting suburban town.

The carnage just described is the gameplay trailer for a game called Hatred, which was unveiled last October. Hatred is an isometric twin stick shooter game produced by the Polish developer Destructive Creations. Essentially a murder simulator, the game casts the player as an amoral villain set on committing a genocide for the purpose of bringing about his own suicide. To no one’s surprise, Hatred is as graphically violent as they come: flaunting the terror of innocent victims as they plead for mercy on the ground before being stabbed repeatedly or shot in the head.

Hatred achieved notoriety online when it was put on Valve’s Steam Greenlight platform last December, taken down by Valve, and reinstated after public outcry. Valve is a game developer and distributor best known for the games Half-Life, Portal, and Left 4 Dead. They also run Steam, an online distribution platform that allows gamers to purchase, download, and play video games. Steam Greenlight, is a section of the steam platform which allows game developers to upload content from their uncompleted games in hope of garnering public support to be put on Steam proper. Valve can then decide if the game is appropriate for Steam, and facilitate the transition.

Valve apparently decided that Hatred was not appropriate for Steam, because it pulled the game from Greenlight on December 15th. Valve’s Doug Lombari explained the pull by saying: “Based on what we’ve seen on Greenlight we would not publish Hatred on Steam, as such we’ll be taking it down.” No further elaboration was given why Hatred was pulled, or how Valve makes its final evaluations on what games graduate from Greenlight to Steam.

However, word of the pull spread quickly. The gaming community is always quick to charge the battlefield anytime there is even a whisper of video game censorship, regulation, or discrimination. The game’s upvotes swelled and the debate of how violent games should be regulated was rekindled. By the next day, Valve had backpedaled and Hatred was reinstated to Greenlight. Valve’s co-founder Gave Newell reached out to the creators on his facebook:

Yesterday I heard that we were taking Hatred down from Greenlight. Since I wasn’t up to speed, I asked around internally to find out why we had done that. It turns out that it wasn’t a good decision, and we’ll be putting Hatred back up.

As a law student, I couldn’t help chuckling over the internet’s reaction to the pull. Every gaming message board and user forum became filled will self-proclaimed legal experts who were more than happy to decry Valve’s actions as wholly unconstitutional and a violation of American civil liberties to a degree unknown since slavery. Unsurprisingly, the distinction between state and private action seldom came up. The fact that Valve owns Steam, and can admit or bar any game it chooses according its own terms of service came up occasionally. True to form though, the profession of every user’s mother was discussed in great detail.

Is Hatred deserving of the media attention is received and should it have been pulled? I’ll leave that debate to the internet forums. I will say that there is still a double standard in America about how the content of video games is treated in terms of societal worth. It goes without saying that books, music, and film all have the ability to inspire, educate, and transcend culture. Even when one work contains violent or sexual content that offends the masses, there is a presumption that these forms of media as a whole carry substantial societal worth.

Despite the Supreme Court decision in Brown affording video games the status of expressive works, video games have still not been issued their benefit of the doubt. As unfortunate as it is to say, a single controversial game like Hatred can make non gamers question the societal value of the rest. It was Voltaire who said: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Maybe it’s best to give Hatred the benefit of the doubt.

Hatred will be released on Steam later this year. It will be the platform’s first Adult’s Only rated game.

Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditEmail this to someonePrint this page

ralph baerRalph Baer – Inventor, television engineer, visionary, and the father of video games passed away today at age 92.

Ralph Baer was probably best known for his pioneering work in designing the Magnavox Odyssey. The first commercially available home video game console, it was released in the US in 1972, though Baer was working on its earlier iterations as early as 1969. The console featured controllers, light guns, and changeable cartridges for games – all industry firsts. Though the Odyssey never achieved the popularity of other consoles that came later, it paved the way for everything we know and love about games.

Baer was also the co-creator of Milton Bradley’s popular electronic matching game SimonBaer was honored in 2006 when he was  awarded the National Medal of Technology by President George W Bush for his work in pioneering the video game industry. That same year, Baer donated his video game test units, production models, notes, and schematics to the Smithsonian National Museum of American History. His papers are kept in the Museum’s Archives Center for the benefit of future generations of innovators, visionaries, and dreamers.

He will be sorely missed.


Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditEmail this to someonePrint this page

Amazon And Microsoft Pay Big For Twitch And Minecraft

September 21, 2014 | Ross A. Hersemann

H4vqsCsThe video game industry has experienced some surprising and high profile business acquisitions lately. The summer started strong in May with rumors of Google purchasing video game streaming giant Twitch. By August, gamers and financial analysts alike were equally surprised when news broke that it would be Amazon, not Google, purchasing Twitch. The price? 970 million dollars. Cash.

Then, just a few weeks ago, Microsoft decided it would follow suit in using deep pockets to gain an even tighter grip on the gaming industry. Microsoft announced it would be purchasing Mojang, the developer responsible for immensely popular title Minecraft, for 2.5 billion dollars. It’s been an expensive summer.

It’s not that exorbitantly expensive mergers and acquisitions are uncommon in this industry. Square and Enix merged in 2002 for over 764 million dollars. Electronic Arts bought Bioware/Pandemic in 2007 for 860 million dollars. Last year Activision Blizzard even bought itself out for 8.2 billion dollars. The video game industry spares no expense. However, understanding why a certain game, developer, or platform is worth a fortune is the name of the game, and what makes the recent Twitch and Minecraft purchases so intriguing.

It makes sense that Amazon bought Twitch. Amazon has had its sights on the video streaming market for some time now. Amazon Instant Video surpassed iTunes and Hulu in web traffic in the U.S. this past March. Amazon followed this success by launching its Amazon Fire TV media streamer box, which also has some gaming capabilities. Acquiring Twitch seems to be the next logical step in cornering the streaming video and gaming market. Plus, Twitch has affiliated itself with Amazon before. In addition to using Amazon Web Services such as Elastic Cloud Computing and Redshift, Twitch also sports an Amazon Fire App that has been quite popular. As more and more people cut the cord to their cable providers, streaming entertainment is really the next big thing.

The Microsoft Minecraft purchase, on the other hand, seems like yesterday’s big thing. 2.5 Billion dollars is a lot to pay for a game that was released in 2011. Now to be fair, Minecraft has sold 54 million copies across multiple platforms and is a merchandising and licensing juggernaut. That doesn’t count for nothing, but Microsoft has stated that it plans to break even on the deal in roughly a year. In the black or in the red, Microsoft is rolling the dice on this deal, and it may have more in common with the Twitch purchase than it seems on the surface.

Minecraft is more than a single game, or even a potential franchise of games. Like Twitch, it is a platform and a community. Gamers have been arguing for decades that gaming is an interactive and social experience and it seems that corporate America is finally getting the hint. Gaming forums, communities, channels, and networks offer an opportunity for advertising and subscription revenues that far outstrip the sticker price of any given game by itself. Maybe that is what Amazon and Microsoft are actually buying here: more direct and extensive access to their current and future target consumer base.

What does this mean for game developers? It means that games that lend themselves to online communities will be highly desirable to financers, distributors, and consumers. They don’t have to have pretty graphics. They don’t have to be expensive. They just have to be engrossing, entertaining, and social. The message underlying the Twitch and Minecraft acquisitions seems to be that the money is in the experience, and the experience is better when it is shared.

Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditEmail this to someonePrint this page

Legal Issues of #GamerGate

September 11, 2014 | Suzanne Jackiw

Let me start off by saying the game industry is good. It’s full of good people doing good things. I’m fortunate enough to live and work within a community that offers an immense amount of inclusion and respect. I’ve somehow managed to surround myself with people that personify the best aspects of our industry. I’m a woman making, writing about, and endeavoring to work in games – which can sometimes, in less supportive places, be a complicated endeavor. However, I’ve found endless support.

In the past couple weeks, I’ve seen a lot of the bad side of the game industry that indicates we should be improving. Individuals that make, play, write about, and involve themselves in games became embroiled in a lot of online nastiness. It stemmed from fraud, ethics, misogyny, or the sense that none of these should be present. If we’re going to discuss these issues, we should do so in a less violent or hostile way, and legal recourse is one way to handle these issues and reign in negative behaviors.

I’m not a lawyer, and none of the following is advice. If you have concerns, you should talk to a lawyer licensed to practice in your area. Beyond that, a topic this sensitive is going to be colored by my perspective and experience. I will do my best to keep the information accurate and not to make moral judgments, but in some cases my bias will show.

#GamerGate has been an online movement with no single basis, perhaps related to feminism, misogyny, or journalistic integrity. The issue may have begun with a blog post that mentioned a sexual relationship between a developer and a journalist, which the author implied resulted in positive press coverage. As a result, some assumed that these kinds of relationships were not rare in the games community. Some responded that these relationships were a breach of journalistic integrity. Others felt that the alleged sexual history of a female developer was not a valid source of conversation. Some started making threats, doxxing, and responding to critiques with obscenity. Much of this negative activity was directed at women, and those that supported them, in the industry, leading many to believe that it was misogynistic in origin. Even after the FBI became involved those concerned about journalistic integrity and those suffering from misogynistic attacks were left dealing with fall out.

An initial issue is journalistic integrity. There is no legal cause of action for breach of journalism ethics. Recourse in that space is left to the market. There may be some space for claims of fraud, which is “the intentional use of deceit, trickery or some dishonest means to deprive another person of their property or legal right.” But, given what I can understand of the claims against game journalists – that developers were engaged in inappropriate relationships with developers – fraud does not seem applicable in this case.

Defamation is a civil area of law that offers remedies when your reputation is harmed by someone’s words. Libel occurs when these words are written or published. To prove defamation, a plaintiff must prove that a statement that is false and injurious is published somewhere nonprivileged. For any statements made by a journalist to be considered defamation, they must be false facts, not unfavorable opinions. The journalist must know that the information is false and not care or try to determine its validity. If the statement is about a public figure, the falsity must be intentional. Defamation claims are not limited to journalistism. Anyone who published a false statement that meets these criteria can find him or herself in civil court.

The bulk of the issue is whether all the harassing behavior online is illegal, and, by extension, who is at risk of legal repercussion. Assault, within the Common Law, is “an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.” Assault does not require that a harmful or offensive contact be made, but rather only requires an intentional action that would cause a rational person to fear imminent harmful or offensive contact. Some of the language online was threatening to a rational person, but much of it also came from individuals that posed no imminent threat.

Laws regarding cybercrimes (e.g. cyberbullying, cyberharassment, cyberstalking) usually vary by state but occasionally fall under federal law. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, to transmit any communication across state or national lines containing a threat of injury. Federal law also criminalizes certain forms of cyberstalking as misdemeanors. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to two years in prison, to use a telephone or telecommunications device to annoy, abuse, harass, or threaten any person at the called number, so long as the caller remains anonymous. The Interstate Stalking Act makes it a crime for a person to travel across state lines with the intent to injure or harass another, if the action creates a serious risk of injury or harm to that person or their family.

Most states have individual laws which deal directly with threats made online. These laws vary wildly amongst the states, but almost all require that the person making threats intends to harass the victim. Some specifically criminalize messages that are obscene, sexual, or target the victim’s family. Some include distribution of photos as acts of harassment. Some are felonies with mandatory jail time, while others are misdemeanors. Some states have additional laws to protect minors from cyberbullying. Predominantly, each state applies their laws differently.

Those making threatening comments are sometimes protected by claims of free speech. However, First Amendment rights do not extend to libel, slander, obscenity, true threats, or speech that incites imminent violence or lawbreaking. With such a wide range of criminal statutes, language on the internet should be used carefully. Hacking or collecting information without authorized access is also often criminal. On the other hand, creating a parody account on social media is not criminal, but does often violate terms of service. Hosting or promoting harassing content may land a website in hot water, usually through loss of readership or civil legal action, but the laws have not been created to make such behavior a clear criminal offense.

It should be obvious that anyone who feels unsafe or threatened should reach out to the authorities. Even where there is no immediate cause of action, the report will create a record of behaviors and may influence lawmakers to take new situations into account. Knowledge of local laws can be empowering in stressful situations. In an ideal world, our community wouldn’t need to rely on criminal statutes to create a safe environment.

Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditEmail this to someonePrint this page

Recently, Lindsey Lohan made headlines for her suit against Rockstar for “borrowing” her likeness for a character in GTA V. She’d been threatening to sue for some time, so Rockstar was unsurprised; but, even without the threats, Rockstar should have known the Grand Theft Auto franchise was putting it at risk for a lawsuit. History tends to repeat itself.

In 2006, a court found that the Pig Pen Gentlemen’s Club in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas did not violate trademarks belonging to the Playpen gentlemen’s club. The clubs were similarly located in real life and in the game world, and both logos included the silhouette of a nude female dancer inside the first “P.” The court found that even though Rockstar artists relied on pictures of the area for inspiration in creating the animated fanciful world that was San Andreas, they changed enough of the look and feel and design aspects to not infringe on the marks. The court found that the parody strip club was not a major draw in the game. The fact that the club was not a major component of the game informed the court’s decision that there was no infringement.

Earlier this year, Karen Gravano, Mob Wives star, filed a $40 million suit against GTA V claiming they used her likeness in the “Burial” random encounter mission. The suit claimed that the in game character, and her family, directly copied the actual life events of Gravano. Rockstar responded that the case has no merit, and beyond that, the character is thinner than the real life Gravano.

Lohan will have her hands full going up against Rockstar.

Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditEmail this to someonePrint this page