Loss of Privacy

EA is telling gamers not to worry, but they are going to force all users of Command and Conquer 4 to be online, at all times, if you want to play the game, even in single player mode.

As of right now, you need to be online all the time to play C&C 4. This is primarily due to our “player progression” feature so everything can be tracked. C&C 4 is not an MMO in the sense of World of Warcraft, but conceptually it has similar principles for being online all the time. While some may be taken aback by this, we’ve been testing this feature internally with all of our world-wide markets. We wanted to make sure it wouldn’t take away any significant market or territory from playing the game. We have not found or seen any results that have made us think otherwise. You won’t need a fast connection, in fact, you could be on age-old dial-up, and have the same single player experience as everyone else. Online all the time won’t cause lag for single-player. We’ve also heavily worked on the online infrastructure such that people with slower connections will not lag other players with faster connections in Multiplayer.

So, first I have to pay for the game.  Then I have to pay for an internet connection.  There will probably also end up being some sort of subscription as well.  To top that all off, if I have a dial up account, I can’t use the telephone while I’m playing in single player mode because I have to be connected to play the game.

I play most of my games while traveling, where internet connections aren’t available.  I also play all my games as a single player.  I also hate having my information tracked.  There is no need to for any of this to happen, but EA insists on it.

Many ISPs are also limiting bandwidth.  How much are you going to be required to use while in single player mode?  If it’s a lot, many players will walk away from the game and never buy it.

EA also hasn’t said what will happen when someone’s internet connection goes out.  If your internet is out for two weeks, then you won’t be playing any C&C 4.  EA hasn’t learned from the Spore DRM issues.  They’re only making things worse and losing customers while they continue to screw with their games.

EA is not selling Command and Conquer 4.  They are merely renting it to you.  You will pay $60 to “purchase” the game and, whenever they decide to pull the plug, you haven’t got a game to play anymore.  What’s going to happen then?  I know what I would do; go right to the pirates because they’ll sort out a way for me to still play the game.  Of course, in real life, I’ll never buy this game.  You’ve lost me as a customer because you’ve taken away the ability for me to play it how I want, when I want.

Rethinking Schools Online has an interactive map of the Middle East and Africa where you can test your knowledge of geography.  They also have a few other educational games that are just for fun.

If you want something a little more challenging, you can visit sporcle and try to name all the countries in the world in under 15 minutes.  Sporcle also has many other challenging and fun games to play.

Two new laws proposed in New York is taking aim at violent video games.  Though neither will likely pass, it is interesting that lawmakers continue to attempt to restrict video games to minors.

State Representative, Keith Wright, has introduced legislation, which would keep games that include violent crimes, suicide, sexual violence, violent racism, religious violence, and illegal use of drugs and alcohol out of the hands of minors.

Proposal A02024, by Representative Aurelia Greene, also wants to ban sales of violent games to minors.  Representative Greene lists that this should occur when a game includes “adult images such as morbid violence, rape, alcohol and illegal drug use, as well as other malicious acts.”

Both representatives would like these types of games to be placed under lock and key and, anyone who looks under 30, will have to show ID to prove they are old enough to purchase such games.

The hypocrisy that video game violence is worse than violent movies and television, violent music, newspapers, magazines (which often have sexual overtones), and TV news is astounding.  Movie and television producers and directors are allowed an “artistic license” for what they produce, yet, video game creators are not given the same benefit of artistically creating a story, despite the fact that all three target the same audience.

The law is also worded in such a way that it prevents a minor from using maturely rated games, even under the supervision of a parent or guardian.  The government, however, allows movie theaters to ask for ID, after which a minor may enter a mature movie if accompanied by an adult.  It is also assumed that children watch mature television shows with the supervision of their parents.  Again, why are video games being excluded?

Also, why is there a need to segregate these mature games?  Any child can walk into a supermarket and browse through the beer aisles.  A child can walk through an retail outlet and look at the R-rated movies.  Neither instances require ID until you make a purchase.  Why are video games being excluded from the same benefits that alcohol and movies enjoy?  The point being made by legislators is that playing these games is what affects the children, so, why do they want to eliminate them from looking at a still image on the packaging?

The general description of violence and racism is the main problem in both of these laws.  What constitutes violence?  If you’re playing a WWII game, such as Battlefield 1942, will it fall under these definitions if the Nazis use racist comments towards the Jews?  How about superhero games like Batman Begins?  Superheroes commit violent acts while doing good.  What about fantasy games where the violence committed is against creatures that don’t exist?  Several fantasy games also kill these creatures while calling them names.

Super Mario Bros. could also be banned to the over 18 crowd because you can commit suicide in the game by jumping off the edge of a cliff.  It’s also violent.  As a matter of fact, you can, technically, commit suicide in many games.  There are also instances of sacrificing yourself for the good of the unit in military based games.  Will this be considered okay for minors, even though, technically, it’s glorifying suicide?

Why are you shooting people in a video game?  Is it because they are of some ethnic group you hate or is it because they are simply a character pointing a weapon at you and mean to kill you?

How do you define religious violence?  Does it only count if it’s against Christians?  Jews?  Muslims?  What about made up religions like the Protoss in Starcraft?  Does that count?

If the game is set in the future, how can you know if the drugs are not legal in that game setting?  If the video game is made in other countries, which they often are, will they now have to consult with New York about placing certain drugs and alcohol in their video games?  If a game has a scene inside a bar, even if it were to just gather information, it would be placed in this category.  How about a character walking down a street and passing a bar?  Is this going to get it banned for minors as well?  What about games where you use drugs as potions and elixirs for healing?

Ironically, America’s Army is a free video game that is extremely popular.  It was created and distributed by the US Army as a recruiting tool.  Under these two proposals, America’s Army would be banned.

It is more likely that these “lawmakers” are simply trying to make a name for themselves by appearing to be caring for the best interests of children.  They have to know that similar laws across the nation have been struck down as unconstitutional.  These proposals are merely ways for them to claim that they are doing good will for their constituents.  What it really amounts to is a waste of taxpayer money and an ass covering for a politician who wants to be re-elected.

Instead of proposing such legislation, why can’t our representatives be more active in trying to prevent a child from starving, being beaten, raped, and/or killed?  Why are they not looking out for the best interest of children by assuring that they all have access to free medical care and better education?  Where is the legislation to prevent child abuse and homelessness?  These conditions are infinitely more important than the violence depicted in video games and legislators should be mindful next election of creating proposals that do little, real good for the children of New York and the United States.

The highly anticipated Battlefield 2142, from Electronic Arts, is quickly coming under fire all over the Internet. What was once a must have for many gamers is turning into a fiasco where thousands of gamers are demanding their pre-order money back and vows of never buying another EA game. At the heart of the matter are the mandatory ads included in the game.

The representatives of DICE, who developed the game, have stated that data will only be gathered from in game. Web browsing and other profiling data is not being gathered. Even if the ads do not technically act like spyware, there is a fundamental feeling of distaste from gamers who find EA’s behavior reprehensible.

When a game is bought, everyone who helped to create it is being paid in the price of the game. There shouldn’t be a need for ads. This would be different, and understandable, if BF2142 were free or significantly cheaper. But it isn’t. There is no option for an ad-free version of BF2142.

Gamers are now angry. They want to simply play games. They don’t want video game companies shoving advertisements at them every time they want to play. Gamers, who now feel insulted and annoyed by the ads, are going to take their money and invest it in a game that they can actually play without feeling like they are constantly watching a commercial.

However, there are still several questions that EA needs to answer. Can the viewing of ads be turned off and, if so, will you have a complete game or are certain features turned off? Can I uninstall the ads? How often is it running? Is EA going to state this information on the box or in the box? If it’s in the box, is EA going to issue refunds for anyone who opens it, reads the EULA, and then decides that they don’t want to install the game? Most retailers refuse to take games back once they are opened. I see many gamers waiting for a pirated version of BF2142.

The third-party market for the information EA is going to collect on gamers is a gold mine. For data miners, it’s an opportunity to put gamers and their non-gaming habits together for better targeted advertising. Realistically, it doesn’t matter if the data harvesting is done in game or not. It’s still data mining and it’s downright dirty for EA to use its customers to collect another shady dollar for their coffers.

The makers of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City are being sued by the victim’s families saying that it’s the game’s fault a 14 year old boy, now 16, shot their family members. The $600 million suit filed on Monday names the boy, Cody Posey, Sony Corporation of America, Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. and its subsidiary, Rockstar Games as the parties responsible. It claims that Posey played the game obsessively for months and that the GTA series are “virtual reality murder simulators.” While it is sad that these people are dead, the suit is extremely naive.

The game trained him ”how to point and shoot a gun in a fashion making him an extraordinarily effective killer without teaching him any of the constraints or responsibilities needed to inhibit such a killing capacity,” according to the suit.

If this were true, then Hollywood is also responsible for every action film they produce. Also, if it were true then the game would have taught him how to aim and, the last time I looked, my guns don’t have an R1 button on them, but they do have nasty kickbacks, something no game gives you the experience in. The game doesn’t teach about recoil, reloading, necessary arm strength, proper holding of the gun, or proper aiming of the gun. To say that this game teaches one to be an effective killer is misnomer. I would say a film, such as Saving Private Ryan, would do more to teach someone the realities of killing someone that GTA. I have no problem killing a person in GTA, but watching Saving Private Ryan, I get sick to my stomach every time.

The plaintiffs accuse the corporate defendants — Sony Corporation of America, Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. and its subsidiary, Rockstar Games — of a ”civil conspiracy,” saying they should have foreseen their entertainment ”would spawn such copycat violence.”

This will not hold up in court and has been disproved many times before. Knife and gun makers have been cleared many times before. They are not responsible for what owners do with them and they are far more dangerous than a video game. If the corporate defendants are responsible for this tragedy, why then is the gun manufacturer not being sued? Posey wouldn’t have killed these people without the access to a gun right? So why is the owner of the gun not being sued?

Posey had told police he shot his family after his father, the ranch foreman, slapped him for not cleaning horse stalls fast enough. Prosecutors described Posey as a ruthless killer, but his lawyers claimed his father had abused him for years.

Now we begin to see what really sent this kid over the edge. Years of abuse, which probably led to years of being ignored, giving this kid the time to “obsessively” play his games. Posey’s desensitization to violence did not begin with playing GTA. The abuse he suffered in life, most likely, led him to being violent. He watched his mother die in a car accident and his father and step-mother abused him physically and sexually. His inherent safeguards that should be there aren’t. His parents should have had a say in teaching him not to be violent. Instead, they taught him how to be violent and that it was an acceptable behavoir.

The years of abuse that Posey took is more likely the resulting cause of his homicidal acts. Abuse removes the respect you should have for others. Abuse removes the bond between parent and child that teaches love. Abuse blurs the line between the real world and fantasy. Abuse leads to ignoring the child and allowing him to play violent games for hours with no interaction from the parents. Remember the game is rated M (Mature), meaning no one under 17 is allowed the buy the game. Who bought the game for him? Who allowed this child to play a mature game not meant for him? Who allowed him to play it obsessively without checking in on him?

I also have to admit that I enjoy killing people in games. Trust me. You are all better off that I kill you sixty times come Sunday instead of doing it in real life. It’s a nice way to release the rage I feel towards my fellow idiot human beings (No, not everyone is an idiot but those that are should consider themselves lucky I have video games at home.). I’m sure others feel this way too. It allows me to release my anger in a safe way, without doing harm to others.

While it is a tragedy that people’s lives are lost, we must look, realistically at who is responsible for these people’s lives. First, and foremost, Cody Posey is responsible. Next, the parents, for allowing Posey to play for so long without human interaction and, presumably for purchasing the game. NO ONE else is responsible. Movies, books and games can, and do, move people to think about society and their role in it. But this case has nothing to do with video games being the trigger that caused Posey to be homicidal. It doesn’t matter what the platform is (game, movie, book, etc.), if you are intent on committing violent acts, you will find a way. Blaming something else is merely a way to take responsibility off yourself and eases the consequences you must face for your actions.

The court is not convinced that the respondent has antisocial personality traits to the extent that would make him not amendable to treatment or rehabilitation,” Counts said. “There is evidence that the situational nature of the violence makes it less likely that the respondent will pose a future danger to the public.”

The court declared that, at the time of the murders, he was suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome and depression, most likely caused from the death of his mother four years previously as well as the abuse he suffered. It’s obvious that no one ever sought help for the boy to deal with the circumstances of his mother’s death. How could they? They were too busy treating him like human dirt.

Unfortunately, people had to die to see this kid was slowly turning violent. $600 million will not fix this broken kid and it is a sick twist to shift the responsibility from parental negligence to a young man who desperately needs help. The parent’s failure to notice what was happening to their child and their ongoing abuse towards him is what the real tragedy is and we all ought to think twice when we try to place the blame elsewhere from where it should lie.