A state-owned games company

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Pythagoras
If hardcore Gamers were in the elite of society, then I could see this.

For many things such as opera, there is a small market for it. Games, however, there is a larger growing market.

I mean there once was a larger commercial market for opera, but there really isn't as much anymore, so the government wants to preserve it and they step in.

You know, governments subsidize movies too.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Sandman
And well done for contradicting yourself by approving of the world's only state-funded game.

I hate to break this to you, but it was quite clearly sarcasm.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Pythagoras
For many things such as opera, there is a small market for it. Games, however, there is a larger growing market.

I mean there once was a larger commercial market for opera, but there really isn't as much anymore, so the government wants to preserve it and they step in.

Actually, opera is quite popular, especially in Europe, and is a thriving arts industry. Opera singers are among the highest paid artists in "classical" venues, and there are strong opera companies running in even small cities and towns. Opera CDs also sell quite, quite well.

[DrSpike]

Europeans are just more culturally minded.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman

Do you think the Library of Congress, the British Museum and the Louvre all 'suck'? And well done for contradicting yourself by approving of the world's only state-funded game.

ah, but those instutions retain, curate, and display existing culturual products, they dont commision new ones as a general rule.

Even govt opera companies and theaters (no national theater over here, but National endowment for the arts DOES subsidize various regional non profit companies, IIUC) tend to show alot of old stuff.

More comparable would be for example French efforts to subsidize films. In the US NEA and NEH do sponsor some new commisions, I think. Usually not in commercially viable areas like film, though, I think.


Can one make the case that certain genres, etc are serious and worthy works of art, but not commercially viable? I think thats challenging, especially given the virulent hostility in the gaming community to ranking some genres or topics above others, or claiming that games are cultural products that have real societal influence for good or ill. The gaming community seems more worried about "censorship" and has defended itself with the notion that these are "only games". Makes it hard to make a case for subsidy.


OTOH its quite possible that govts will subsidize SPECIFIC games that advance social ends. Theres already a growing market for so-called "Serious games" sponsored by govts, companies, and non-profits, though many are "training" type games.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
More comparable would be for example French efforts to subsidize films.

And plenty of them don't suck. They're not propaganda tools for the government either. However, they affirm French language, French cultural values etc.

The current video-game market is saturated with the standards of youth' poptart culture. You'll rarely see a game whose cultural bearings are surprising to the audience.
How many fantasy games are based on actual folklore rather than on the works of Tolkien? (I believe the Norse mythology has a few games true to it, and that's about it)
How many economic simulation games set in today's world don't feel like under American economic values? (I can think of JoWood's Traffic Giant)
How many action games set in today's world are set "by default" in Paris, Hong Kong or Rio de Janeiro? (By that, I mean the game doesn't purposefully locate the action there for aesthetical effect, but that such a location was simply the "obvious" choice to the creators).

I can very well see a country wanting to support a computer-game industry with a strong local flavour, in order to have the country's cultural bearings reach the domestic and international youth.

[Sandman]

LOTM - Those are just examples. I've already pointed to America's Army as a government-developed game - so it can happen. And if it can be done for military reasons, then it can (and should) be done for purely cultural reasons.

And I've pointed to Channel Four as an example of a state-owned company which can bring a breath of fresh air to a medium which is nevertheless commercially viable (TV), at virtually no cost to the taxpayer.

I am NOT suggesting that this organisation would only be tasked with providing an output in unpopular genres. It would support itself through game sales, so there would be limits. Whilst it would probably dabble in unpopular genres, it would certainly not be limited to them. It would also produce games in popular genres, but with an eye for originality. I could also see it helping to release some of the good Japanese games which often don't make it over here, or forming partnerships with for-profit games companies for large projects.

Again: no subsidies. It might be able to get cheap loans or insurance from the government, but it would be wound up if it proved unable to survive without piles of money.

Spiffor - Good analysis, as usual.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Spiffor

And plenty of them don't suck. They're not propaganda tools for the government either. However, they affirm French language, French cultural values etc.

The current video-game market is saturated with the standards of youth' poptart culture. You'll rarely see a game whose cultural bearings are surprising to the audience.

It seems to me that in the console world there is plenty of Japanese culture - this has been one of the biggest new cultural influences here in the US. This would seem to be different from other media, where the US influence is more dominant.

How many fantasy games are based on actual folklore rather than on the works of Tolkien? (I believe the Norse mythology has a few games true to it, and that's about it)

Well, but Tolkien was a UK writer? I guess youre looking from a French point of view, at an "anglo-saxon" dominated industry. Similarly, GTA, one of the largest selling series of all time, was from a UK developer, and the first game was set in London, IIUC?

There are many fantasy games in non-Tolkien settings, forex Planescape Torment, but they also have an "anglo-saxon" cultural background.

How many economic simulation games set in today's world don't feel like under American economic values? (I can think of JoWood's Traffic Giant)

well, er, any realistic econ sim is going to have to incorporate economic ideas you wont like. 1602 AD was by a German company, and was widely noted as having a style that German gamers preferred - slower paced, less violent - but still shared liberal economic assumptions. You are really looking to get govt subsidies to propagandize for, er, subsidies?

How many action games set in today's world are set "by default" in Paris, Hong Kong or Rio de Janeiro? (By that, I mean the game doesn't purposefully locate the action there for aesthetical effect, but that such a location was simply the "obvious" choice to the creators).

Well, D'oh, obviously only a Brazilian would set a game "by default" in Rio, but why does location "by default" trump location to fit the storyline?

I can very well see a country wanting to support a computer-game industry with a strong local flavour, in order to have the country's cultural bearings reach the domestic and international youth.

Which raises an interesting question. UK has a games industry (Rockstar,etc) Sweden has a games industry (paradox, etc) Germany does (bluebyte, whoever made 1602, etc) Even eastern europe does. Not to mention Japan. Are ANY commercial games made in France?


I suppose a subsidized industry might be the only way to get a French angle on gaming. I wonder if French taxpayers would see games as being as much worthy of subsidy as films are. I rather doubt it.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sandman

LOTM - Those are just examples. I've already pointed to America's Army as a government-developed game - so it can happen. And if it can be done for military reasons, then it can (and should) be done for purely cultural reasons.

Theres a difference between a SPECIFIC cultural reason and wanting to subsidize a medium generally. I could see the National Park Service cooperating with a civil war battle game to be used to illustrate something at a national battlefield, the way they currently make films for such purposes. A more general sponsorship of games would be more like whats done in certain art forms, like film or national theaters - im not saying it couldnt happen, but its not the same as something as specific as "Americas Army"

And I've pointed to Channel Four as an example of a state-owned company which can bring a breath of fresh air to a medium which is nevertheless commercially viable (TV), at virtually no cost to the taxpayer.

How is it financed. We have public TV here that receives limited govt funds, and lots of money from donors - but I cant really see donors for a gaming company.

I am NOT suggesting that this organisation would only be tasked with providing an output in unpopular genres. It would support itself through game sales, so there would be limits. Whilst it would probably dabble in unpopular genres, it would certainly not be limited to them. It would also produce games in popular genres, but with an eye for originality. I could also see it helping to release some of the good Japanese games which often don't make it over here, or forming partnerships with for-profit games companies for large projects.

Doing profitable stuff would put them in competition with private industry. There are plenty of people here asking why PBS should be subsidized to do what the Discovery Channel or the History Channel do. I can only see this happening in a country like France, without much of a for profit gaming industry.

Again: no subsidies. It might be able to get cheap loans or insurance from the government, but it would be wound up if it proved unable to survive without piles of money.

Loans or insurance that arent available to anyone else ARE a subsidy, and mean an element of govt choice. What if said firm decides to do only the things that commercial firms already do? Do they forfeit their loans? Who decides what "unpopular" things are worthy of being done? If we dont want trust govt regulators to decide which games are "bad", why do we trust them to decide whats "good"? Spiff might want an FPS thats set in Paris instead of New York or Tokyo. I, even if I were French, might say - I dont want my money spent on an FPS.

[lord of the mark]

Re: A state-owned games company

Originally posted by Sandman

* More characters from ethnic minorities

Isnt GTA made by a UK firm

[Sandman]

You seem rather confused about this, LOTM. I am not, repeat not, advocating a subsidised games company producing subsidised games.

Channel Four is funded by advertising, like most other TV companies. It just happens to by owned by the government, and run on a not-for-profit basis. It's basically the same setup for the games company I am proposing; it makes money from games sales, but is not expected to turn a profit.

It is, however, expected to deliver on the the terms of its charter. Channel Four's charter requires it to produce innovative programming reflecting modern, multicultural Britain... the same would apply for the games company. As for who decides what that means... well, the board would be answerable to the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport. Although a strong level of independence is desirable. In any case, the company must produce games that people will buy, and also fulfil its obligations in the eyes of the government.

Please note that this is not a 'general sponsorship' of games, since it's self-financing and it has certain obligations under its charter.

Obviously it's in competition with privately-owned games companies - that's a good thing. It should hopefully stimulate them to cover new ground themselves.

Oh, and your jibes at France for not having any games industry are very ignorant. Massively ignorant, even,

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
It seems to me that in the console world there is plenty of Japanese culture - this has been one of the biggest new cultural influences here in the US. This would seem to be different from other media, where the US influence is more dominant.

Well, but Tolkien was a UK writer? I guess youre looking from a French point of view, at an "anglo-saxon" dominated industry

I know it can be surprising, coming from me , but this time I didn't exclusively attack the American culture, but the canons of the international poptart youthculture (much of it comes from the US, but it's not specifically a US one).
In particular, I tried to use Tolkien as an example of the fact that computer-game culture is more or less always the same. Tolkien-like fantasy is good, but nearly no fantasy game is out of these boundaries. And I don't know any fantasy game that is directly inspired by actual medieval folklores (not only the French ones, mind you, as I find the French mythology to be terribly stale).

Similarly, GTA, one of the largest selling series of all time, was from a UK developer, and the first game was set in London, IIUC?

Just to clarify (it isn't really instrumental in my argument): the first GTA game was located in a fake NY, a fake San Fransisco, and a fake Miami. The expansion was located in London.

There are many fantasy games in non-Tolkien settings, forex Planescape Torment, but they also have an "anglo-saxon" cultural background.

Planescape Torment is one of the few fantasy games where you won't find magically-gifted haughty elves, stout dwarves, or inventive and omnipresent humans (at least, for what little I've seen in it). Even the other D&D games follow these clichés.

well, er, any realistic econ sim is going to have to incorporate economic ideas you wont like. 1602 AD was by a German company, and was widely noted as having a style that German gamers preferred - slower paced, less violent - but still shared liberal economic assumptions.

It's not necessarily the liberal assumptions (actually, I find the Annos to be very interventiontionistic, since you're in control of the whole industrialisation/urbanisation process). AFAIK, Germany is the only place which has a healthy market for economic simulations of its own kind (very very industry-oriented). Germany is typically an example where one kind of domestic market with domestic values is commercially viable.

Well, D'oh, obviously only a Brazilian would set a game "by default" in Rio, but why does location "by default" trump location to fit the storyline?

Storyline can often not care a bit about location. If GTA3 was set in a fake Rio de Janeiro rather than in a fake NY, and it wouldn't have affected the storyline a bit
The reason why the Brits in Rockstar chose NY, Miamy and California over other locations in the world (including their own London) is because they expected a better commercial success by not having a surprising choice of location*.

Which raises an interesting question. UK has a games industry (Rockstar,etc) Sweden has a games industry (paradox, etc) Germany does (bluebyte, whoever made 1602, etc) Even eastern europe does. Not to mention Japan. Are ANY commercial games made in France?

Plenty. Atari and Ubi Soft are among the biggest game companies in the world. But even though they're located in France, they don't provide a "French touch" in their games, because they don't want to risk losing customers. Hence they re-affirm the usual unsurprising cultural bearings of international computer games.
I wouldn't say that they're wrong: there has already been two very creative and talented studios that were typically French (Cryo and Kalisto) which bit the dust.

This is why I can understand why a country would want to support a local game industry that carries its culture. Because the market forces are such that companies rarely challenge the cultural canons, for fear of losing money.


*Now that the GTA3 series are extremely well established, and that it covered all the traditional locations, I imagine the next one will be London indeed.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sandman

You seem rather confused about this, LOTM. I am not, repeat not, advocating a subsidised games company producing subsidised games.

Channel Four is funded by advertising, like most other TV companies. It just happens to by owned by the government, and run on a not-for-profit basis.

does it have to provide the govt a return on its initial capital? Does it benefit from license for its channel, such things being scarce and of value to TV broadcasters, and there being nothing equivalent in gaming?

Oh, and your jibes at France for not having any games industry are very ignorant. Massively ignorant, even,

I wasnt making a jibe. I AM ignorant of French game developers, and really wanted to find out about them. I posted about this here once before, and figured with Spiff here this was a good time to ask.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Spiffor
[Q] Originally posted by lord of the mark

In particular, I tried to use Tolkien as an example of the fact that computer-game culture is more or less always the same. Tolkien-like fantasy is good, but nearly no fantasy game is out of these boundaries. And I don't know any fantasy game that is directly inspired by actual medieval folklores (not only the French ones, mind you, as I find the French mythology to be terribly stale).

We had a discussion here the other day, involving me, Solver and a couple of others, as to whether a game based on real mythology (age of Mythology by Ensemble Studios was under discussion) should even be considered part of the fantasy genre.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...06#post3792906

Well, D'oh, obviously only a Brazilian would set a game "by default" in Rio, but why does location "by default" trump location to fit the storyline?

Storyline can often not care a bit about location. If GTA3 was set in a fake Rio de Janeiro rather than in a fake NY, and it wouldn't have affected the storyline a bit
The reason why the Brits in Rockstar chose NY, Miamy and California over other locations in the world (including their own London) is because they expected a better commercial success by not having a surprising choice of location*.

Cause obviously Americans arent interested in stories set in London or elsewhere in Britain (he says, as he and POTM count down the days to the release of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, a book created without any subsidy whatsoever, as far he knows)

Which raises an interesting question. UK has a games industry (Rockstar,etc) Sweden has a games industry (paradox, etc) Germany does (bluebyte, whoever made 1602, etc) Even eastern europe does. Not to mention Japan. Are ANY commercial games made in France?

{Plenty. Atari and Ubi Soft are among the biggest game companies in the world. But even though they're located in France, they don't provide a "French touch" in their games, because they don't want to risk losing customers. Hence they re-affirm the usual unsurprising cultural bearings of international computer games.
I wouldn't say that they're wrong: there has already been two very creative and talented studios that were typically French (Cryo and Kalisto) which bit the dust.

I know about the above publishers, I was interested in French DEVELOPERS. Never heard of Cryo and Kalisto - what have they done? any others?

[Standup]

I remember French developers from my Amiga days and while hard to describe they were always uniquely French. Quirky even. I remember many reviews that would sum up with the comment 'it's French'.

I think the nature of the games industry now means there's little scope for localised styles. The only obivious ones i can think off are Germany and their stat heavy approach and Japan. I also wonder whether the German market is protected by the language to some extent ? Unlike the film industry there doesn't seem to be a place for small, local games. Certainly in the UK films end up 'Americanised' (such as the Hitch Hikers film) to appeal to a larger, global audience.

As to a state games industry i think you'd have to decide it's purpose. To fulfill a niche demand (TBS) i don't think is appropriate; to promote local culture and values, possibly but i think they'd probably just end up being bad games and obvious propaganda; some other purpose - the BBC as part of the analogue switch off - i'm still not convinced. Perhaps an argument could be made for supporting/developing jobs ?

Perhaps a compromise is lottery funding (or equivalent) but then most of the films made with lottery funding have been commercial failures.

Personally i think the games industry is one of those instances where market forces and economics are probably more appropriate.