So the saying goes.

Well, in my case at this moment, it’s rather true.  It’s been several months since I last blogged and opined about video games and politics.  Much has happened since that post (PlayStation Network hack, Netflix fallout, more digital rights management dilemmas, SOPA, Modern Warfare 3 vs. Battlefield 3, Carrier IQ).  As much I enjoy talking these and other related subject matter, real life interceded with a job loss and a new job.

I have to admit it wasn’t easy to get back into blogging and even more so with the current economic situation (got to work so I can pay for access to this blog).  I’d like to ensure my personal economic stability so that I can devote more attention to my interests, especially video games.  For now, I feel comfortable in my current job situation, so I now I can start blogging again.

Well, the end of the year is coming soon, so I guess I’d better start reflecting on this past year and look forward to the next year.  Until then, enjoy the rest of the year…

“The video game industry has a responsibility to parents, families, and to consumers – to inform them of the potentially damaging content that is often found in their products,” said Rep. Baca. “They have repeatedly failed to live up to this responsibility. Meanwhile research continues to show a proven link between playing violent games and increased aggression in young people. American families deserve to know the truth about these potentially dangerous products.”

Rep. Baca cites “scientific studies from the Pediatrics Journal, University of Indiana, University of Missouri, and Michigan State University” that point to a “neurological link between playing violent video games and aggressive behavior in children and teenagers.”

Frank Wolf, a Republican from Virginia, is a co-signer of the bill believes that “… we should warn parents – and children — about the growing scientific evidence demonstrating a relationship between violent video games and violent behavior…  As a parent and grandparent, I think it is important people know everything they can about the extremely violent nature of some of these games.”

Pardon me as I shake my head in disbelief for a moment.

First, lets begin with some history.

The Entertainment Software Rating Board, or ESRB, was created in 1994 by the gaming industry as a compromise to the government.  The gaming industry was given one year to come up with a ratings system to ensure consumers were well-informed about the content of the games.  At one time, there were several different rating systems, two of them were publisher-based.  Eventually, the ESRB became the standard system of ratings for all video games.

There are several things I find wrong with this bill, some which may have unintentional consequences.

First, these warning labels are a smack in the face for the ESRB, a group that has worked for 15+ years to maintain the integrity of the video game industry.  It places a sense of distrust on the industry’s ability to police itself.  It also devalues their efforts and judgments on their products, as if to say that “the government knows better than you.”

Second, it gives one less incentive to businesses to stock and resell these products.  Having these labeled products creates more hassle to their customers, who must jump one hurdle to prove they are capable of buying them.  It may also make for an uncomfortable experience for the customer, indirectly giving the wrong impression to the public.

Third, there has been no conclusive research, study, or evidence to prove a direct link between violent video games and personal aggression.  In fact, there has been nothing to prove that any amount of exposure, however small or large, to violent video games will lead to aggressive behavior.  There are just too many variables to consider, especially when it comes to the human psyche.

Finally, these warning labels create a ‘black market’ status.  This means that these products become more enticing and attractive to the average teenager.  It may actually encourage more sales of the product because the customer is curious to see and experience why it’s been labeled as such.

Ultimately, it all boils down to one thing:  choice.  Does one choose to buy a product because of its content or word-of-mouth?  Who or what chooses how a product can be presented to the public?  And does a person really need someone else to choose for them what’s in their best interests?

To quote Rush, “I will choose freewill…”

So, to start off this new year (yeah, I know, that was four weeks ago), it’s time for me to get back to blogging about games and its relevance with life.  I wish I could say that I’ll be posting weekly, but I don’t see myself returning to that fervor when I first started.  If anything, I’ll post something monthly.

In the meantime, my thanks to those came for a visit to read my past blogs.  It’s motivation enough for me to return the sphere that is blogging…

Food and food-induced comatose aside, it’s also a good time to reflect on the past months remind ourselves of what it has done in our lives.  Of course, it’s also a time to give thanks for what we have and look forward to what’s next.

So, here’s my list of thanks, in no particular order:

• I thank God for the life he has given me and direction he has shown me.
• I’m thankful for my wife, for all she has done for our children, her friends, and her mom.
• I’m thankful that I live in a country that allows me to choose my direction and be responsible for its results and consequences.
• I’m thankful for the life I’ve experienced, its peaks and valleys, its good times and sad moments.
• I thank my parents for being supportive in myself, my family, and the siblings.
• I thank my wife’s mom for being wonderful grandparent.

Most of all, I’m most thankful my wife’s dad.  He has shown me a part of life that I never saw or experienced.  He impressed upon me a sense of strength, endurance, and responsibility for myself.  He has shown me that life, despite its uncontrollable nature, can be lived if one continues to look forward without holding back.  My wife’s dad left a mark within my mind and my heart that I plan to embrace and apply with my life.

Dad, thank you for your daughter and I promise to take care of her, as you did before I met you…

MCV understands that key retailers will drop titles that integrate the popular Steam service as fears mount that the service has a ‘monopoly’ on the download market.

Insiders say Steam, run by US studio Valve, serves a massive 80 per cent of the PC download sector. And retailers preparing their own rival platforms don’t want that share to grow any more.

Two major retailers in the United Kingdom have demanded that publishers remove Steam from their games or they will not place them on the shelves in any form.

The issue at hand has two sides.  On one side are the brick-and-mortar retailers; the other side are the digital distribution companies (Steam, GOG, Direct2Drive).  Of course, the consumer is left in the middle, watching a volley of comments and tirades bounce between the two sides.  What is a consumer to do.

The retailers have a couple of reasons for banning any product with Steam.  First and foremost is competition.  Some retailers are planning to start their own digital service.  In turn, it becomes bad business if said retailer was selling a rival product, so it makes sense for them to demand that Steam be not in any of the publishers’ products before it touches the shelves.   Retailers also want to create more visibility for their own service, ensuring consumer loyalty.

Then there’s retention.  If a consumer were to purchase a Steam-included product, retailers fear that consumers may divert their money and attention to Steam instead of them.  Instead of profiting from any future purchases, the retailer merely made money from just one product.  Also, consumers may not return to purchase products from other parts of the store (accessories, gift cards, and the like).  Retailers want to retain as much of the consumers’ money and attention to compete in the market.

Finally, there’s the fear of requirements.  For this, I quote another part of the article:

Gaikai CEO David Perry told MCV Steam could become the games-equivilent of iTunes, where it dictates the terms of the market, not the other way around: “Steam has made it so easy for everyone and they have lots of users. But how long do you wait before you take control of your own digital strategy? Like with iTunes, at some point it’s going to be too late.”

I find it funny that Steam is being compared to iTunes, but more on that later.

Basically, Perry is saying that Steam could create a set of standards that dictate what the consumer can and cannot purchase or download.  It may also dictate that publishers can submit to Steam for their approval.  If someone doesn’t create a unique method of merchandising video games that attracts a large consumer base, those profits could be lost to Steam.  In essence, retailers are afraid of losing their control on the consumer’s wallet.

The digital distributors, on the other hand, have much to argue about this ban.

First, there’s selection.  Walk into a local retailer and try finding PC Software section.  Now, compare the amount of shelf space for PC games with that of console games.  I think you get the idea.  Most of the titles displayed are major (like the recent Fallout: New Vegas or Call of Duty: Black Ops).  The rest is games that may have a niche for the casual gamer (Plants vs. Zombies, Peggle, the Samantha Jones series).  Online, Steam and similar digital distributors have near infinite variety of games, in addition to the major titles.  This means an average gamer can find a game of their personal tastes without feeling left out.

Second is convenience.  At a brick-and-mortar store, a consumer may have the luxury of browsing the games but then they may not be able to try it out.  Digital distributions have links for demos on most games; the consumer can immediately play the game to determine its worthiness of their hard-earned money.  Another aspect of this convenience is staff.  There’s an old saying about retail store representatives:  “They are absent when you need them, and they are there when you don’t.”  Even if one manages to find someone, it’s a risk if that representative even has enough knowledge to answer your questions.  Going online, one can simply play the demos, view the screen shots and videos, and even read reviews by other people who have played the game.  No need for the middleman.

Finally, there’s ease of installation.  When a consumer buys a boxed video game, it must physically inserted onto a disc tray to install the contents.  A video game bought online can be installed with a click of a link.  Also, if a consumer must have the physical disk to re-install the game or ensure that it passes any security checks from online.  Online, there’s no need to have the disk and, since the game is tied directly to the consumer’s account, there’s no need to wait for the security checks to clear (BioWare’s Jade Kingdom comes to mind).

Indeed, the consumer has much to decide on their video game endeavors.  Would it be easier to walk into a store and leave with a copy of the game or simply log online and add it to their virtual cart?  Does one want to bother walking up and down the shelf in the hopes of finding an enjoyable game or head to the Internet and browse page after page of titles?  Definitely not an easy answer.

Personally, I believe the UK retailers would be missing out on a great opportunity to retain and perhaps add more loyalty to their consumer base.   They could create incentives for consumers to walk into their store instead of going online.  Best Buy does this with great effect:  Through their RewardsZone program, consumers can obtain additional points through pre-orders or opening-day purchases.  Best Buy also offers unique content for certain games, be it a new weapon or accessory to use, new clothes for their in-game characters, or even a new map to play online.  If the UK retailers insist on removing games with competing digital distributors, they could lose an opportunity for maintaining and increasing consumer loyalty.

Oh, and going back to that comment about comparing Steam to iTunes:  A couple of months ago, Apple introduced a new application called Games Center.  This Games Center allows a user to play games against friends or strangers and tracks any achievements or ranks for certain games.  If I recall, I believe Steam had done this already:  A Community of friends to play with or against, Achievements to track and brag.  Come to think of it, I think iTunes is turning into Steam…

My Disclaimer

Before I was blogging, I was already making opinions about the video game industry as a member of a forum group, The Gamers Playground.  Most of my source material came from GamePolitics.com.  I talked about laws (yup, that includes that one law in California that’s being discussed within the Supreme Court), studies (mostly about violent video games), copyrights and DRMs, and the occasional offbeat bit (like Pac-Man Roomba style).  Eventually, I decided to write to a bigger audience and registered with WordPress.  At first, it seemed that few people read my posts.  Then there was Eric Estavillo.  His attempt to go after Sony created a lot of buzz in the blogging universe; it also allowed me to join in the discussion.

Then life happened.  I lost my job, which felt like a big blow to me.  My concerns were more immediate, and blogging became my last priority.  I had lost my motivation for writing, even with current events happening.  I knew I wanted to say something, but my browser pointed to another website for jobs.

So, what brought me back to blogging?

Well, a few weeks ago, I carried the casket of a family member who died in hospital due to complications from a ruptured aorta.  My wife and I thought he was going to make it after being transfer to a rehabilitation center, but things changed.  He needed be resuscitated twice.  My wife could tell that he didn’t want to suffer any more, so he was left to expire.  It was a very emotional time for my family.  It was especially emotional for me.

Everyone has a way to cope with loss:  gathering with friends, reading a book, writing a journal, crafting a scarf from yarn, playing video games.  For me, I decided to go back to blogging.  The past weeks have had me re-evaluate myself and my life.  I needed to find a focus, a reason, a motivation.  I remembered how much I enjoyed laying down my opinions, regardless of whether people read them or not.  I remembered how much I liked speaking my mind, even more so when I can type it out on the computer and publish it to the World Wide Web.  It allowed me to be me.

And so, I return to a universe that I enjoyed when I started typing.  Here’s to new beginning…

1)  Banning the sale of violent video games:  bad for business and parents

2)  The EA Online Pass:  sorry, but Steam is much better about digital distribution

3)  E3:  nobody won

In any case, yes, I’m still here, and my priorities are still shuffled as I contend with the present.  However, I remain stalwart in my pursuit in all things political with video games…

However, I’m still plan to continue my voicing my opinions about video games and politics.  It’s one of the many things I enjoy doing in life, and it helps me informed and well-versed in blogging.  I also have an eye towards possibly writing for a column for a publication, on and off line.

Meanwhile, I have plans for this site.  I want to start writing some investigative subjects, all of them involving video games of course.  I want to write about things that may not have been written, like how to help parents through the process of buying video games.  It’s a rather ambitious feat at first glance, but it’s something that I feel will help me grow in my writing skills.

For now, I will write my thoughts here until I feel confident enough to further my interests…

According to an article from MCV, GAME, a leading retailer in the United Kingdom has started using a stickers on pre-owned games with regards to downloadable content or DLC.

Quoting directly from the article:

The move comes following news last month that GameStop is being sued for being “deceptively misleading” after selling a second-hand copy of EA’s Dragon Age: Origins without informing the consumer that the game would not include the DLC access code advertised on the game’s packaging.

“We have been developing a policy for notifying customers at the point of purchase which was implemented last week in-store,” a GAME spokesperson told MCV.

“Pre-owned copies of applicable titles have stickers on them saying ‘check with staff for availability of downloadable content’, giving staff the chance to explain clearly the difference so that our customers understand the benefits of buying both pre-owned and mint.”

As I stated in my previous post, there were two possible scenarios.   To reiterate:

Scenario #1:  Collins only read only the first part of this print on the back of the box and immediately purchased the used copy.

Scenario #2:  The GameStop employee failed to inform Collins that he would not be able to get this content for free since he was purchasing a used copy, and that he would only have 7 days to return it for the full refund if he was not satisfied.

With regards to GAME’s new policy, the sticker is pretty much a disclosure which releases the retailer of any responsibility for their products, leaving the customer to their own devices.  It also ensures that, if the retailer is sued, they have proof of the customer’s lack of awareness (thus, ‘caveat emptor’: Let the buyer beware).

I give some credit to this retailer to doing all it can to avoid a similar situation with GameStop.  For the informed buyer, the sticker alerts them to any consequences of purchasing the product in question.  For the retailer, they can breathe a sigh of legal relief thanks to a few simple words.

The problem, if there appears to be any, is that it still relies on the customer to actually read the sticker to initiate this new policy.  Like Collins, he merely read the part about downloadable content being available.  He may not have read further down to see that it requires a ‘full retail purchase’.  Also, even honest customers may be left holding the bag, as this policy gives their employees a free pass; they can simply point to the sticker and leave it at that.

I would hope that this ‘new policy’ includes informing the customer about their product at the time of purchase.  Perhaps the register screen will alert the employee to inform the customer about downloadable content not being available for pre-owned products and suggest buying the retail version to assure their satisfaction.

In any case, I approve of a retailer taking steps to curb a similar situation, though I sternly believe that the customer needs to be well-informed about their purchases, with or without the retailer’s assistance…

The FCC sited a part of their regulation from the Communications Act of 1943, section 4(i):

“…perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this chapter, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions.” (source)

Oddly enough, the FCC did admit to having “no express statutory authority over such practices”, meaning it had no obvious right to regulate Comcast’s practice of throttling internet bandwidth.

The court, however, felt otherwise.   The court’s judgment states that “the Commission (FCC) has failed to tie its assertion of ancillary authority over Comcast’s Internet service to any “statutorily mandated responsibility.”  This means the FCC had no supporting regulation with regards to Comcast’s service.

On the surface, it appears to a good thing for the consumer.  By denying the government any ability to regulate the internet, internet users can breath a sigh of relief.  They don’t have to worry about any suspicious content being downloaded to or uploaded from their computer.  They can be assured of their own privacy and their ‘pursuit of happiness’.  Also, the government wouldn’t be able to filter which contents are deemed suitable by regulatory standards.  Surely, internet users should be joyed.

What most may miss is that it’s victory for the company.  This ruling gives the companies a free pass to handle their networks, free from the restraints and regulations of the government.  They don’t have to alter their management practices, their hardware and software, and their staff to confirm with standards.  They don’t have to worry about the government watching their backs, monitoring their servers and employee procedures.  In short, Comcast can now alter their networks without government intervention.

Because of this ruling, Comcast can throttle bandwidth usage in any way they see fit.  They can also charge higher prices or penalties to those who use too much bandwidth.  They can even monitor all streams of information and redirect those deemed ‘wasteful’.

Where does this leave the consumer?  For those living in areas where few companies exist, it’s a done deal if one really needs internet access.  It also means that certain services may cost more for those that use the internet heavily for businesses.  Speaking of businesses, their advertising may be limited (no videos of demonstrations or previews or use of flashy banners).  For gamers, it can severely limit their gaming options (no more online games or chats).

I’m somewhat beside myself on this ruling.  On one hand, I’m relieved that the government would have less thing to regulate.  On the other hand, I’m wary of how most internet companies are going to handle their business now that Comcast has been given a free pass.  I think for now I’m going to sit and watch how it all plays out…