Video Games Ate My Hamster (And My Child's Sense Of Decency & Morality)

For those whose memories are too blurred by sex drugs & rock’n’roll to remember that self-referential gag, or those who are simply too young, I suggest you google “Rock Star ate my hamster” and “Freddie Starr ate my hamster”. Go ahead, liven up your otherwise uninteresting day.

The subject of violent games influencing children, or even the perceived harm that games do to children, comes up time and time again. The most recent “outrage” being Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. For a portion of the game, the protagonist has to pose as a terrorist in order to infiltrate their ranks. In one particular level, whilst still posing as a terrorist, the protagonist has to participate in a terrorist attack on civilians at an airport. Cue mass media rants. With this particular post, I’m not going to try and hammer home the point that games do not influence actions – there are plenty of people far more qualified than I to make that point, and there is a wealth of data on this already. What I am going to try and address is a little bit of an underlying cultural problem.

I’m going to do another “clarification/definition of a term with the use of a non-sequitur” here. This article/piece/rant/drivel is going to be discussing video games. As a whole, this means PC games, all console games, arcade games, kiddie-consoles, portable consoles, set-top boxes, mobile phones – the whole gamut; any device that can play any form of game; you get the point. Primarily however, I’m going to focus on console & PC gaming – these are the largest areas of the market and come under the most scrutiny. Yes, you can argue the toss about whether PC gaming is dying or not, but that’s not the thrust (hur hur) of today’s discussion. These platforms also contain some of the more questionable subject matter, so, as you can gather, they often come under media scrutiny.

As anyone who’s ever been exposed to any form of media will probably be aware, a great topic for debate is always “Do video games affect behaviour?” You know the sort: a nutbag teenager lets loose on his school with a high calibre, semi-automatic weapon – media finds evidence that he plays violent computer games; or, an argument turns violent and someone’s head has a rather unfortunate meeting with a hammer – media finds evidence that video games are connected in some tenuous fashion; etc, etc… Argumentum ad infinitum – I could go on, but I don’t want to bore myself. Before I go any further, I want to categorically state that my intention is not to belittle these events in any way. I am not trying to detract from the tragedy of such incidents; these are genuine tragedies in which lives, many of them children, were needlessly and sadly lost. My point however, was to illustrate the conclusions that the media likes to make: that of linking violent actions with violent video games. There is plenty of vitriolic hate directed towards games, as well as some far more rational (and scientific) debates and studies. I’d rather forcefully remove my own testicles, of which I am rather fond, than re-hash some of the crap I’ve read. If you’d like some more background reading then I suggest you do some googling on “video game violence” – you will certainly not find your results lacking. However there has been no scientifically-conducted study or investigation which categorically proves that games influence actions.

So – children playing violent games. I’m going to get straight to the bleedin’ obvious here. Games, like other forms of tele-visual media/entertainment, have an age rating. In the UK, we have a national system of legal classifications: the BBFC ratings. If I have to explain these then please stop reading now – you’ll be wasting your time. In fact, don’t even stand so close to me – the stupid, it burns! (With credit to Orac at Respectful Insolence…). For video (that means DVDs, these days) and cinema releases, BBFC classification is mandatory. Some are deemed as exempt from classification, but the BBFC must still make that decision. Now, for video games, BBFC classification is only mandatory at a certain point. Developers/publishers can submit their game for BBFC classification even if they don’t need to, but there are other ratings systems available for less-gruesome/violent games – more on this later. If a game depicts one or more of the following themes, then it must be submitted for BBFC classification: “human sexual activity, human genital organs or gross acts of violence”. That, to me, sounds like something that you really don't want to expose children to. For this reason, games containing this content get a BBFC classification – usually, it's 18 (15 is quite rare for BBFC game ratings). This classification is law - it means that retailers cannot legally supply this to someone below that age. Did you quite catch that? I said "law". That sounds like pretty strong protection to me.

Games with some of the most violent, offensive or explicit content have been rated this way in the past - the most notable examples are the Grand Theft Auto & Manhunt series; Manhunt 2 was actually refused classification at first, which had the practical effect of banning the game (the developers eventually scaled down the blood-gore-death-mutilations a little, and the game was certified 18). Games retailers must follow this law the same as all others - they cannot sell it to minors. This eliminates one method of children getting violent games into their hands. Now, we have the other factor: parents. Here, I'm going to start some uncomfortable finger wagging.

To a games retailer, it can be unclear as to whether a person purchasing a game will be the one playing it. Case in point: parents buying games for kids. Unfortunately, we have to account for the human factor in this equation and I acknowledge that nobody's perfect. If it is quite clearly a game that is not suitable for children (BBFC classified or no), then most reputable retailers will give strong advice to parents on the game's content; this is quite prevalent during this festive “Holiday Season,” because, as you would imagine, game sales go through the roof. In many cases, reputable retailers will refuse to sell games when it is clear that the purchaser is going to give it to a minor – in some cases, the aforementioned minor is dangling from Mummy’s apron strings, indulging in subtle and not so subtle forms of persuasion. The point of this waffling paragraph: retailers not only adhere to the law, but also do have some kind of morals.

Even if a game is not rated by the BBFC, there are several other ratings systems that 99.9% of major publishers use – note: that may not be the actual figure, but it’s probably pretty damn close. The major ratings system include: ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board), PEGI (Pan-European Game Information) and ELSPA (Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association). The most common systems in the UK are ELSPA and PEGI, though you'll often find ESRB ratings on most major games. No matter which one is used, they all offer some sort of easy-to-read ratings descriptions on the back, and sometimes the front, of the cover. I'm not going to recite all the ratings here, that's what Wikipedia and Google are for. Even if they offer no indication as to the themes present in the game (which many do), they give an indication of the age range it is aimed at. This age “rating” is not legally enforceable, but it does not take a responsible parent 30 seconds to quickly scan the box to see if this is really suitable for their child. If it's ignored, then that's called bad parenting.

Compare with movies: would you buy any old DVD for your 13-year old, regardless of it's content? I'm sure you wouldn't pick up a copy of say, "Uber Splatter Gore Fest XXIV!!" for a 13-year old, just because they asked you for it. The same common sense applies to games. Some might say that it applies even more to games, simply because of the active interaction that games allow. If you would purchase "Uber Splatter Gore Fest XXIV!!" for your 13-year old and subsequently get offended when you realise the nature of the content, then who is to blame here? Again, the same goes for games. In case you hadn't been watching from your cave, times move on; video games are no longer the simple bleepy noiseboxes that were about when you were 16 – the days of Pong being a smash hit in your lounge are over People need to recognise that video games are no longer toys. Sure, there was a time when video games could do little less than play Pong, and were a harmless distraction. But, as already stated, that has changed. Games these days are incredibly complex and immersive – moreso than movies – and major titles often have budgets meeting or exceeding that of many Hollywood “blockbusters”. Some games these days can be played for over 20 hours without the full storyline being told. Games these days are becoming even more immersive as the technology improves (which is happening at a relatively exponential rate); players are given far more freedom to interact with the game world, influence the story and other characters. Times have changed, and attitudes need to follow; parents need to take far more of an interest in exactly what they are exposing their children to.

There are events in games that stand out in my mind as much as seminal moments in cinema; the most notable example being in Final Fantasy VII. Before I go any further, I would like to point out that if you haven’t yet played this game, or have any vague interest in it whatsoever, then THIS IS A GREAT BIG-MASSIVE SPOILER. And, seriously… if you have any interesting in gaming, why the hell haven’t you played it yet? Go get a cheap second hand PSOne – yes, come on, they’re not exactly expensive – and a copy of this game. Yes, I’m totally serious. Well, you can get it on the PC if you want to, but you’d enjoy it an awful lot more on the original console. There is a scene in which one of the pivotal characters in the game is killed by the primary antagonist. I cannot remember any other game which has moved me quite as much as this scene. This happens at a point which is less than a quarter of the way through the story line.

Ratings such as ELSPA or ESRB are not legally binding – a 12 year old may come in and purchase an M-Rated game. Here, again, is where responsible retailing comes into play. You would be surprised at how responsible major retailers can be; there aren't many places where minors could pick up a game that is clearly not suitable for them. The retailers’ intentions may not always be to benefit the greater good of mankind - they often have to fear lawsuits and liability - but they will still ask questions and have the right to refuse to sell. My opinion is that we make PEGI or ESRB mandatory, and legally enforce the age limits. The BBFC classification system is very good and requires no understanding of the subject matter (everyone is familiar with BBFC ratings), but it doesn’t accurately give an indication of the content. PEGI and ESRB ratings do. The UK government commissioned a report into this subject recently, enlisting the assistance of Dr Tanya Byron; look up “The Byron Review.” It was actually a sensibly-conducted investigation/study, with sensible recommendations. Another reason I like writing about it is I get to tell people to look up a report with my name in the title; I may not have written it, but every little boost to my ego is more than welcome. The report did not focus on whether or not the medium causes harm to children, but more the role that the internet and video gaming plays in a child’s life. Key points include the fact that the use of the internet and video games can be beneficial to a child’s development, there is potentially inappropriate material out there and that parents need to take more responsibility in restricting access to potentially inappropriate material. I’m going to give you a minute to let that sink in. It’s not often that a government review has such sensible conclusions and recommendations – I’m still coming to terms with it myself, and the report was delivered over 18 months ago! Of course, the mainstream media was way off in the coverage of the report… But that’s no real surprise to me, given my entirely justified aversion to mainstream media.

I think I’ve expounded quite enough now, so I’d like to rein this in to some sort of conclusion. We need a system of mandatory classification for video games, because yes: there are games out there which are inappropriate for children. No, we should not be allowing children to play these games because, well, they’re inappropriate and contact graphic/explicit material. But parents of young children need to take more of an interest in what their children are playing and understand the medium a little bit more. Try sitting down and playing some of these games yourself – now judge whether you think this appropriate for your child. If on the other hand you have no problem in letting your twelve year-old play Manhunt, then someone seriously needs to question your ability to raise a child.

Why DRM is not The Answer

Please note: I do not cite any sources or back this with evidence. This is my own opinion, from my own point of view.

As debates rage on regarding the subject of piracy, the message that keeps coming back from “the industry” is the need for content control – read: Digital Rights Management (DRM). Or as ZDnet put it, “Content Restriction, Annulment and Protection” – not hard to see what they think of it. Put simply, it is a mechanism for ensuring that content you sell is only usable by those that are authorised to do so. Thus, ensuring that you and your artists’ interests are protected, and giving yourself some kind of protection against piracy.

Before I go much further, here’s another term I’d like to tear a hole into: piracy. “Piracy” is a maritime term; the best definition I have found comes from the Oracle of Human Knowledge™, Wikipedia: “Piracy is a war-like act committed by a non-state actor, especially robbery or criminal violence committed at sea, on a river, or sometimes on shore.” Software “piracy”, by this definition, is not “piracy”. Those behind the bit-torrent site The Pirate Bay, or those who illegally download software or movies, do not wield cutlasses and eye-patches and raid the good ships Microsoft or Sony for their hard earned software. The proper term is copyright infringement; by unlawfully distributing content to those who have not paid for it, you are infringing the rights of the copyright holder. It is true that the term “piracy” when applied to copyright infringement actually pre-dates the concept of copyright itself (apparently to the 17th Century); however in the current age of copyrights and intellectual property, et al, the term “copyright infringement” is a more accurate definition. Unfortunately it has become so ingrained in public consciousness that it’s sometimes hard to avoid the term, and I’m probably going to end up using it anyway.

Now that I’ve got that out of the way, I’m going to carry on my rant. This is mostly geared at DRM in music, but DRM is slowly creeping everywhere - it's already in your TV, if you have digital Freeview or satellite.

Let me state right from the beginning: DRM punishes consumers. Plain and simple. Any person that takes an objective, overall look at the whole DRM situation can see that the system simply will not work. The old business models are exactly that: old. With the nature of technology & digital communication constantly evolving at a rapid rate, the market needs to evolve too.

The music “industry” is slowly starting to realise that it must change, and is taking positive steps in doing so. In the past, it worked like this. You, or your band, get recognised and picked up by a record label. That record label funds the cost of recording your music, pressing it to a distribution medium, (vinyl, tape, CD, etc), promoting your work through advertising and sometimes arranging live performances. They may even employ a manager in order to manage tour schedules, logistics, etc (or you might hire your own manager). In return, they retain the rights to your work and collect a significant percentage of the sales that are made. You get royalties, of course, but the lion’s share goes to the record label for all the effort they have put in – bear in mind, they also keep the rights to your work.. Now some artists manage to make it really big and set up their own record labels. They then have full control of any of the work they release under that label, and all the money comes back to them – great for those who can, not quite so good for those less fortunate. In the Olde Worlde, this was fine; this was an acceptable way of doing business. The cost of the studio equipment alone was astronomical; nobody outside of Big Business could afford all the equipment you needed in order to record your material and put it on a distribution medium. Now let’s fast forward to where we are today, and keep it at that same, basic level (at least to start with). This may get a little bit geeky, but I’ll try to keep the tech jargon to a minimum.

I’m going to use a real world example to try and put some perspective on things; of course, this is going to be a subjective, first-hand experience. I do some live gig recording for a friend, usually every month or so – I do not consider myself a professional at this in any way at all. So, I have been doing some research recently into PC-based recording hardware, to try and get the best sound. Music performances and recording works like this: each instrument has a “channel” (captured by a microphone) of its own: drums, guitars, vocals, synthesizers, etc. Each of these channels goes into a large mixing desk, where the volume (and other aspects of the sound) can be manipulated individually. The Sound Guy (our sound engineer, if you prefer) then adjusts the volume of each of these channels to get the best overall sound from each instrument (the sound check). This “mixed” output then goes to the amplifiers and PA systems, and makes up what you hear. I use an old laptop of mine to actually do the recordings on; it’s an extremely old beast by today’s standard, as it’s nearly 5 years old. Any basic model you pick up today, from £300 upwards, will more than match that laptop. I bought a USB-based audio interface recently, in order to get better recordings; it has two channels in, two channels out, a headphone monitor and a 2-channel optical-digital output. This box cost me £30, and is more than sufficient to hook up to the output of a mixing desk and record the live mix. Not quite as much as I’d like, but that’s a different story. However, I have also experimented with using a more advanced audio interface with more channels (thanks to our Sound Guys). An audio interface lets you plug instruments straight into the computer, and get the sound on your computer; it's basically a sound card with lots of inputs. That same laptop I described can record 6 channels of audio in real time – this means it doesn’t skip, or drop parts out and you hear what is played – through a modestly-priced audio interface (basic models with that many channels start at around £100-£200). So, for the average rock/indie band, that means that you can record the following instruments on their own channels: vocals, lead guitar, bass guitar, rhythm guitar and have two channels left for the drums. Each of these gets their own individual mix, so you can tweak and tune each one to get the best sound out of it. This means the average “garage band” (no reference to the fruity software intended) can spend around £400-£500 on what can be classed as a basic recording studio – people spend more on guitars & guitar amps alone. Not only that, it’s based on a laptop; it’s all mobile. There is free software available for the PC to do everything you need with your recordings; mixing, mastering, effects, etc, etc. When I say free, I don’t just mean “free software” in the happy friendly sense of being open and sharing everything with everyone in the “Free Software Foundation” way; I also mean free as in “free beer” – the cost to you: utterly nothing, and yours to do with as you please. Any PC or laptop you buy today also has the ability to write all this to a CD and the software is free – again, free as in “free beer”. Can you see where the cracks of the old model are appearing? Now the average struggling band doesn’t need a big record label to come in and “give them a break” – they can make their own “break”, and get a good quality recording for a fraction of what a professional studio will cost. This is a very simplistic set up, but it doesn’t take much more money to ramp that up a little. Going back to the audio interface; the 6-channel example I described above will mean you need to do everything on the PC. A product I have been quite interested in is a mixing desk which also doubles as a USB-based audio interface (the Alesis Multimix 16 USB, since you asked). It has 16 input channels and is set up exactly the same as a traditional mixing desk. But, each and every channel can also be recorded by the PC, as well as the final mix. The cost of this beastie? £250. Pretty damned reasonable for what you’re getting. Coupled with a modest PC, you now have something that is bearing down on what a professional studio can offer you. You can set this up anywhere you want: your garage, your garden, your front room, etc (your mileage may vary with acoustics, however). Granted, that with a traditional studio you will benefit from professionally experienced sound engineers & staff and top-notch quality audio gear. Usually, this means that the final product will sound better. But with the right equipment, patience and practice, there’s no reason that these skills cannot be learned. Plus, good quality audio gear doesn’t cost the earth these days, and is more than adequate for recording at or above CD quality.

Where am I going with all of this? It sounds like I’m rambling, but I guess it's rambling with a point. Let’s go back to what the traditional record label used to do: record, mix, master and distribute your material; and promote you as an artist. Using the examples above, let’s see what artists can do for themselves, with the benefits of advanced, low-priced, modern technology:

Recording: Check

Mixing: Check

Mastering: Check

The two remaining items are distributing your material and promotion. I’ve already mentioned that any home PC can record a CD, but let’s look at a better way of doing it: digital distribution. Creating a high-quality audio file on the computer these days is child’s play – literally; my 6-year old cousin already knows how to copy a CD to iTunes. The internet is now a massive, global, real-time communications tool. Many artists have already shot to fame on the back of their internet fan-base. Artists can dictate how their music can be used, how it is paid for, how much they sell it for, how the money is distributed. But more importantly, the artists keep the rights to their music and license it themselves – it no longer belongs to a corporate entity. If you want money, fame and stardom, you can market yourselves aggressively and charge however much you want. If you want to get your music to as wide an audience as possible or do it simply for the pleasure of creating, you can dictate how this is done. You may even want to start employing professionals to do some, or even all, of this work for you, but that’s your choice. I’m starting to sound like a bit of an evangelist now. My point is that the old ways of the “music industry” simply will not work exactly the same as they have before. The industry needs to wake up and smell the coffee. These changes aren’t going to come from the “industry”. They are going to come from those providing the content, the artists and consumers. To some degree, this is already happening. iTunes popularised the digital distribution medium, and has now stopped selling content with DRM. I am somewhat more cynical about their reasons behind this; I don’t believe it’s as benevolent as Lord High-on-Mighty Steve Jobs made out in his letter to the music industry. There was growing regulatory pressure on Apple’s use of it’s FairPlay DRM system. People want a better and easier way to manage and buy their music; Apple has the money and business sense to pull this off successfully with iTunes. Music crippled with FairPlay is sold through iTunes, and iTunes only allows you to transfer DRM’ed files to an iPod. Consequence: iPod sales skyrocket and, more or less, completely squeeze the competition out of the mass market. Even now that Apple has dropped FairPlay on its music, you still can’t synchronise any other media player with iTunes except for an iPod (unless of course you use third-party modifications or hacks – both of which are largely out of reach for Mr Average,and possibly violate iTunes' End-User License Agreement).

As I’ve mentioned before, DRM is inherently bad for consumers and not just in the philosophical sense, either. Some of the more technically-inclined among us may remember the Sony-BMG XCP scandal. Several years ago, Sony-BMG, in their infinite wisdom, decided to distribute CD’s with built-in copy protection software. On a basic level, it was designed to stop you copying the CD to your computer – it also meant that you can only play it on a computer, and not a hi-fi system or similar; this is because it needed software to be installed on your computer in order to play it. As soon as you popped the disc in your drive, this little piece of software silently installed itself – you had no choice about this; it happened even before any license agreement was displayed and did not ask your permission. There wasn’t even a warning on the CD case itself in most cases. In order to play the CD, this software had to be installed - no software installed, no music for you. Fine, you might think, it stops people illegally copying the CD. First of all, I don’t like it when software installs itself without asking – this is what viruses do. Secondly, even if you weren’t playing the CD, this software was always running; this means it ate up your PC’s resources, slowing it down. But thirdly, it created massive security holes and effectively gave malicious intruders a nice big gaping hole to slip into your PC. The XCP software employed techniques that are similar to rootkits. For the less technically inclined, a rootkit is traditionally a malicious piece of software that hides itself in your PC, and gives malicious intruders complete control over your computer – people generally like to think of rootkits as a Very Bad Thing™. XCP silently slid into the computer system and sat there like a great fat boil. It used poorly-designed techniques to hide itself, which could be easily exploited by anyone who can see your computer – in today’s world, this means anyone who is connected to the internet. People began to create software to look specifically for computers with this software, exploit it and take remote control of these PCs (I’m not going to use the term “hackers” – that’s a rant for a different day). Sony-BMG realised their complete blunder, and began to issue instructions/programs to remove their XCP software. Even that was ineffective, too. Because this software was so poorly written, the likelihood was that it would shaft your computer when you tried to remove it. Of course this is no different to what a virus or trojan often does, but this was a piece of software distributed to mass-market with consumer products.

I don’t want to use the Sony-BMG XCP scandal as the entire basis for my argument; however this is quite possibly biggest DRM blunder that “the industry” has ever made, so it only seems right to name & shame this ineptitude. DRM is inherently restrictive to my freedom. I have paid the license-holder for the right to listen to that material. This means that I should be able to listen to it in whatever format I damned well please – isn’t this what I have paid you for? Providing I am not broadcasting it or sharing it in a way that the copyright holders have not authorised, where is the problem in my own personal use? If you buy music over the internet with DRM, generally you can only play it on specific software, platforms or mobile devices. Usually, if you don’t own Windows or Mac you’re shafted – you can’t play it at all. Perhaps I wish to run Linux; that DRM content seems pretty unappealing to me, so I’m going to find ways to circumvent it and play the music I have paid for. I’ve bought some music through an online system, but their software doesn’t let me play it in any other media player. Suddenly, I can’t play this music, which I have paid for, on either my networked media centre or my mobile phone. Therefore, I’m going to remove the DRM crippleware so I can play the music where ever I want. This is now illegal. In the case of the illustrious Saviour of The Globe™ across the pond (and the market with much more buying power than ours), the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) makes the act of circumventing access controls on content encoded with Digital Rights Management (DRM) illegal. Back in the UK, the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 now makes it illegal to: “knowingly remove electronic copyright management information which is associated with a copy of a copyright work”. Thus the average consumer who wants to enjoy the music he has paid for in whatever format he chooses has now become a criminal.

What does this mean for consumers? Attempting to remove the crippleware (DRM) from our legally-purchased music now makes us criminals. This means that any content which has DRM restrictions can now only be played on the format and software for which it was sold. This means that the market becomes fragmented, and there are very few solutions. One option is to create a ubiquitous DRM standard, to which all manufacturers and developers adhere to (meaning every device and every piece of software can play this music); the most practical way of doing this would be to restrict it by country or region, like DVDs; for example, music bought in the UK can only be played on devices or software sold or based in the UK. However this kind of removes the protection against illegal copyright – if everyone in the UK can play songs sold in the UK, then people in the UK will only illegally download music from other people in the UK. Clearly this can’t work for “the industry”. Another option is to let individual labels, artists, distributors, etc, use their own DRM systems. This means that if consumers want to buy music from different companies, we’re back to the same problem of not being able to enjoy the music when & where we want.

What’s a good solution for the consumer then? It’s quite simple: scrap DRM entirely. “But avast,” you say, “there be pirates ahoy – what about restricting illegal copyright infringement and distribution, eh?” The simple answer to that is that you cannot stop “piracy” – copying games, copying music, copying films, even counterfeit clothes… It has all been going on for years (over 400 years, in fact). Do you remember when pirate radio killed music? Do you remember when video cassettes killed film-making? Do you remember when taping music from the radio to cassettes killed music as well? Hang on a sec, what about home CD burning, didn’t that kill music too? Holy crap, waitaminute! No it didn’t, look – people are still making and, what a shock, *buying* music! It’s true that “piracy” is a serious problem and costs a lot of money. But where does most of this money go? You can bet that a more than significant portion of it goes towards taking legal action against consumers and spending massive budgets on DRM technology that is unfair and will eventually be circumvented.

So what’s the answer? How do we give artists more control, get a fairer deal for everyone? I haven’t got the answers and I don’t claim to. But I can give you a good head start: give me a better choice at a fairer price; let me play music on whatever format/platform I choose; and, most importantly, don’t lumber me with restrictive, unfair DRM that I will only break the law to get around.