Debating Videogames

Information, not legislation

I don’t often spend my time reading from Hansard (that’s the official transcript for debates that take place in the House of Commons—that’s the house of elected politicians here in Great Britain), but when there’s a debate about digital videogames I just cannot help myself.

What I learned reading the debate ‘Video Games: Consumer Law’, I was struck by a couple of things: firstly, that the debate wasn’t much of one, rather, it was more like a conversation; and secondly, it reads as though a lot more of our MPs play video games than I would have expected—I certainly wasn’t expecting an Oddworld mention.

I won’t present the whole transcript – you can read that here – but to draw together the threads of the whole thing: it was pointed out that videogames generate massive revenue for the British economy, that current practices in ending digital games shows a lack of protection for fans, the practices are also harmful to preservation efforts of videogames, and as such harm culture (another point that I both appreciated and was surprised by).

For the current government, their position was that things are basically okay, even though they understand the concerns of the others side. Part of what MP Stephanie Peacock said:

‘A number of Members have made points about ownership. It is important to note that games have always been licensed to consumers rather than sold outright. In the 1980s, tearing the wrapping on a box to a games cartridge was the way that gamers agreed to licensing terms. Today, that happens when we click “accept” when buying a game on a digital storefront. Licensing video games is not, as some have suggested, a new and unfair business practice.

However, the video game industry has changed a lot over recent decades in ways that directly impact the way that these licences are sold under law. First, video game development today is more complex, and it is done at a much greater scale than 40 years ago. Secondly, the format of video games has shifted from physical to digital. As a result, the approach to protecting intellectual property has changed, including the “always online” functionality—the most relevant to this debate—which requires games to maintain a constant connection to an online server. For gamers used to dusting off their Nintendo 64 to play “Mario Kart” whenever they like—or in my case, “Crash Bandicoot” on the PlayStation—without the need for an internet connection, that can be frustrating, but it is a legitimate practice that businesses are entitled to adopt, so it is essential that consumers understand what they are paying for. Existing legislation is clear that consumers are entitled to information that enables them to make informed purchasing decisions confidently.’

Playing videogames, writing about videogames, considering videogames—that about sums it up. Videogames are the one hobby that I’ve kept since I was only little, zapping ducks on the NES or knocking out MR. X. And when I’m not enjoying classics from the bit generation of games or checking out those earliest of polygons, I’m probably playing something from today’s age of modern gaming: if I’m not complaining about it. Something I’m doing at the moment? Playing through Alundra again, this time on the Polymega.