May 15, 2007 -
In the history of video games, perhaps in the history of the Internet, this is something never seen before: an audience held hostage.Ryan Lambourn, the Australian man who created the highly offensive V-Tech Rampage, has posted a message on his GooGumProduce website demanding payment to take the game offline:
ATTENTION ANGRY PEOPLE:
I will take this game down from newgrounds if the donation amount reaches $1000 US, i’ll take it down from here if it reaches $2000 US, and i will apologize if it reaches $3000 US.
Newgrounds, of course, could take the game offline without regard to Lambourn's wishes. It remains to be seen whether the site will do so.
It's unclear whether Lambourn's Dr. Evil-style demand is for real or just part of an elaborate prank. Either way, the clock is now running on Ryan Lambourn's 15 minutes of fame.
UPDATE: We're running a GP poll (see sidebar) on the V-Tech game situation. Be sure to vote!
UPDATE 2: Lambourn writes on his website that the money demand was a joke:
...the donation thing is there as a joke against all the people commanding me to take my game down. I didnt think anyone would donate money to it and so far my paypal account has proven me right...
Slashdot It!
Comments
Detractors have every right to say that this game should not be made. Pushing them to the side and saying simply, "Don't play it if you don't like it," is ignoring the plain and simple fact that this is a moral issue and not simply a matter of preference. If the complaints brought against the game were a matter of gameplay mechanics, genre, or art style, the "ignore it if you don't like it" argument would hold water. However, since opponents find the subject matter and presentation of the game to be morally reprehensible, they feel compelled and are in fact obligated to bring up their objections.
This can be applied to anything. For example, saying, "Well, if you don't like savery, don't own slaves," would be absurd. If someone believes that something is morally wrong, they have an obligation, which should be recognized by all other individuals, to voice their opinion in a reasoned, well-thought manner. This is how we get to have progress in the first place. When people simply pursue whatever shallow impulses they have, and when they keep all their values strictly to themselves, what results is a stagnation that builds into resentment and decay.
Also, cocks.
Believe me we when I say we all know not to ban something just because it is offensive. Most of the comments are either knee-jerk or made out of digust over his monetary offer (since no one guessed that he was joking). You also must understand that a lot of people think pigpen made this to offend not to offer light on the tradgedies or anything remotely noble but rather as a grasp for attention (I have not played the game so I can't offer you my opinions on this part). I have seen much worse stuff on newgrounds as well (in fact just go to the bastard collection and you'll see what I mean).
People need to get a grip and stop calling for content that offends them to be removed. There isn't a law that says you have the right to no be offended. If something offends you, ignore it and go elsewhere. Change the channel, go to another game, etc.
THE HARD PRESS NEEDS SOME MEDICINE AND NONE OF YOU CLOSED MINDED FOOLS ARE GETTING ANY"
-Insults are not a valid form of debate
-He wouldn't be interviewed on TV unless the station paid him. I think that prtty much shows his motivations.
THE HARD PRESS NEEDS SOME MEDICINE AND NONE OF YOU CLOSED MINDED FOOLS ARE GETTING ANY
"Help, help, [we're] being oppressed!"
I hope he doesn't get a cent.
I hope he winds up in prison for extortion or blackmail.
It's bad taste but it ought to be free.
It's in poor taste, definitely. However, it's freedom of expression for him to create it. At the same time, though, Newgrounds has all right to remove it. Because he is hosting it on their site; now, if he created his own website for it, then that'd be different, because it would be HIS site.
So, in the end of it all, I think yes, Newgrounds should take it off. However, if he makes his own site, then whatever; he'll be diving into his own problems with that, and whatever happens to that site, I don't care.
Persoanlly I think this could be stopped if the game contains references to actual people. They should be having some kind of protection by law against being 'virtualized' in a video game without their consent.
Although I didn't like SCMRPG, I have to recognize that at least, Danny Ledonne had something to say.
Jack Thompson thanks you. You just stated that commercial products aren't protected under the first amendment.
If not, well then this guy is just a retarded, greedy asshole.
Enough said.
I always try to see good in people even the gamers anti-christ JT... but what a colossal anus!
Poll need new option tho "Take it down to piss off the maker"
Now, we GPers know the issue this will cause with the anti-game crowd, but Lambourn just handed us all the ammo we need. He is just out to exort people based on his use of controversy. Been done before, and better, Lambourn. Now I know there will be the Burrell's out there that can't or won't understand, but it's fairly evident this is a quick notoriety-making, get-rich quick scheme. So most folks, even politicians, can be told that. If not them, the courts will see it for what it is.
The game is appaling and should be taken offline. This does not breach freedom of speech because Newgrounds can do whatever they want with posted content.
I feel the need to reiterate a point that seems to have been lost over the years. Along with the freedom to freely express ourselves, there also comes the responsibility to use that freedom wisely. Yes there will always be people who act like jerks and abuse the freedoms they enjoy; but if we don't start stepping up and speaking out against things like this on a moral level, then we risk losing those freedoms to the public's lemming like desire to feel safe.
Aussies don't have protected free speech. It's not in our constitution. We have an 'implied right of political expression', but there are no laws that protect us from being censored.
Though Australia is a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it has not been ratified into law through Parliament, and proposals to add free speech to our constitution were rejected back in the 40's.
I'm no lawyer, and things may have changed since I last checked, but the creator of this work has no personal right to free speech.
That being said, it would stil be morally wrong to censor him. But it would also be morally wrong to sit back and let him do this without complaint. Just as it's morally wrong to make people PAY in order to remove his work. If he knows his work should be removed, then he should remove it. Otherwise he's blackmailing people over the spread of reprehensible material.
It's definitely in bad taste, that's his prerogative. What is not, however, and grounds for removal of the game is his use of copyrighted music without the permission of the label or artist. Someone call the RIAA... haha
Making a game like this, knowing it wil cause outrage and hurt people who have lost loved ones in this tragedy, putting it on the web and then asking for money is an act by a very very sick person.
I personally hope that something very horrible happens to him, preferably over a period of a few months involving a cheese grater or similar device.
Now, I'm not big on SCMRPG myself, but at least with that there was a point: The author had something to say and the nerve to do it despite the subject. But this? This is a cheap copy cat attempt devoid of that point. And now he's trying to make money off it.
Free speech? Yes, of course he has his right to create this game and post it online, just as I have mine to think he's an idiot for it. That's how it works, right? It's Free speech, not "I have to agree with everything put in front of me" speech.
Or, for those of you calling from outside Australia, that's: +61 2 9670 2947.
It's just past 10:30pm here Sydney time, so you won't want to call in say, 3 hours time from now.
And he lives here if you're interested:
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=8+Barossa+Close,+St.+Clair,+N...
The part of me that believes in human decency doesn't want to accept the idea that Pigpen would make a game that trivializes over 30 deaths just for the hell of it. He's been acting the fool ever since he finished it, but I can't help but wonder what train of thought got the ball rolling, if maybe there was a more meaningful purpose to it all at one point.
Then again, I'm the type of guy who'd trust Al Capone with my lunch money, so...
Does he have the right to do this? In the USA, yes. I'll defend Ledonne's right to go forward with SCM. I'll laud his bravery, and the fact that he didn't back down under pressure. I'll definitely defend his right to freedom of expression. I acknowledge this fellow has the same rights. But please don't defend freedom of expression in this one particular case, because he doesn't care about his freedom of expression here--if he did, it wouldn't be for sale.
I will say this, though: I don't want Newgrounds to pull the plug, for one reason: it sets a precedent that would likely cause meritorious, but potentially offensive things to be pulled as well. I would much rather see pressure from people who know him, and are disgusted with him, cause him to remove it.
There's a clear difference between what he's done and made and the Columbine Game.
For what its worth, I hope this stays with him, and that no legitimate workplace, game industry or otherwise, find hims a worthy person to employ. For all the rights he has, human, moral or governmental, I can't, now, find a way to respect him or what he's done.