May 18, 2007
It wasn't a high-profile piece of video game legislation like those GamePolitics has tracked in Louisiana, Utah and elsewhere. But yesterday the video game industry, along with the motion picture industry, won a political victory in Texas.At stake was HB1634, a measure designed to provide grant incentives to film, television and video game producers. The bill, co-sponsored by Republican Sen. Bob Deuell (left), passed the Texas House on April 12th, but ran into some rocky ground in the Senate, where censorship issues came into play.
It appears that some senators, led by Republican Steve Ogden, wanted to restrict which game projects could receive grants, based on their content.
Todd Sims, president of New World Pictures and legislative chair of the Texas Motion Picture Alliance, described the scenario as it unfolded yesterday for GamePolitics:
The legislature tried to add language restricting the content of any video games receiving a grant under the program. The ESA threatened to sue the state and so the video game provision was dropped for now to protect the bill. We really want to continue to dialogue with the video game community and develop a program which we can champion in the next session in 2009.
2009?
Yes - as recently as yesterday morning, Sims believed that incentives for video game developers in Texas were a dead issue, due to legislators' concerns over game content. But later in the afternoon, a surprising - and, for the video game industry - pleasant turn of events took place on the Senate floor. As Todd Sims described it in an e-mail late yesterday afternoon:
The [game content] restrictions were being proposed in the Senate Finance Committee led by Senator Ogden. However, the bill just passed the Senate AND video games were added back in with an amendment! This is great news. We are waiting for a posting of the final language and to find out who put forth the amendment. How things change in a day!
You can read the successful amendment, proposed by Sen. Kirk Watson (D), here.
Comments
Yeah, they're funny like that.
The Texas Legislature only meets once every 2 years. So we elected them Nov 06, they're meeting now, last day is May 28th, barring "Emergency" Sessions called by the Gov. Which typically come up when budgets don't pass during the regular session, cause having an outdated budget for 2 more years isn't much good. Then repeat in 2 more years.
Fun fact, the Texas Constitution is one of the oldest and longest still in effect in the US. It's been amended over 400 times, thanks to its highly restrictive nature.
The answer seems to me to be that lobbyists aren't happy when you benefit everyone, they want to have the benefit all to the people they are representing. If you all want to excuse that as the way the game is played, go right ahead. Maybe it is. It's still immoral, and I'll keep calling it that until they stop (yes, probably forever)
It really is a gamble for the state. They are hoping that the subsidies they offer keep folks in town, keep revenue coming in and hit the jackpot with the next big game that they get to tax. The difference between this and Home Depot is that Home Depot can't hit the home run. They just don't swing the same type of lumber. The article doesn't say this because, generally speaking, they don't have economists writing news articles.
And it works. They have a number of game companies in Austin and the Dallas - Ft. Worth area that thrive. There is no chance they could get all of the home goods to pass through Texas. There is a chance they could get a large percentage of games to pass through Texas. Market forces at work here.
Besides, if they didn't spend it they would have to refund it or lower taxes. And, as a rule, governments don't like to do that.
This sounds more like the Texas legislature doing what it can to attract business. People are trying to give it a moral spin and question the legislative intent, but it's really just an attempt to attract businesses. States do this all the time.
I'm sure there has been a recent event wherever you live (even those of you who live in other countries) where the government tried to lure a company or companies with huge bonuses. Tax Breaks, subsidies, and the like are all things they do to get a company to set up shop in town. I don't really see this as a positive or a negative. More as an exercise in capitalism.
On the bright side, this might give small time and private game designers, like BlueWolf72, a chance to build quality games that they could even market. The more competition in a field, the better. This encourages innovation and quality. This could actually push video games to be the art many of us think they are or can be.
This is all just speculation of course.
An earlier version of the bill had a double-standard: games were subject to content restrictions, whereas film was not. Thus, to avoid a potential lawsuit from the ESA, games were dropped altogether. Later, the content restriction was added for films. Senator Watson then re-inserted games into the bill.
Thus, the current version of the bill includes content restrictions for both film and games if they're to be eligible for these funds. Because the standard is consistent, the state feels the bill can be successfully defended should a suit be filed, as I understand it.
Since the Senate version of the bill differs from the House's, which was passed after games were dropped, the bill now goes back to the House sponsor, Representative Dawna Dukes; conference committee approval is not necessary if Rep. Dukes accepts the Senate version, so I'm told. If Dukes approves the Senate's version, the bill goes to the Governor's desk for signature.
On a side note, Watson, a former mayor of Austin, has become an advocate of the industry. Many game companies reside in his district, and last fall he moderated a high-profile symposium between game industry, university and government leaders about the need for more four-year degree programs to prepare students for careers in games and digital media. It was a great first step, and a follow-on symposium is expected this summer.
"I did follow the thread, I just didn’t directly address all points of it. For you, it sounds like a company product’s level of artistry shouldn’t determine its viability for subsidization, and I’m simply agreeing."
Fair enough. (Sorry if I sounded irritable).
"As far as the state winning or losing, only time will tell if it actually gets enacted."
It will also require some economists to actually study the question. We may never know if the subsidy resulted in a net benefit to the state.
"Macroeconomics was always a bit more hazy for me than micro, I don’t know how you feel about it."
It's all hazy for me. Unfortunately.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=922720#
I haven't read it. Based on the abstract, I would be skeptical of the moral/ethical argument -- it was published by the Acton Institute, which is more libertarian than I am -- but I chose it as an example because of the fun video game related title, "Grand Theft Auto: The Immorality of Business Subsidies."
I did follow the thread, I just didn't directly address all points of it. For you, it sounds like a company product's level of artistry shouldn't determine its viability for subsidization, and I'm simply agreeing. Also, what the article says and does not say about the bill's motivations IS relevant in the context of this overall discussion. We're still talking about reasons to subsidize or not; it's not like you guys suddenly started talking about why gorillas like to groom each other.
As far as the state winning or losing, only time will tell if it actually gets enacted. It'll depend on what their numerical goals are and in what time frame they expect to see results, I guess. Macroeconomics was always a bit more hazy for me than micro, I don't know how you feel about it.
You need to follow the thread.
John said, "Additionally, I don’t see how it is moral for other people’s money to subsidize our hobby."
Tatl responded, "John, isn’t our hobby someone elses piece of art. I mean that a lot of work, imagination and not to mention, love and pride. go’s into those games, just like producers/cast/crew of a movie production put they’re heart and soul into they’re movies. If movies are going to get a subsidie, game would sertainly deserve one as well."
I responded to Tatl by asking why the artistic nature of movies or video games is relevant to whether the taxpayers will subsidize these industries. The fact that the article does not say the bill is designed to help the for-profit arts is not really relevant, since my question was a response to Tatl.
If this bill is justified, the justification would, in my opinion, need to be the one suggested by Archgabe, i.e., "[T]he state wins because their entertainment markets get a boost and attract new companies." Whether this is true or not is a difficult economic question. I don't know the answer, but I also don't trust the legislature to spend money wisely. (Just to be clear, I am not saying legislatures should never spend any money, but it means I am suspicious of politicians' explanations for why they are doing it.)
As a final note, however, even if this is a rip-off of Texas' taxpayers, you might think this is a good deal so long as you live in some other state because Texas taxpayers will be subsidizing your hobby. (Well, it's my hobby too, but I don't really want the handout from the taxpayers in Texas.)
"The question was why a subsidy should depend in any way on whether the for-profit business or industry in question makes artistic works or not."
It shouldn't. But nowhere in the article itself did I see any mention that that was the reason for this bill. I naturally assumed that such an incentive would, as Conejo said, generate revenue and employment. As far as net benefit to the state goes, why wouldn't there be? It takes money to make money, right?
I don't know whether hammers are big money operations or not -- though the retail home improvement business is over 20 times the size of the video game business -- but either way, you seem to have missed the point. The question was why a subsidy should depend in any way on whether the for-profit business or industry in question makes artistic works or not.
Source on the home improvement figures: http://www.nrha.org/mm2007.pdf
Do you think taxpayers should provide subsidies to businesses just because the businesses are working hard at something artistic?
Why should some guy on an assembly line have his taxes handed over to Electronic Arts because he makes, say, hammers, which are not artistic, and EA makes video games, which are?
If the goal of this legislation is to attract new businesses to Texas and the payment of the subsidy will result in a net benefit to Texas, I don't see why movies and video games should be singled out for eligibility. But if I was a Texas taxpayer, I would be suspicious about whether there will be any net benefit to the state, regardless of which businesses are eligible.
In this situation I think that everyone wins. The industry gets to make their games with grant money, we win because this will make games cheaper to produce in the state of Texas and the state wins because their entertainment markets get a boost and attract new companies. This is not just for the industry, this is for us all.
when entertainment-based companies move to states, they create jobs and generate money for the state (taxes).
no industry is "beholden" just because a state has offered a nice incentive package for them to do business there.
anyway the victory is that someone with enough common sense thought that censoring video games while simultaneously allowing the other parts of the industry was wrong. Kudos to these elected officials who stand up for what this country is founded on.
I mean that a lot of work, imagination and not to mention, love and pride. go's into those games, just like producers/cast/crew of a movie production put they're heart and soul into they're movies. If movies are going to get a subsidie, game would sertainly deserve one as well.
and about your worries that those subsidies will help controll the industry... I really doubt that, the game industry is doing fine even without any subsidies.
probably because by that time most of the people out there incl. parents/politicians will have played a video game and know what they are talking about.
something worse than a loudmouth politician in my opinion, is a loudmouth politician that thinks he knows what the hell he's talking about like that senator that proposed to ban the V tech shooter game from stores even though its not actually a profesional game, left alone something any self-respecting game company would create.
www.contagion-theory.com FTW
I be xxxcited
Additionally, I don't see how it is moral for other people's money to subsidize our hobby.
Most "subsidy" type bills have sunset clauses. That way they have to review it every few years, to see if the industry still needs help.
Otherwise they'd have to write a new bill to amend the old one. This was the bill just expires on it's own, and needs to be renewed.
A winner is the industry.
Nice to know SOMEONE is government wants to encourage this blossoming medium.
I'm sure some people will complain that the government was "strongarmed" through the threat of lawsuit. And it's sad that the ESA had to use that to remind the politicians that this IS an issue they'd win.
But in the end, it all worked out well. Kudos to Deuell and Watson!
Also, I found it kind of disturbing that they lumped video games together with comercials. Did any one else see that?
...
Deuell is the good guy here, he pushed the bill. Ogden wanted to restrict the grants available to game developers based on their game's content (i.e. - censorship, government has to approve the game before funding the grant).
Somehow, the bill managed to pass, game developers included. Watson gets kudos for proposing the amendment which put video game developers back into the mix...
I'm just glad they weren't able to use this to censor mature games.
It seems that somebody proposed a bill to provide grant money to film, television, and video games companies.
However, the Texas Senate (?) tried to change the bill so that "offensive" video games wouldn't receive any grant money.
The ESA threatened to sue over the changes, so the video game section was dropped, meaning no grant money for video game producers at all.
However, it turned out that not only did the bill pass, but somebody had added the video game section, sans censorship issues, back into the bill.
So video game producers can now receive grant money under this scheme, without worrying about offensive content.