BREAKING (UP): Activision and Vivendi Jump Ship From ESA

BREAKING (UP): Activision and Vivendi Jump Ship From ESA

May 2, 2008

The Entertainment Software Association, the trade association which represents US game publishers, is losing Activision and Vivendi as member companies.

UPDATE: We've just received confirmation from the ESA. Rich Taylor, ESA Senior Vice President of Communications and Research, issued the following statement:
 

While the Entertainment Software Association remains the preeminent voice for U.S. computer and video game publishers, we can confirm that Activision and Vivendi Games opted to discontinue their membership.

The ESA remains dedicated to advancing our industry’s objectives such as protecting intellectual property, preserving First Amendment rights, and fostering a beneficial environment for the entire industry. Our high level of service and value to members and the larger industry remains unchanged.


We began working on this story this morning after reading online reports that Activision would not be exhibiting at E3 in July. Beyond that information, GamePolitics observed that the ESA's new website lists neither Activision or Vivendi as member companies.

The two game publishers, of course, are in the process of merging into Activision Blizzard. The reason for their decision to leave the ESA remains unclear at this point. Also unclear is whether any additional game publishers may defect from ESA member ranks.

The loss of two of its larger member firms will likely have a significant impact on the ESA's revenue base. In addition to its own operations, the ESA funds E3, the Video Game Voters Network, the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences and the D.I.C.E. Summit. Any or all of those entities could feel the repercussions from the ESA's loss of member revenues.

UPDATE 2: We've got comment from Activision now:
 

After careful consideration, Activision has decided not to renew its ESA membership for business reasons and will not be participating in any official E3 activities.  We appreciate the work that the ESA has done over the years in promoting the interactive entertainment industry with state and federal governments and wish the ESA best of luck with the show.


UPDATE 3: Kotaku is reporting that four more publishers (NCSoft, Codemasters, id and Her Entertainment) won't participate in E3, although they are not dropping out of the ESA). Kotaku also has quotes from Wedbush-Morgan's Michael Pachter, who blames ESA president Mike Gallagher for the current issues with the publishers:
 

Lowenstein was a very savvy industry veteran who paid attention to the goings-on in the industry and cared what the community had to say. The new person... whose name completely escapes me because I've never met him or heard from him, is far less knowledgeable and sophisticated about this industry than Doug was and is going to make some rookie mistakes.


 

Doug used to be a very visible spokesperson in congress... when you'd get these [things like] Barack Obama saying videogames are corrupting our youth or MADD saying that Take-Two should pull GTA off the shelves, you would hear Lowenstein immediately shoot back. I would guess that Activision doesn't perceive the same value from the ESA as they did under Doug's leadership. I criticize [Gallagher's] lack of drive to learn about the industry.

 

Comments

@Gray
OK then. I think maybe you misunderstood the point of my post (the first one you responded to). Thanks for sharing your opinions about E3.
Lol I fuckin hate Acronyms. I'll stick with PS2, GBA, DS, and try to memorize the names of companies from now on.
So what would effectively be the largest PC publisher in the world and the second largest console publisher is now splitting from the ESA? I'm left scratching my head as to why.
I hope they are ready for backlash from their ONLY demographic...
As a WoW-player, my Spidey-Sense is tingling.

I really hope the merger doesn't tank the game utterly... Not that it's been doing well of late with the huge Arena focus.
Either they'll rejoin as Activision Blizzard or they didn't want to spend money on the ESA.
And with that i mainly mean E3, which is nowhere near as interesting as it used to be for a games publisher since it was closed to the public.

That the rest of the activities of the ESA suffer as a result of that, is an unfortunate side-effect.
Does this mean anything about their games and the ESRB? I take it they will still be submitting them for rating.

This seems very odd...

Yes - the retailers require an ESRB rating, so even non-members get the games rated.
@Zerodash

assuming the ESRB works in the same way as PEGI does in europe, then a publisher is required to submit a game for rating if they want to release it within the jurisdiction of the relevant rating system (the ESRB in this case).
I can only see it as a way to rejoin back as a single entity like one poster stated, but I rather wait to hear word from the publishers as to why they left.
[...] wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThe Entertainment Software Association, the trade association which represents US game publishers, is losing Activision and Vivendi as member companies. UPDATE: We’ve just received confirmation from the ESA. Rich Taylor, ESA Senior Vice President of Communications and Research, issued the following statement: While the Entertainment Software Association remains the preeminent voice for U.S. computer and video game publishers, we can confirm that Activision and Vivendi Games opted to discontinue their membership. The ESA remains dedicated to advancing our industry’s objectives such as protecting intellectual property, preserving First Amendment rights, and fostering a beneficial environment for the entire industry. Our high level of service and value to members and the larger industry remains unchanged. [...]
I saw the E3 thing on Gamasutra this morning, I was wondering when it would pop up here. Now I see why there was a delay.

This bothers me, for a few reasons. First, I don't think they're planning to rejoin as AB. We wouldn't be hearing about it if that were the case... and, they wouldn't be running a competing (leeching) show of their own against E3 this year.

@ Azhrarn

or they didn’t want to spend money on the ESA.
And with that i mainly mean E3, which is nowhere near as interesting as it used to be for a games publisher since it was closed to the public.


On the contrary, since E3 was "rescoped" after 2006, they can't spend much money on E3 anymore. But by splitting with the ESA and starting their own trade show, they are free to make it as overboard as they like, focus all the media attention on themselves, throw it open to the public again, and basically corner the market on what used to be the single greatest source of annual hype and showcasing in the industry. Who wants to go to E3 anymore, which was considered a flop last year, when we could instead go down to BlizzVisionCon, which has all the bells and whistles (if not the variety) of E3's "golden age"?

And all for the low price of monetarily cutting off the ESA (and it's dependents which Dennis mentioned in the article) at the knees. I'm worried, to be honest, how this will trickle down. A cut in funding is not something the ESRB needs right now, especially with all the (jackass) media pressure for them to be stepping up operations, not scaling them back.
Does the ESA fund the ESRB? The post doesn't reflect that, so I'm curious.
Does the ESA have progressive revenues? That would be messed up, and also explain why a big guy like Activision and Blizzard would opt out.
Wow, brianfart, membership dues, not revenues
@ Mark

Does the ESA fund the ESRB? The post doesn’t reflect that, so I’m curious.

I've read it in other industry news articles that the ESA provides the ESRB's funding, I'd guess it comes from membership dues. It came up back when that whole kerfuffle about "the game makers paying the people who rate their games == dishonest ratings and scandals" was happening.
Um, I would love to know the reason. As long as the government is not rating the games, I don't care who does it. Those people that think the ESRB is dishonest can suck it, they can't be in our club.
I was under the impression that the ESRB is funded by the fees from the games they rate.
I actually don't know how the ESRB gets their funding. If it's from the ESA, this could be a significant development. If not and the funding comes from fees for doing the rating (their job), then this shouldn't have too much of an impact.

I am curious, though, to see where this goes. As far as I know, all games in the US have to be rated by the ESRB in order to appear on any of the major consoles. I think that's part of the console maker's demands for allowing a game on their system. As such, if funding comes from rating the games, little to no impact. If funding comes from the ESA...

Oh well, I'll be watching and seeing. Something about this seems odd and I hope it doesn't become ominous.
@~the1jeffy

I believe its a bit of both. Getting a game rated costs around a grand or two. While that may cover the costs of the rater's time, there's still all the administrative costs and salaries, not to mention marketing and legal costs from constant court battles.
[...] Several outlets are reporting that Activision have upped and left the ESA, which is the industry’s trade association. If this is true — and it’s starting to sound it — this could have major repercussions for the ESA, the ESRB (which is funded by the ESA) and even Activision. What makes this news worse for the ESA is that Jim Sterling over at D’toid hints to the possibility of other publishers leaving the organization. [...]
"Our high level of service and value to members and the larger industry remains unchanged."

What level of service, I wonder? I've never seen the ESA go to bat AT ALL when a member publisher is being assailed in the media or courts. They ALWAYS dodge the issue.
@ AM

That are my thoughts as well. Maybe Activision and Vivendi decided that the ESA just wasn't worth the trouble of all the dues.

As a prospective small developer, the ESA has never appealed to me. Their stances on several key issues do not meld well with my thoughts on those issues.

We will see how this goes.

As for the ESRB issue. I believe they get their primary funding from ratings fees. I have not heard anything about any funding from the ESA.
[...] We will be digging to get to the bottom of this (and trying to crack it before Dennis does). It is down to Activision to explain the reasons behind its departure, and we shall try to get such an explanation. [...]
Can't wait to see how this pans out.

I won't be surprised however if the ESA tries to bury the company or tries to block them from getting their games rated.

Since the ESA joined the RIAA my trust for them is gone
I wonder how long it's going to be before EA tries to take over both Activision and Vivendi
Doesn't GP Usually list something about the ESA being it's parent company relevent to the situation or not nya?
That is the ECA champ, though round here people seem not to see the difference
No Catboy, the ECA is what owns GP. ESA is for software developers, but they don't represent indies, just major developers.
I have to quote the G-man on this one, "Prepare for unforseen consequences."
Hmm, I forsee Microsoft and then Squenix joining the bandwagon and some much more interesting cons being announced. Not that I'm an expert or anything, this is just my opinion.
I think its just oversight they forgot or were late rejoining or want to join under their new name.

I do not think they will join or crate a new publisher association.
Hmm, interesting. I'm certain this isn't to rejoin as Activision Blizzard; they wouldn't need to leave the ESA for that. If they do rejoin, it'll be because something persuaded them to do so, not because they're currently planning to do so.

At a guess, I'd say that they got tired of paying to be members of the ESA, while the ESA doesn't seem to be doing much for them. The ESA's aligned itself with two of the most hated organizations on the planet, has done nothing to defend member companies from slanderous attacks in the news, and managed to more or less kill the hype surrounding E3.

Not exactly big incentives to keep paying up for the membership.
Since ESA has been pretty much recently turned into a RIAA of the game industry (like kurisu7885 noticed), I just can't stop reminding myself of how EMI planned to break itself from RIAA, or something like that.
[...] We will be digging to get to the bottom of this (and trying to crack it before Dennis does). It is down to Activision to explain the reasons behind its departure, and we shall try to get such an explanation. [...]
The ESA isn't like the RIAA; yet. They are getting close though, however the fact that a major company opts out of membership which does such things like screwing over customers (which many companies DO prefer), it is surprising to see them leave.
I think dues probably got higher as a result of their merger, or it is possibility difficulties as the result of the planned merger. It probably takes too much time to pay dues when they are focusing on the assets of the companies being combined into one.
Them rejoining is a possibility still. If its to cut expenses, then it really varies if they want to rejoin for more lobbying or to say their lobbying isn't effective. As it stands, everything is hearsay until we hear from Activision/Blizzard. This isn't likely to affect development on games at all, just E3 and the ESA.
The ESA will be the RIAA once they start suing their customers and start pushing indies out of competition (has that happened, Zach Knight?). I haven't heard of a case yet, but wouldn't be surprised if one happens soon because of modchips, EULAs, DMCA, etc.
[...] wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThe Entertainment Software Association, the trade association which represents US game publishers, is losing Activision and Vivendi as member companies. UPDATE: We’ve just received confirmation from the ESA. Rich Taylor, ESA Senior Vice President of Communications and Research, issued the following statement: While the Entertainment Software Association remains the preeminent voice for U.S. computer and video game publishers, we can confirm that Activision and Vivendi Games opted to discontinue their membership. The ESA remains dedicated to advancing our industry’s objectives such as protecting intellectual property, preserving First Amendment rights, and fostering a beneficial environment for the entire industry. Our high level of service and value to members and the larger industry remains unchanged. [...]
I'm just not sure if this is a good thing or not. I'm no fan of the ESA and their lack of any kind of support to its members in any of the recent goings on oly makes me dislike them more. On the other hand, they are a group that is established and just needs a kick in the pants to get a move on some of these issues. However, the fact that they are more concentrated on copy-protection and piracy issues rather than keeping the industry at large healthy is another cause for concern.

I just don't see what Blizzard/Activision could be up do other than copping out of E3 and blowing up BlizzCon into the "E3 replacement" which many other conventions have been fighting for. Good for Blizzard/Activision because they would have complete control over the event, but bad for consumers because we're only going to hear about their projects and the indie developers and even other big companies get the shaft.

What the hell are they up to?

Guess it's a waiting game 'till Dennis has more figured out.
As Kotaku and GP recently reported now, is part of what I was suspecting, that it is a time constraint on their assets for their investors to have E3 at a time near the quarter. The surprising moment is what kotaku reported that some industry insiders feel things are bad with Gallagher leading things.
I feel this will result in more budget cuts on lobbying since they already made a cut into the New York office by shutting it down, and without dues coming from these two, it'll likely have more cuts on the lobbying budget; and this doesn't bode well at all if legislation keeps popping up repeatedly.
As a WoW-player, my Spidey-Sense is tingling.

I really hope the merger doesn’t tank the game utterly… Not that it’s been doing well of late with the huge Arena focus.


Blizzard maintains that, much like they're still a separate entity under the Vivendi Games name, they'll still remain a separate entity from Activision Blizzard. The merge is technically between Activision and Vivendi Games, with Blizzard still being owned by but separate from the resulting company, if I'm understanding everything right.
I don't quite understand some of the comments here blaming the ESA for not serving its members well enough. Some seem to be judging the ESA from a gamers' perspective, not from a publisher's perspective. The ESA is an organization for major game publishers, formed to serve the common interests of major game publishers (not developers, and certainly not consumers or journalists like us). Its primary purpose is to help all publishers make more money selling games, not to defend individual publishers against individual bad press.

After all, what good would it really do for the ESA to respond to every crackpot anti-game comment that gets printed or posted online? I'm pretty sure the mainstream would pay more heed -- not less -- to bad editorials, if the publishers' association lowered itself to respond to them individually, instead of simply ignoring them as sensationalism.

I'm not sure why Vivendi decided it didn't want to be an ESA member anymore, but I'd guess it has nothing to do with the organization's lack of public response to overzealous watchdog groups or fringe blowhards like JT. I'd also be sort of surprised if it really has too much to do with the ESRB or E3 either, since non-ESA members are still welcome to host booths at E3 and have their games rated, and (as far as I know) ESA members are under no obligation to host booths at E3 or have their games rated.

@JC
Isn't E3 always held at "a time near a quarter"? Also, so far at least, I don't think lobbying has had anything to do with anti-game legislation. The ESA has hired some expensive lawyers to challenge the laws, but it's also sued states to recoup their cost. As far as I understand, more of the ESA's time and money is spent on anti-piracy than anything else.
I'm a little foggy on what the ESA does, what the ECA does (I had mistakenly thought they were the same), where the bad press is coming form, what they've done, what they were supposed to do, and stuff like that.
''when you’d get these [things like] Barack Obama saying videogames are corrupting our youth or MADD saying that Take-Two should pull GTA off the shelves, you would hear Lowenstein immediately shoot back. ''


BINGO!

its a bout bloody time too that the industry took notice of this!
I'm not sure I agree totally with Pachter's theory. Lowenstein was a coward who only would fight back against anti-games nonsense in weak, half-hearted ways.
Barrack Obama never said videogames were corrupting the youth, that I'm aware of. He did say kids need to spend more time on other things besides videogames and tv, like schoolwork and such.
Can't help but wonder if this is at least partly motivated by the ESA's recent statements regarding such things as Net Neutrality?
@Azhrarn, Death-of-Faxmachines:
assuming the ESRB works in the same way as PEGI does in europe, then a publisher is required to submit a game for rating if they want to release it within the jurisdiction of the relevant rating system (the ESRB in this case).


But it isn't. ESRB ratings are strictly voluntary, the developers voluntarily submit their works to be given a rating, but nothing is strictly requiring it -- because ratings in the USA (movies or games, or I think any other kind of media I know of offhand) are not by law. Now, a company that doesn't have its games rated could end up with no retailers selling it, and I believe the console makers will not let them on the consoles (Nintendo's notorious for that one, I believe Sony and Microsoft too). So, there is pressure to get a rating, it just is not mandated/absolutely required.
Yeah, as near as I can tell, the ratings are voluntary in that there is no law requiring them to be rated. It's just that the console makers WANT ALL of the games on their systems rated, so the game makers have them rated by the ESRB.

More of a "You don't have to have your game rated...but you have to have your game rated if you want anyone to play it on a major console."
@Stinking Kevin

We're wondering about companies being dissatisfied with the ESA because there is some question of how well they've served their member companies. Kotoku's got an article that includes some of the criticism here: http://kotaku.com/5007647/six-publishers-drop-out-of-e3-this-year-some-b...
@Noveblack
About time "the industry" took notice of what? Pachter inventing fictitious examples of Lowenstien's congressional crusading, or kotuku reporting it as if it were news?

@Gray17
Notorious quotewhore Pachter comparing his first-name-basis pal "Doug" to "the new person...whose name completely escapes me" is interesting, in a gossipy sort of way, but it offers no facts and is not really news.

I often enjoy the controversies Pachter stirs up, and I really like kotaku alot, but I haven't put too much stock in this reporting so far. The "criticism" you mention is all pure speculation, based on anonymous sources and the Pachter quote, isn't it? Maybe there's more too it, maybe not.

I would not be surprised if some ESA members are dissatisfied, or even if they were dissatisfied with Gallagher in particular, but I doubt this dissatisfaction has very much to do with Gallagher's failing to defend GTA against some MADD press release (or any other such consumer-perspective anecdote).
Ya? ID can go suck a wet one they has been out of the game loop for years, they have become nothing but a vain engine builder for zombies.

NCsoft, Codemaster and her(even ID) probably can't to go to E3 its not benfinail to them anymore and the costs are not worth it, they need to pour money into deving half arsed titles.....
@mogbert

"I’m a little foggy on what the ESA does, what the ECA does...."

To answer that question the ESA represents video game publishers while the ECA represents the video game consumers.

Brett Schenker
Online Advocacy Manager
The ECA
www.theeca.com
@Stinking Kevin

So apparently you missed these two paragraphs:

In March, GamePolitics reported that the ESA shuttered its New York office, and in so doing fired that office's head, senior VP and general counsel Gail Markels. Markels, who reportedly earned $317,000 in 2005, successfully led all the ESA's litigation efforts against unconstitutional video game laws.

The ESA apparently trimmed its lobbying initiatives throughout 2007 while budgets rose, according to a report made by GameSpot on public filings. Last year, the Association spent a record $2.86 million on lobbying — even though it chose to confront fewer issues, removing lobbying on online gambling, taxation of virtual property, and Internet privacy in favor of focusing solely on constitutional, copyright and relevant trade issues.


It's stuff like that as well.
@Gray17

From that it looks like the ESA is in danger of becoming a RIAA rip-off. And kicking the person who headed up their successful defences whilst the California Law is about to go to appeal to an unpredictable 8th Circuit probably didn't do wonders to install confidence either.
Thanks for the updates GP.

I find it interesting that despite the focus on copyright protection on the ESA's part, that ultimately, their lack of visibility (lobbying) in the public arena seems to be a major part of the departures.

Someone might almost mistake that as taking the moral high ground. After all, consumers hate the copy protection hoopla and the ESA is quickly becoming an RIAA clone in that regard. Bad things happen to organizations that actively pursue lawsuits against their own customers...

I guess I'd much rather have someone defend my right to make and sell a product that some people might find offensive than have someone you're supposed to be in league with bullying the poor consumer over something that is a hugely overblown issue like piracy.

I'm very interested to see how the rest of this unfolds. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that there is dissatisfaction with the new ESA boss. Seriously, has he done anything that stands out in recent memory? At least Lowenstien was a voice you saw in the headlines from time to time regardless if you think he brought about any real change or not.
Thanks, but I didn't miss that. I'm just not sure what it has to do Pachter's opinion of Gallagher, or with the general suggestion in various comments here that Vivendi quit the ESA because it doesn't do enough to "defend" games' reputations from crackpot editorials in the media.

You aren't suggesting that Vivendi quit jsut because the ESA downsized, are you? And I assume you aren’t suggesting that those anti-game laws would not have been over-turned if it had been some other suit, instead of Markels, who was in charge of hiring the lawyers...?

So what, then? Vivendi quit because the ESA is no longer lobbying on issues of online gambling, tax of virtual property, and internet privacy -- "stuff like that" -? I doubt that, too.

The ESA is an association of businesses. We tend to personify businesses, but in reality, they make decisions based on money, not emotion. I am not convinced that Vivendi quit due to Gallagher's silence in the mainstream, because I don't see how Gallagher speaking out in the media would do much to help their bottom line.
@Stinking Kevin

It doesn't have anything to do with Pachter's opinion of Gallagher. It does have plenty to do with why people are saying that Vivendi and Activision might be withdrawing from the ESA due to dissatisfaction with the ESA.

If the ESA is not representing their interests, for example, if the ESA isn't talking congress out of trying to lobby a tax on World of Warcraft accounts (virtual property), and so on, then Vivendi isn't too likely to continue to fund the ESA.

Similarly the ESA administrated E3 has lost a lot of it's hype and value in the last year or so. Why fund and go to that, when you could host your own successful show?
@ Stinking kevin

"Took notice of what?"


just meant generally about the fact nobody steps up to confront the blatant lies being spread through media time and time again. Perhaps if somebody did rigourously come forward to help gamers when we are the ones on the forums defending for instance the recent controversy over GTAIV, we wouldnt have half the problems we do from people like JT, because he wouldnt be getting air time, as as soon as he opened his mouth somebody official would shut him down.

ITs the complete lax attitude that lets things fester n grow worse, and the problems we have to put up with (all the stupid out of context crap about for instance cop killing simulators, training kids to kill etc etc) wont go away unless they are dealt with.

To get the stigma away from games that many people see, it needs to be tackled proactively.


Personally i dont think its of value to get into the whole Lowenstien and Pachterthing its a bit daft to bring it up as it just takes attention away from the important issues at hand, so i do agree with you the whole namecalling thing is pretty dumb! But the general point about the sit back and do nothing Laissez-faire attitude is valid.

I just feel we need a united voice to stand up and help us be taken seriously. i mean why do politicians constantly get away with teh lies they spread with not an official said about it. Why did nobody stand up n comment on the MADD statement. I mean we can all see how ludicrous it all is but it isnt going to go away unless people stand up and do something.
oh .. n the reason i think it shouldnt be up to individual publishers to defend individual games they have funded, is a simple one.

As soon as it becomes selective like that, all you get is JT n people shouting ''well of course they'd say that they have to make sure it sells its their game, so nothing they say is fact''


if we have one body stepping up to represent everyones interests its a far better structure.
I think this was GP's first non-GTA4 article in a week.
@Brett

Thank you! That cleared it up in a way I wasn't expecting when I asked the question. I was more expecting someone to say this group does this and that and says this and that except this and that.

I think it's important that someone speak for the gaming companies in congress, if for no other reason that without gaming companies, where would we be as gamers?

However, I think it would be a lot easier if it wasn't a bunch of 50+ year olds in the government. It will be 2030 before we start seeing the chance of people who "get it" in government.
Also, apparently CodeMasters may still be in for E3.
@mogbert

Actually, I'd expect that the "seeing people who 'get it' in government" would happen before 2030. In fact, I'd say it is just around the corner, quite honestly. Just because there are a lot of video gamers in their mid to late 30's, and even 40's out there... So the government offices are already getting populated with gamers...
Maybe if more people in the industry voiced their concerns on the lack of action, the ESA would start striking back. If that could come of this, then I'm glad.
"Lowenstein immediately shoot back"
I have to ask, did he really?

I don't recall him being that active, but I do know he would not do so if it involved a certain someone...
Ooh, this is gonna get interesting, isn't it?
ITS A TRAP! >_>
You know, I don't think I can recall a single time that the ESA has actually fought back when games were scrutinized. Did they ever?
Oh, and when did Obama say that games were corrupting America's children?
From esrb.org

"What is the ESRB?

The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) is a non-profit, self-regulatory body established in 1994 by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), formerly known as the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA)."

Also:

"Copyright and Credits

© 2006 Entertainment Software Association. All Rights Reserved. The ESRB rating icons are registered trademarks of the Entertainment Software Association."

I posted on 1up about this but I feel it needs repeating. Is this going to undermine the ratings system? I'm not sure, but JT and all the people like him are going to pounce on this as proof of their idiotic claims.
I wanted to comment on this earlier, but wasn't able to since this site is blocked at work.

For all the other reasons they Might have left the ESA, the one that strikes me as obvious seems pretty much impossible to miss, mainly, cause I've Been saying it.

The ESA HAS NO BALLS!!!

Since Gallagher took over, hell, even before that when Doug, they were pathetic. No courage, no proactivness, all they ever did was play defense in court. Never challanging there detractors publicly. It wasn't the ESA that went after thompson, it was Rockstar, It wa the FLorida bar, and it was Other judges, despite the fact that the ESA had PAGES UPON PAGES of evidence they could have used against the man, especially in regards to Doug L.

This is why the industry is slowly but surly going to walk away from the ESA and form it's own Group. To proactivly battle it's detractors. If the ESA wants to win back those who walked away, they have to start acting serious about fighting crap like FOX news and there "Mass effect scandal", or Jack Thompsons asine Bullshit about bully.

THe esa has long taken a "ignore it and it will go away" attitude to game controversy. Hate to say it, but I can understand why Developers would start to see that as a problem
@Yuki

How dare you! The ESA has always been there, like... uhhhh... like that one time... uhh... you know, that time they... uuhhhhhhhh... damnit.
Why would T2 want people to fight back? GTA4 is getting mad free publicity at the moment. If anything the ESA seems like it would just get in the way.
Well I haven't seen the ESA do anything except bust a few modders here and there and then crow about it, so I would imagine Vivendi have more productive things to spend their cash on.
My concern is if anti-games folk may use this to further their censorship agenda.

You can easily convince soccer moms and clueless politicians that the ESA is crumbling due to their corrupt desires to put porn in the hands of children: "ZOMG! Vivendi and Activision got fed up with being forced to distribute porn to minors and decided to leave."

What the ESA needs is a leader with the balls and charisma to take the fight to the very source of the issue.
I'm not really a fan of the ESA (or the ESRB) so I'm really interested in what will come of this. I agree with the comments that state the ESA needs to be more bold and needs to fight back a bit although I must admit a lot of people give undeserved grief to them for not fighting back against a certain washed-up "first amendment attorney".

What has the ESA done? E3(dead), Video Game Voters Network(doesn't really do much or anything), and the ESRB(broken).

I hope one of two things happens, either the ESA collapses and a new, stronger trade association is born or the ESA becomes a new and stronger trade association to combat government regulation and censorship and also begins to rectify past failures.

I personally don't know Mike Gallagher so I'm not really comfortable saying he lacks charisma but I do think something inside the ESA might need to change else there may be a few more publishers that may be willing to cancel their membership.
I really wish hack sites like Kotaku would stop giving Pachter coverage. So he knows the new guy at the ESA is ineffective but can't even remember his name? And Lowenstein was outspoken? What planet is he from? Lowenstein's inaction is a big part of the reason the industry's been stepped on so much the last few years. Pachter may be a good media personality but his knowledge is far less than these sites give him credit for. Like most Wall Street analysts, he makes guesses only, accepting praise for the few he gets right and ignoring the majority he gets wrong.
Pretty much all those organizations that claim to defend games haven't done a damn thing. That's why I stopped with the ECA. Maybe I should save up and start my own group or something. Still, I'd never get enough money to attack the censor monsters.
Grizzam512 - The IGDA's Jason Della Rocca never has a problem firing some comments back. Its awesome, but not everyone is a game developer. However, it doesn't really matter if you make games or not, many people play them. Thats why the ECA is awesome, because its built of gamers. What is more important than money is numbers, if the ECA continues growing I don't see any reason why the games industry and gamers won't see an improvement in the political realm.
[...] Game biz guru Keith Boesky offers his thoughts on last week’s stunning news that Activision and Vivendi have pulled out of the ESA. [...]
[...] With that much responsiblity, it does not look good when developers abandon the organization’s ship. [...]

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 01/06/09 at 04:12pm
DeepThorn: Dero, I swear she told me she was 18.
Posted 01/06/09 at 03:07pm
HarmlessBunny: @PHX Corp: No surprise. Jack's favorite desperation move: Image-laden filings that make zero sense! Guarunteed to piss someone off, and provide hilarity to us
Posted 01/06/09 at 01:54pm
Derovius: What did you call my little sister?
Posted 01/06/09 at 01:38pm
DeepThorn: 'Security' additions, which means it protects the music, which you bought, and have the right to use. It doesnt stop illegal activity, and even copying the music onto 2 back up CDs isnt illegal. Giving one to your little sister is border line.
Posted 01/06/09 at 01:36pm
CK20XX: What's it gonna take for JT to get arrested? It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Posted 01/06/09 at 12:12pm
PHX Corp: Look on JAABLOG at his recent court filings he's starting to post pictures again http://www.megaupload.com/?d=DB5ODRNE
Posted 01/06/09 at 11:51am
CMiner: It's the same as the controversy over Sony's rootkits in their music CDs, as far as a separation of the issues of cd content and the security additions.
Posted 01/06/09 at 11:27am
Vake Xeacons: But there does need to be a limit on DRM. I mean, CD check's okay, but spyware? That's an invasion of privacy!
Posted 01/06/09 at 11:00am
Krono: @insanejedi: DRM isn't an aspect of the game. Unless you can make an argument that Securom is an intregal part of Spore that the game would be an incomplete experience without.
Posted 01/06/09 at 10:57am
insanejedi: It's asking the government to regulate aspects of a game. Their just going to use this as a backdoor to regulate other aspects.
Posted 01/06/09 at 10:53am
Krono: @insanejedi: DRM = trade practice, Violence in games = speech. I'm not seeing the similarity here.
Posted 01/06/09 at 10:40am
insanejedi: Guys, Regulation of DRM is fudementally the same as regulating violence in games...
Posted 01/06/09 at 10:13am
sortableturnip: He's in full swing now, asking for all expenses paid by the Florida Bar.
Posted 01/06/09 at 09:51am
sortableturnip: @ Simonbob: isn't it better to read the comments, LOL wise?
Posted 01/06/09 at 09:41am
SimonBob: You could've mentioned it's close to the bottom, although it's good to know he's actually got an okay golf swing.
Posted 01/06/09 at 09:41am
PHX Corp: @Sourtable T JT's brain acts like a cookoo clock, It never stops Cookooing
Posted 01/06/09 at 09:23am
sortableturnip: In his latest filing, JT claims he is still admitted to practice as an attorney in the Southern District of Florida: http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2007/09/04/pardon-our-appearance.aspx?pg=3&view=threaded
Posted 01/06/09 at 09:13am
SimonBob: Or the falsified usernames of gaming company CEOs. :P
Posted 01/06/09 at 09:07am
Alevan: Yeah, he doesn't use the shoutbox... then again, he doesn't like to confront his problems head on. He hides behind the "law"
Posted 01/06/09 at 09:05am
SimonBob: It's funny, Alevan, I've never seen him respond to anything in the shoutbox. I think he's got tunnel vision.
Login or register to post shouts