ECA's Hal Halpin Expects ESA to Lose More Members in 2009
ECA's Hal Halpin Expects ESA to Lose More Members in 2009
December 30, 2008
In a recent feature, Crispy Gamer named its Top 21 News Stories of 2008. Coming in at #16 was the series of member defections which plagued game publishers' trade group the ESA.
Hal Halpin, president of the Entertainment Consumers Association, commented:
I’m not sure that there’s a lot more I can add to what has already been said about the defecting companies or their impact on the [ESA] apart from that I do believe it will continue. Things have fundamentally changed in the past few years and the recession’s impact on the industry is far from over…
That fact alone could drive one or two more publishers to leave, given the rising dues costs. Having a strong association representing the industry is important for us all, so I hope that things will change for them in ’09… perhaps with the newly restructured E3.
The ESA began 2008 with 28 member companies, but will end the year with just 21. Exiting were: Activision, Vivendi, LucasArts, id, Codemasters, Crave, and NCsoft.
FULL DISCLOSURE DEPT: The Entertainment Consumers Association is the parent company of GamePolitics.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued. Might have won.
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued. Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:22pm
Valdearg: @AE: And that's fine. Official "Church" functions are fine, despite the fact that it's discrimination, it's what I guess I would consider "acceptable" discrimination, despite the fact that I hate to use "acceptable" to define it.
Valdearg: @AE: And that's fine. Official "Church" functions are fine, despite the fact that it's discrimination, it's what I guess I would consider "acceptable" discrimination, despite the fact that I hate to use "acceptable" to define it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:21pm
Valdearg: What's stopping someone from working with the church to declare a Catholic Corporation, that would retain it's "right" to discriminate against non-Catholics?
Valdearg: What's stopping someone from working with the church to declare a Catholic Corporation, that would retain it's "right" to discriminate against non-Catholics?
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:20pm
Valdearg: Let me ask you this. What defines something as "catholic"? There are Catholic Schools, Churchs, Charities, and even law firms.
Valdearg: Let me ask you this. What defines something as "catholic"? There are Catholic Schools, Churchs, Charities, and even law firms.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
I can only hope more companies leave. I still stand by the fact that the ESA shouldn't exist. Publishers make too much money the way it is, and they already have their dirty fingers in everyone's pot. Working with Pro-IP is only making it worse for consumers and developers.
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
I really hope they don't just fail and leavea vacuum. It would be bad for the games industry to not have a central representative body.
I would like to see either a major overhaul of the ESA or a new organization rise up in its stead. I am sure that there are more level headed people out there that know how to do it better.
But yes, I do see more companies leaving the ESA. From what I hear, they are expensive to be a part of and they don't always leave you with that satisfying "got your moneys worth" feeling. Aside from fight legislation and running E3 into the ground, they really don't do a lot. There are a lot of industry and public perception betterment projects they could be doing but refuse or fail to do.
EDIT: Changed ECA to ESA. Had been doing ECA business today and had that on my mind and running through my fingers.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
I do hope you meant ESA...
Wow, can't believe I did that. I will fix.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
Who doesn't see this happening? With the amount of other industry heads dropping out, it'll be a miracle to see ESA around by July
I hope it dies a painful death and a customer oriented organization takes its place if there has to be a "central representative organization". However on principle I detest special interest lobbying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus
Major game companies should represent themselves. A unified front by large corporations results in monopolization and rate hikes sucha s the 59.99 / 69.99 price per console game next to the same game on PC for 49.99.
Smaller game companies I don't mind. But companies like the ESA result in securom being commonplace and modchipping becoming a federal crime that pirates aren't afraid to do.
thank you. Beatifull Archile !
sohpet - muhabbet - sohbet kanallari - sesli sohbet - sohbet kanalları - burc - sohbet - mirc indir - dizi izle - dizi izle