WTO Ruling May Offer Game Biz Access to Chinese Market
WTO Ruling May Offer Game Biz Access to Chinese Market
August 13, 2009
Video game publishers could gain direct access to the massive Chinese market following a ruling by the World Trade Organization that China may not invoke culture-based censorship to block foreign media imports such as books, games and movies.
According to Reuters, the WTO ruling came in response to an April, 2007 complaint filed by the United States:
The WTO ruling could potentially affect how foreign video game companies operate in China.
U.S. video game titans such as Electronic Arts, Activision Blizzard and Take Two Interactive, are not allowed to operate games directly in China, or through joint ventures with local firms. They instead license games to local operators or co-develop games with local firms.
But the WTO ruling was unlikely to overcome China's determination to govern the virtual landscape, said Dick Wei, vice president of equity research with JP Morgan in Hong Kong.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGIN / REGISTER
Crispy Gamer
GamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 03/18/10 at 08:04pm
Flamespeak: I never understood why someone should work hard to get a lot of money, just to be punished with more taxes for doing so.
Flamespeak: I never understood why someone should work hard to get a lot of money, just to be punished with more taxes for doing so.
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:44pm
hayabusa75: Isn't the upper class supposed to be footing most of this bill?
hayabusa75: Isn't the upper class supposed to be footing most of this bill?
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:05pm
Austin_Lewis: Of course, that ignores the fact that for the next 4 years, the people will be taxed without 'benefit' from the bill.
Austin_Lewis: Of course, that ignores the fact that for the next 4 years, the people will be taxed without 'benefit' from the bill.
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:04pm
Austin_Lewis: If we go by the CBO's past estimation failures, they're about 300% short on the actual cost.
Austin_Lewis: If we go by the CBO's past estimation failures, they're about 300% short on the actual cost.
Posted 03/18/10 at 05:21pm
ZippyDSMlee: *punt*Roll call, whos on and how are you doing?
ZippyDSMlee: *punt*Roll call, whos on and how are you doing?
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:07pm
JDKJ: No, I did you the favor and said it for you.
JDKJ: No, I did you the favor and said it for you.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: What I said was while I may have implied long term accuraccy, and that might have been incorrect, my greater point that the CBO report calculated reduced deficits, expanded coverage, and lower costs is still 100% accurate. :D
Valdearg: What I said was while I may have implied long term accuraccy, and that might have been incorrect, my greater point that the CBO report calculated reduced deficits, expanded coverage, and lower costs is still 100% accurate. :D
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: Like any good politician, I don't believe I said "I was incorrect." :P
Valdearg: Like any good politician, I don't believe I said "I was incorrect." :P
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:02pm
JDKJ: If you'd said "I was incorrect" 10 shouts ago, I'd have quit twisting your arm to get you see the obvious 10 shouts ago.
JDKJ: If you'd said "I was incorrect" 10 shouts ago, I'd have quit twisting your arm to get you see the obvious 10 shouts ago.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:00pm
JDKJ: You were they one assuming 100% accuracy. In all caps, no less.
JDKJ: You were they one assuming 100% accuracy. In all caps, no less.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:59am
Valdearg: Yes, my implication that the long term estimates were facts was incorrect, but the short term calculations are absolutely facts, and even the long term estimates are still useful in attempting to determine exactly what will happen with the bill.
Valdearg: Yes, my implication that the long term estimates were facts was incorrect, but the short term calculations are absolutely facts, and even the long term estimates are still useful in attempting to determine exactly what will happen with the bill.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:58am
Valdearg: I do. The Short term costs are actually calculated facts. The long term estimates aren't necessarily 100% accurate, but to assume that they can't possibly be accurate because someone said they might not be 100% accurate is also wrong.
Valdearg: I do. The Short term costs are actually calculated facts. The long term estimates aren't necessarily 100% accurate, but to assume that they can't possibly be accurate because someone said they might not be 100% accurate is also wrong.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:57am
JDKJ: When someone says, "I could be wrong but, as best as I can tell, X," X ain't a fact.
JDKJ: When someone says, "I could be wrong but, as best as I can tell, X," X ain't a fact.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:53am
JDKJ: It's too early in the morning for you to be deaf, blind, and dumb drunk. A "my best guestimate" can't be a fact. Don't you understand the difference between the two?
JDKJ: It's too early in the morning for you to be deaf, blind, and dumb drunk. A "my best guestimate" can't be a fact. Don't you understand the difference between the two?
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:41am
Valdearg: By how much depends on variables that can't necessarily be predicted at this point in time. And yes, those Facts are accurate only so far into the future, but those estimates can certainly be used to support this measure.
Valdearg: By how much depends on variables that can't necessarily be predicted at this point in time. And yes, those Facts are accurate only so far into the future, but those estimates can certainly be used to support this measure.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:40am
Valdearg: And I'm saying, as far as the CBO report goes, the facts that it does put forward are deficit reduction, reducing costs, and expanding costs. Those ARE facts.
Valdearg: And I'm saying, as far as the CBO report goes, the facts that it does put forward are deficit reduction, reducing costs, and expanding costs. Those ARE facts.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:30am
JDKJ: You were the one championing a qualified estimate as an indisputable fact. I'm merely pointing out that it's far from indisputable. So says the estimator.
JDKJ: You were the one championing a qualified estimate as an indisputable fact. I'm merely pointing out that it's far from indisputable. So says the estimator.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:27am
Valdearg: Or are you only breaking that argument out because the CBO says that this bill is a good thing for our deficit?
Valdearg: Or are you only breaking that argument out because the CBO says that this bill is a good thing for our deficit?
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:27am
JDKJ: The CBO says that, to the extent it is possible to accurately predict defict reduction over the long term, it is likely to reduce the deficit. That's your idea of "a fact that don't lie?"
JDKJ: The CBO says that, to the extent it is possible to accurately predict defict reduction over the long term, it is likely to reduce the deficit. That's your idea of "a fact that don't lie?"
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:26am
Valdearg: Would you be singing the same tune if the CBO came back saying that the bill will likely double the deficit in 20 years??
Valdearg: Would you be singing the same tune if the CBO came back saying that the bill will likely double the deficit in 20 years??
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
Why not? How can China be part of globalisation and open its doors to massive foreign investment, but pick and choose based on what it sees as a cultural threat?
I guess it's what happens with a one-state government. I'd like to add that I've been to China and the government, in my opinion, wasn't evil or oppressive, as comments to articles like this often give the impression.
Hai guyz, I totally went to this place once, so I'm an expert on the government there. kthxbye
Seriously man, denying the oppressiveness of the Chinese government is ignorance of the highest order. It's like going to North Korea and saying that it seems like a totally cool place because you never left the government guided approved tour.
I'll take the hundreds of news reports/studies/stories over your anecdotal evidence.
Looking back at my post, I'm sorry if I gave off that impression - I mean that China isn't some Stalin-esque hellhole, with secret government agents constantly watching Westerners or anything similar. There was absolutely nothing like that, beyond registering where I was staying (at a friends) when I sent in my visa application.
Comment sections from here to Eurogamer and IGN contain opinions that China isn't like that. It's not even effectively communist anymore, but it is a one-party state. I've also read plenty of media stories about its human rights issues too.
with secret government agents constantly watching Westerners or anything similar. There was absolutely nothing like that
How would you know, they're secret!! "Badum-Tish"
Anyways....
There was an interesting documentary on over here in the UK called Paul Merton in China, he visited a living village/museum on Communism and was a on a tour car with a group of government officials. It's a good example of something that came up time and time again, the locals are fine but a Westerner asking about Communism is not a comfortable subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDbmlKjdAXE&feature=PlayList&p=B86E3547178D6A33&index=21
How would the WTO enforce this?
Exactly what I was thinking. Embargo on the product? Now you're doing China's work for them.
Also http://www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/08/13/us.china.trade/index.html. China has been served.
Why not return the favor? Since China blocks foreign culture yet wants to promote their own, declare this hypocrisy pathetic and block all game export from China as long as they block other culture?
Well atlease the gaming industry has a stepping stone when it comes to marketing to china.
http://www.magicinkgaming.com/