Last Friday, the ABC announced that Junglist had been replaced as Good Game co-host and Hex would be joing Bajo for the rest of the year. The pair would also present a spin-off show called Good Game: Spawn Point on ABC3 next year.

The reaction from the Good Game community ranged from anger to sadness and disbelief at Junglist’s departure. Some fans have even set up a website devoted to saving Junglist “from being axed by the ABC.”

Late yesterday afternoon, a statement was posted on the Good Game forum attributed to Team Good Game, saying that the “decision to take Junglist off air was not forced upon us by ABC Management and it’s one that is fully supported by all the GG team.”

The statement also addressed the fears of some viewers that the host changes would result in a “dumbed down” program, saying: “That’s absolutely not right. We, as ever, will continue our quest to bring you the show for gamers by gamers…”

This statement quickly drew a response from Junglist himself, refuting some of the claims made by Team Good Game. He said he knew a number of team members “clearly DON’T support this” and that the decision “was forced by ABC management, for a mass appeal direction”.

Later, Bajo responded to Junglist’s post, stating that “while Junglist may have his own version of events, so do we, and all we ever wanted to do was work with him but it’s not to be…”

Good Game staff are bound by confidentiality agreements and thus cannot discuss the details of the situation directly. The thread is now well over 40 pages long as the Good Game community continues to debate what may or may not have actually happened.

Sony has inked a deal with the ABC to deliver our national broadcaster’s iView content via the PlayStation Network. A trial kicks off later this year, allowing users to watch high-definition ABC shows streaming on their PS3, including Good Game TV.

ABC’s Director of Television, Kim Dalton, says, “We want to make our content as accessible as possible to our audience. Increasingly, that means extending our online reach so Australians can watch what they want, when they want it. Today’s gaming consoles, televisions and dvd players all have internet capability and we’re excited to be able to team up with Sony Playstation, as the first step in integrating ABC TV content into new online platforms and technologies.”

The ABC press release also contained some interesting stats: ABC iView currently has over 300 programs available on demand. In July 2009, iView averaged 764,000 visits, with 47 per cent of users visiting more than once.

Who’s interested in this?

That’s because Netflix and Disney recently signed a deal to stream the first five seasons of Lost, seasons four and five of Desperate Housewives, season five of Grey’s Anatomy and seasons one and two of The Legend of the Seeker through Netflix Instant Watch service.

The agreement extends Netflix’s relationship with Disney-ABC, which inked their first digital licensing deal last September.

“We’re excited about this new agreement since it builds on a strong foundation with Disney-ABC Television Group,” said Robert Kyncl, vice president of content acquisition for Netflix, in a prepared statement. “In all, we’re providing Netflix members with some of the most popular and avidly followed shows on TV while working with an important business partner to help grow several of its key franchises.”

“Videogames, as a medium, have also reached a stage in their development where they are mature enough to tackle concepts far more meaningful than just shooting space aliens.” So says the brains behind the Serious Games initiative just launched by the ABC and Screen Australia. They’re calling for serious game design ideas, with the eventual competition winners receiving funding to development their idea into a playable game.

We are looking for game IDEAS that address issues that may be in the field of society and culture, health, relationships, history, science, politics, or the environment. The game will explore this idea/topic in an imaginative, creative, entertaining and innovative way, with a strong game narrative and solid underlying educative aspect.

If that sounds up your alley, hit up the ABC website for more details and an application form. And also check out the segment on Serious Games that aired on last night’s episode of Good Game TV.

Serious Games [ABC, thanks Brendan!]

The full reply letter to Daniel from the ABC after the jump. [Thanks to Daniel for sharing!]

Thank you for your email. Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in responding to your concerns.

In keeping with our complaint handling procedures, Audience and Consumer Affairs has reviewed the Q & A broadcast of 24 July 2008, assessed it against ABC editorial standards, considered the points you make and, in order to ensure procedural fairness, sought comment from the program team.

With regard to the background information on the game Fallout 3 provided by presenter Tony Jones, we acknowledge your point that the game was refused classification by the Classification Board because of the intravenous drug use, rather than the violence in the game. While Tony Jones mentioned the issue of drug use and violence in his précis of the game, he offered no specifics on why the game was actually refused classification. From our own understanding of the game of Fallout 3, the ABC believes that it is legitimate to mention the violence in the game. Mr Jones did not state that the main purpose of the game was to kill everyone. For your information Fallout 3 was used as it was a topical example of a game that had been refused classification by the Classification Board.

The ABC apologises for the information provided by presenter Tony Jones in the middle of the discussion on gaming and agrees that it may have been confusing and misleading. Mr Jones was aware that a rating system exists for games. He had been briefed on concerns that the current system is inadequate because it does not provide an R rating. But regrettably in the pressure of the program and in attempting to summarise and point to the lack of a comprehensive rating system, Mr Jones erred by stating that there was no ratings system for video games.

As the program is still available online, the program team have put a note on the website at: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2318124.htm. This note acknowledges that some of the discussion was confusing, admits Tony Jones’s error, explains that a classification system exists and directs readers to the Classification (Publication, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. In addition, the program team have been reminded of the ABC’s commitment to factual accuracy as elucidated in the ABC’s Code of Practice. For your reference this may be accessed at: http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/200806_codeofpractice-revised_2008.pdf.

The ABC acknowledges your thoughts on the views expressed by some of the panellists on this subject. The panel members are politicians and others who have a role in public life. They do not know the questions they will have to answer nor what subject matter will be canvassed, prior to going on air. While I understand your concerns regarding the views put forth by the panel members on gaming, it is the case that they may not have had any experience with the subject prior to the program. It should also be noted that their views are their own. They are not shared by the ABC. The program does attempt to evince the panellists’ answers fresh, unfettered, and unmediated by party political spin.

You voice concern that the subject of snuff movies was raised. As I am sure you will understand, Tony Jones cannot rigidly control the direction of the discussion. Neither he, nor the ABC can ensure that the panellists stay on the subject matter. For your information it was National Party senator Barnaby Joyce who mentioned snuff movies. The segue into a discussion about gambling and the pokies was a result of Tony Jones throwing to an audience member who had their hand up. This audience member was seeking the panellists’ views on the idea that protecting people’s right to chose entertainment, such as their right to chose violent video games, plays into the hands of those who would wish to legitimise gambling, when gambling causes more social problems than violent video games.

I note your comment that the original audience member who asked the question had his hand up throughout the discussion, presumably because he wished to make a follow up point. It was the case that he had the opportunity to speak again when he was asked a question by journalist Christine Jackman who was on the panel. Given the ebb and flow of the discussion, it is not always possible or desirable for Tony Jones to return to the audience for further comment from the original questioner; however, we understand that in this instance it may have been worthwhile given the error noted above.

The ABC appreciates your feedback. Please be assured that it has been registered by the Q & A team and they will be mindful of your views should the subject matter come up again on the program.

Thank you again for taking the time to write.

Yours sincerely

Claire M Gorman
Investigations Officer
ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs

While Crago covers ground we’ve talked about before, he still makes a compelling argument, and provides something most of us cannot – the point of view of a developer. From the piece:

As game developers, we are trying to make games that provide entertainment to players of all ages. Video games are not going to turn your children into criminals. They are, in fact, the modern face of the entertainment industry, and something that we in Australia are very good at producing.

The focus of this debate should be upon how the Australian classification system can best give adults the information they need to chose video game content for themselves and their children, without burdening our country with unjustified and draconian censorship to the amusement and pity of the rest of the world.

I think the world alternates between pitying and mocking, but any attention is good attention, right?

Unlike a specialist blog such as Kotaku AU, the ABC site attracts a range of personalities. Even so, most of the comments to the piece are positive, though I couldn’t help but notice this rather, well, insane post:

As far as I am concerned, many games are moronic, violent and contain puerile, infantile sexual fantasies. Sure they are not just for kids – many kids I know are mature enough to realise computer games serve a purpose in childhhod [sic] and adolescence and do not maintain this interest as adults.

So, does this go for the thousands of adults around the world that actually make games too? Can’t imagine they’d be working in the industry if they didn’t have an interest!

Alas, this is the sort of mindset we’re dealing with folks.

Banned: the absurdity of Australia’s game rating regime [ABC] [Pic]

Thanks to Daniel Silk, who pointed me in the direction of the clip. Daniel also went to the trouble of putting together a letter to complain about the panel, which I’ve included after the jump.

If you’d like to read more information about games classification, I urge you to check these out:
Michael Atkinson, No R18+ For Games In Australia: Why It Hurts Children
R18 Classification & Video Games: What You Can Do
Why Michael Atkinson’s Opposal Of An R18+ Rating For Games Does Bugger All To Protect Kids, Promotes Crime

Q&A episode 10 [ABC TV]

To whom it may concern,

I watched you show for the first time last night (24/7/08) as I was informed that the question of “Why Australia doesn’t have an R rating for video games”. I must say that I am thoroughly disappointed at how misinformed most of you panel was on the subject and how quickly the original question was side tracked from.

To start off, the host had a completely wrong idea about the game “Fallout 3″ which was used to start the question. This game was only refuse classification (not banned mind you) because of the use of the drug morphine as a pain killer.
Why this ONE game was pick up for its use is beyond me, as there have been countless others that have been classified fine with use of the drug in the game (Half life 1 and 2, Fallout 1 and 2 just to name a couple of popular games).

Also the description your host used to describe Fallout 3 was a bit incorrect, yes there is violence in the game – but the “main purpose” is not to kill everything. The game takes place in a post apocalyptic world – as was stated – but the player is then given the choice of how to interact in this now war torn, almost primitive new world. The player CAN just kill everyone, but that will have ramification on how the rest of the game will play out. Or he could be diplomatic and talk to everyone – be friendly and help them out, and be rewarded for his actions.

This seems to be the idea that most of the older generations (I’m 25 myself and have been gaming since the age of 8) have stuck in their heads – that all these games are just full of violence for violence sake. Most ‘adult’ games have violent themes for the same reason that ‘mature/restricted’ movies have violent themes – to move the story and add suspense/tension.

Now to move on, as the first lady to answer the question decided to take it from a personal position of “I don’t want my kids to play it – so nobody can!”. This does nothing but hurt the Australian economy, but also stabs every parent by saying “You don’t know how to look after you kids, so we’ll let the government do it for you”. I agree totally that minors should not be allowed to play violent games, and that we should have a solid, PUBLISIZED rating system in place (which I’ll get to shortly) to stop minors from purchasing these games. But by refusing classification on games of a mature nature will not stop the minors from getting hold of them anymore than if there was an R rating. But if there was such a rating, at least the Australian economy can be injected with otherwise missing cash, and parents will be more informed about the games that their children are playing.

But like I said, they can still get hold of these games by other means, downloading from the internet (which is not only illegal, but hurts the economy) or importing them from other countries. Well to start, parents can monitor (and should try to monitor) their child’s internet usage as much as possible – and in this day in age is surprisingly easy with numerous programs that allow parent to control what sites can and can’t be accessed. And as far as importing the games goes (which apparently customs would seize all copies of ‘banned’ games) most of the new consoles have parent controls – which stops ANYONE from playing any game deemed so by the user (parent in this case) to a certain rating level.

Now about the rating system, which most of you panel were convinced doesn’t exist in this country. We currently have in place a rating system to a maximum of M15+ which most of these controversial games must get released into in this country if they wish to be sold. This causes confusion in parents as they think “Well little Bobby watches M rated movies he should be fine with this” without realising how broad of a rating that is. If we were to have an R rating it would decrease some confusion, and to properly inform the public about the rating system (like we currently do with television rating) would decrease it even more. I have been in game stores behind a parent who, after being informed about a game by the clerk, says “It’s only rated M so it can’t be that bad”.

How is it that Australia is the only country in the western world not to have an R rating? New Zealand has one and it isn’t over run by people stealing cars and running over pedestrians, and the UK seems to be dealing with one fine. Heck, even in Japan – where they have some really controversial games – they have a Z rating which is illegal to be displayed and must be asked from specifically before showing ID to be purchased. There are many ways to combat any of the misconceptions that are brought up when talking about an R rating, and all of them are valid and proven to work.

This still doesn’t lessen the disappointment I feel after watching your show, funnily called “Questions and Answers” to see the person who asked the question spend about 10 minutes with a raise hand to try (I can only guess) and correct your panel on the gross half truths they were saying. Also I must ask, why was the topic switch from talking about bringing in a new rating to compliment they current rating system, to how this would suddenly allow snuff films and excessive pokies to be brought into this country? I have never heard such useless propaganda spread in all my life! Snuff films and video games would still be illegal, even with an R rating, as they will always be deemed inappropriate and unnecessary; just like we can’t have them now. How the topic swung to this I don’t know, but to try and push this as fact is disappointing to hear from people in government. And the guy in the audience with his question about how this would allow more pokies to open? I think he must have confused gaming and Gaming. I can understand how that could happen, as they are both used to describe a similar experience, but they are not related in any way. One is to do with gambling, which as your panel successfully said is bad and does affect others, the other describes a pastime that many people are actively participative in. Neither affects the other.
Another point I would like to bring to light is the passing of information about studies linking violent video games and violent acts. These studies are inconclusive at best and there are also studies that state the opposite, that the playing of violent games actually DECREASES violent outbursts in some people. Trying to state these studies as actual facts when the verdict is still out is just plain wrong and I’m shocked that no-one on the panel tried to debate this. Yes, there are some people who are drawn to violent media – be it games, books or movies; but you don’t see us banning the latter two do you? To say that video games glorify violence is to say that Saving Private Ryan glorified the violence of World War II, or that America Beauty glorifies having sex with minors. If you are going to ban one, ban them all; don’t just ban things based on how you are feeling at the time.

So in conclusion, I am disappointed that your show seemed more like a platform to spout inconclusive propaganda and misinformation; and when your original question asker had a point he was obviously wanted to raise, was turned down and not allowed to speak out. Australia needs an R rating for its video games to bring it in line with the rest of the world, and to allow a more uniformed rating on games that should never be allowed in minor’s hands. The rating systems in Australia need to be publicized more as the public at large seems to be grossly misinformed and needs to be set straight. And seeing that there is only ONE MAN that is holding this country back in the ’stone age of ratings’ shows that they way that these things are brought into this country need to be looked at as soon as possible.

While I’m not really fussed that I probably won’t get a reply to this letter, I do hope that you will bring these facts to light on your next show – as I feel bad for anyone who was watching to get the wrong idea about this new media type that has now shadowed the Movie and Television industries.

Sincerely,

A concerned citizen.

True, I sometimes force my voice to drop a few octaves for the ladies, but I usually end up coughing in their faces or spilling my apple martini on their shirts. Which is definitely not sexy.

But we won’t be talking about any of that. The main topic of conversation will be the review of an R18+ rating for video games and its opposers – though I’m sure we’ll cover other bits and pieces.

If you’d like to hear the irresistible timbre of vocals, tune in to 774 ABC Melbourne around 3:30PM AEDT. For those unable to pick up the station on their electronic frequency catcher, you can stream it from the ABC Radio Melbourne website.

The AIMIA is after the opinions of gamers as well as insiders, so if you’re of the verbal persuasion, your presence will be appreciated.

From the looks of the release, the panel will also be discussing online gaming in general, including trends, technology and demographics, so if you’re not exactly thrilled by the thought of sales talk, there are other chunks of meaty information to sink your fangs into.

If you’re seriously thinking of paying the event a visit, hit up this link to give the AIMIA an idea of numbers.

Press release after the jump.

Online games going mainstream – the implications for the media and advertising industries

The Online games industry is morphing into a compelling new medium. We are seeing the convergence of games, movies, virtual worlds and social networking applications into an environment where the participant can create their own mash-ups of entertainment experiences. Many online games have the community as a major part of the entertainment and from this we are seeing new trends emerging about how we play and socialise.

These trends, along with powerful new technologies are changing online gaming into a medium of mass appeal. Games developers are allowing players to socialise, personalise their experience, create their own games and content and then share it with other players by incorporating applications such as You Tube into their games. The online games industry is expected to be worth $11.2 billion by 2010.

A panel of experts will discuss the evolution of online games from product to media and what this means to the media and advertising industries.
Speakers are David Edery, Xbox Live, Janet Carr, ABC’s Good Game, Jean-Marie Guitera, Subversive Games, Mark Fordham, EA.
The conversation will take a look at:
1. The trends the game developers are incorporating into their new games. eg The Sims Carnival, Spore.
2. The changing demographic of online gamers.
3. The role online gaming will play in Web 3 technologies.
4. The drivers of the online gaming evolution, such as new consumer behaviour and the technologies, (Euphoria, Digital Molecular Matter).
5. What will be the disruptive pressures along the way for developers, distributors and consumers?

Come along and participate in the conversation about this compelling topic. Enjoy a complimentary drink to toast the first AIMIA NSW Intimates event for 2008.

Event Details:
Date: Tuesday, 25th March, 2008
Venue: The Privilege Club
Address: 70 King Street, Sydney NSW 2000

Event Time:
6:30pm for a 7:00pm Start

*Special thanks to Subversive Games for providing the banner graphic.

Online games going mainstream – the implications for the media and advertising industries [AIMIA]

Taking You Places You Never Imagined Sweepstakes [Xbox.com]
[via Major Nelson]