British Politician Calls Lack of Tax Breaks "Madness"
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
That was the Canadians? Damn them and their cheese eating comedian producing ways...Liquidcathedral said:
Honestly, given that the alternative is the corrosive polarization like we're getting in American politics these days, I'm not sure which is really better. I mean I can't talk to my father about... well really anything, without him going off on Obama like the man showed up on his lawn and killed his dog. And half of his accusations are gibberish with no relation to political policy or, you know, sanity to boot.
It's true, it's unlikely tax breaks would have stopped RTW releasing a game that went on to experience "lacklustre demand". In this climate, you can see why people would like to put the blame on the government...well, unless we're talking about the previous government that is, they're just doing it because it's the only job they have right now.Woodsey said:
Chrono212 said:I had to watch the Emergency Budget...live...and take notes
At which my boss at the time promptly asks "If it's a successful part of the economy, why does it need tax breaks?"
The UK is slipping behind because the industry is treated just as if it can get money from anywhere.Logan Westbrook said:
Which, like every other industry at the moment, it can't.
Based off bedroom programmers getting together to form a company and launching a game was fine when capital was around and the costs, relatively, low but now it's much, much, much more expensive and time consuming. Just look at what Extra Credits says about the indie market compared to the mainstream, multinational developers and publishers.
"Extra Credits" has some really bad ideas, because by their arguements there would be no truely independant game developers, simply sub-companies under the banner of big business. Their attitude is based on the idealistic notion that somehow a major company would throw millions and millions of dollars into an indie black hole without any definate promise of returns, in hopes that they would eventually come up with something creative to recoup those losses. It just doesn't work that way, and as we've seen when smaller, independant teams are lapped up by a bigger company they themselves ultimatly wind up becoming more corperate despite the arguements usually made about why they were bought out to begin with.
I'll also say that the UK attitude on what tax breaks they might have awareded was pointless anyway. We live in an era where not only do I think most truely civilized people believe that the world has to come together, and the spread of ideas is slowly bringing this about (meaning that efforts of cultural preservation for the sake of cultural preservation are pointless, and actually counter productive), but also that a game needs to appeal to a widespread market and sell internationally, rather than just blowing the horn of the nation it's being produced in.
Like it or not, America is an "Empire" not because of our military but because of the ideas we've spread. There is a lot of truth to the idea that America's conquest has been taking place with "Mcdonalds", "Starbucks", Cowboys, and Demin Jeans. The reason why a lot of nations want to start blowing their own horn is because there are always going to be people who are going to resist unity for independance even when it's self destructive, and want to try and halt this kind of thing.
American ideals and "culture" (as much as we have one, our "culture" is actually a melting pot where we take the best of the world, and cast out the chaff, although hard core proponents of any culture are going to disagree on what the chaff is). While perhaps reality doesn't meet with the idea, American ideals still allow for a place for pretty much everyone, and that's why things expressing those values (even if reality doesn't always match them) work so well. Right now pretty much everyone can related to America, and understand those elements because of the way our "culture" has spread. That means that it works as a solid base for international game sales. A person in game markets in Asia, South America, and other places is far more likely to be able to relate to a game involving America as a middle ground than say Britan, especially when it comes to pop culture referances and so on.
The point being that it's not surprising they turned the breaks down if some of what I've read (and what was mentioned briefly here), becvause it would have amounted to giving tax breaks to companies who would produce games that generally would not sell on a scale large enough to make substantial profits and in turn benefit the goverment more than that tax money would. While there are rare exceptions, a game needs to involve America, or be a work of pure fantasy.
The rare exception(s) being places like Japan, where Japan's involvement in manufacturing early game hardware, and some uncanny timing, have created a degree of awareness specific to the game community where it can work to some extent as a game setting (SMT, etc..) though in the big picture these things usually wind up being financially "niche" productions. Part of the success is also doubtlessly because despite the best effort of "Weeaboos" who love to point out the differances in Japanese culture, The Japanese on a lot of levels very much want to be Americans. For all the people who point fingers at the differanes, it can be uncanny how similar Americans and Japanese are on a lot of levels, and honestly, I think that helps a lot of their games when they bring them to an international market.
These are my opinions and observations, I know many are going to strongly disagree.
The bottom line is that if the UK is going to do a game tax break (whether or not it's a good idea in general is debatable) it should be applied to all video game development, rather than those culturally British. The home culture is always going to rub off somewhat (as say Russian and Japanese culture does in works of pure fantasy) through the product anyway.
Besides I'll also say the limitations are... interesting. I've heard people rant about the limitations placed on the BBC and British TV, and figured the same would apply to video games receiving a goverment tax break even if there wasn't a "culture card" in play. I have no idea of how accurate a lot of it is, but if people make as big a deal about guns and their use as I've heard for example, that means if the goverment gets involved and imposes similars standards it's going to be very difficult for the UK to produce decent video games.
Well, at least the Coversatives aren't alone in power, thank lord. Tis at least something acceptable about the current polictical cilmate. >_>
Otherwise, Ed Balls (...) needs to get the hell off of the oppurtunists band wagon and stop frigging doing what politicians do best, perhaps restoring the Labour party back to its original grass roots of socialism would be a tad better use of time.
Otherwise, Ed Balls (...) needs to get the hell off of the oppurtunists band wagon and stop frigging doing what politicians do best, perhaps restoring the Labour party back to its original grass roots of socialism would be a tad better use of time.
...Hardly fair to say that was Britain in its entirety. Besides, approximately 40% of BP shares are held by UK shareholders and 39% in the USA....It's almost as much an American company as it is British.Liquidcathedral said:
OT: Heh. Balls. Yes I shall always be amused by his name, no matter his policies or actions.
And while the tax breaks may not have caused miracles they're still worth while.
Largely because they were the only other party to have a hope in having solo control of government other than Labour. It's reflected in how many seats the Lib Dems got: not many (or at least, not nearly as many as the pre-election hype lead you to believe). Plus, Nu Labour's credibility was shot by the non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction farce. I'm more surprised Blair got a third term (even though he bailed out half way and left Brown to pilot a sinking government, which the economic crisis promptly torpedoed).BadassCyborg said:
Fair enough that Extra Credits has an idealistic view of the game industry, but it is a refreshing and, I believe, reasonably balanced one.Therumancer said:Chrono212 said:I had to watch the Emergency Budget...live...and take notes
At which my boss at the time promptly asks "If it's a successful part of the economy, why does it need tax breaks?"
The UK is slipping behind because the industry is treated just as if it can get money from anywhere.Logan Westbrook said:
Which, like every other industry at the moment, it can't.
Based off bedroom programmers getting together to form a company and launching a game was fine when capital was around and the costs, relatively, low but now it's much, much, much more expensive and time consuming. Just look at what Extra Credits says about the indie market compared to the mainstream, multinational developers and publishers.
"Extra Credits" has some really bad ideas, because by their arguements there would be no truely independant game developers, simply sub-companies under the banner of big business. Their attitude is based on the idealistic notion that somehow a major company would throw millions and millions of dollars into an indie black hole without any definate promise of returns, in hopes that they would eventually come up with something creative to recoup those losses. It just doesn't work that way, and as we've seen when smaller, independant teams are lapped up by a bigger company they themselves ultimatly wind up becoming more corperate despite the arguements usually made about why they were bought out to begin with.
I'll also say that the UK attitude on what tax breaks they might have awareded was pointless anyway. We live in an era where not only do I think most truely civilized people believe that the world has to come together, and the spread of ideas is slowly bringing this about (meaning that efforts of cultural preservation for the sake of cultural preservation are pointless, and actually counter productive), but also that a game needs to appeal to a widespread market and sell internationally, rather than just blowing the horn of the nation it's being produced in.
Like it or not, America is an "Empire" not because of our military but because of the ideas we've spread. There is a lot of truth to the idea that America's conquest has been taking place with "Mcdonalds", "Starbucks", Cowboys, and Demin Jeans. The reason why a lot of nations want to start blowing their own horn is because there are always going to be people who are going to resist unity for independance even when it's self destructive, and want to try and halt this kind of thing.
American ideals and "culture" (as much as we have one, our "culture" is actually a melting pot where we take the best of the world, and cast out the chaff, although hard core proponents of any culture are going to disagree on what the chaff is). While perhaps reality doesn't meet with the idea, American ideals still allow for a place for pretty much everyone, and that's why things expressing those values (even if reality doesn't always match them) work so well. Right now pretty much everyone can related to America, and understand those elements because of the way our "culture" has spread. That means that it works as a solid base for international game sales. A person in game markets in Asia, South America, and other places is far more likely to be able to relate to a game involving America as a middle ground than say Britan, especially when it comes to pop culture referances and so on.
The point being that it's not surprising they turned the breaks down if some of what I've read (and what was mentioned briefly here), becvause it would have amounted to giving tax breaks to companies who would produce games that generally would not sell on a scale large enough to make substantial profits and in turn benefit the goverment more than that tax money would. While there are rare exceptions, a game needs to involve America, or be a work of pure fantasy.
The rare exception(s) being places like Japan, where Japan's involvement in manufacturing early game hardware, and some uncanny timing, have created a degree of awareness specific to the game community where it can work to some extent as a game setting (SMT, etc..) though in the big picture these things usually wind up being financially "niche" productions. Part of the success is also doubtlessly because despite the best effort of "Weeaboos" who love to point out the differances in Japanese culture, The Japanese on a lot of levels very much want to be Americans. For all the people who point fingers at the differanes, it can be uncanny how similar Americans and Japanese are on a lot of levels, and honestly, I think that helps a lot of their games when they bring them to an international market.
These are my opinions and observations, I know many are going to strongly disagree.
The bottom line is that if the UK is going to do a game tax break (whether or not it's a good idea in general is debatable) it should be applied to all video game development, rather than those culturally British. The home culture is always going to rub off somewhat (as say Russian and Japanese culture does in works of pure fantasy) through the product anyway.
Besides I'll also say the limitations are... interesting. I've heard people rant about the limitations placed on the BBC and British TV, and figured the same would apply to video games receiving a goverment tax break even if there wasn't a "culture card" in play. I have no idea of how accurate a lot of it is, but if people make as big a deal about guns and their use as I've heard for example, that means if the goverment gets involved and imposes similars standards it's going to be very difficult for the UK to produce decent video games.
You make a good point that they would be just be 'sub-companies' however if you use Bungie as an example of how an independent developer was bought by a larger company, Microsoft Game Studios, and produced a series of excellent (yes, I thought the Halo series was good) games and then split off again keeping most of its creative independence.
Who called for the many sequels to Halo? you cry. Yes, probably Microsoft but each one was pretty unique (as far as an FPS can be) and better than the last...apart from ODST.
However, your point is valid in relation to them become more corporate but is this a bad thing? Bureaucracy, yes that's bad, but has that crippled a developer? Probably, but I can't think of an example.
Ah. This, my friend, is going to piss people off.
I am a supporter of the federalisation of the European Union, however that does not mean that the culture of each nation state has to be lost.
And the UK is much the like that.
And, I would argue that to some degree, the United States is not.
You see with the recent incident involving an Islamic Cultural Centre being built near Ground Zero brought out the worst in many people. A significant amount of people.
There you have an ideal of what it is to be American. You have a car, a wife, 2.4 kids, go to Church, have a white picket fence and thus you are living the 'American Dream'. If you do not conform to this, you are not American.
I?m not saying that you or I think this, but some people do. It?s the same here but I would be unable to list things off in the same way.
It would probably involve tea or something. (insert humour here)
There are those who are extreme conservatives who wish that any change (or, in their mind, threat) to their way of life must be stopped now or before it can even take a foothold. Which means that the 'melting pot' does have some people trying to stop thing being added or even trying to take some of that mix away.
Replace the word 'American' with British. Or Indian. Or Brazilian. It?s the same all over the world. Even if it isn't like that right now, people are striving for the same thing. You could argue that the US is closest to realising that ideal but one, of many, examples is where 5% of the population control 95% of the wealth, there is still some progress to be made.
It's not self destructive. Would you like to live in a world that where ever you go, is just America?
I myself have had exactly the same pastry from Starbucks in London, Paris and Singapore.
However, I have not had the same feeling or experiences in those places.
Globalisation, which is what the 'Starbucks Effect' is, isn't necessarily bad but if it goes out of control, which it quite easily could, it would mean the destruction of these cultures.
I'm not sure what you want, but I certainly don't want to live in a world where I buy my Demin Jeans from Walmart, wearing my Cowboy hat, drinking my Coke and eating my McDonalds...while on any continent on Earth.
...reading that last sentence back that actually sounds disturbingly like what is happing in many places.
However! Local culture still persists and using your point:
I was talking to a friend of mine who did Japanese Culture Studies as a degree, including learning the ins and outs of the language and spending a year there, and she said that the Japanese are the only people who genuinely like America and emulate, instead of incorporate their culture.
Look at Deadrising. Aimed at an American audience, it still was seen and felt like a 'Japanese' production. This shows that their culture, no matter how Americanized you or others may see it, still perforates their games even when it is worked on to be as Western as possible.
Just look at the number of anime threads that are here on the Escapist on any day. Many of those aren't aimed for an American audience and still 'Westerners' (a term I dislike to use) flock to watch it, including myself. I find it refreshing that I can see how things are different but, and I agree with you, also see the similarities.
These game companies are not nationalized. They aren't there working hand to mouth on government hand outs. The tax breaks were there to encourage new game businesses to be set up and also attract new businesses to the UK. Leading me onto...
Culturally British? Show me the last culturally British game to be made *remembers the Doctor Who game* Oh. Well...niche, as you said before.
Ah, a little context on the 'limitations on the BBC'.
The British Broadcasting Corporation is a state run broadcaster.
Yes! Just like the Commies! (insert more humour)
As such the 'British Tax Payer' (read: the voting public) look to the government, who bankroll the BBC, to keep it fair and balanced, politically and socially, as it has a guaranteed income unlike the other broadcasters.
But I don't really understand what you mean by "culture card". If you mean that because of the tax breaks the games have to be a certain percent British?
Look at Lionhead Studios, makers of the Fable series. That is a British developer and the games don?t have many or any British references as far as I know.
Games don't kill people.
Guns do.
I think you are confusing Left Wing interventionist government policy and nationalization of companies with the current video game industry.
Tax breaks do not mean the government has a stake in the development of video games. What the government wants is to encourage the growth of the video game industry in the UK in order to keep people employed and collect more taxes.
It's the same with the United States, Canada and Japan. When you strip it all away, all the government wants is a strong industry that can provide jobs its own citizens and taxes that it can use elsewhere. It's just as simple and selfish as that.
As I alluded to previously, there are very few "culturally British" games out there. Off the top of my head, the only non-freeware one I can think of is Time Gentlemen Please by Zombie Cow.
yes this is total spin, I despise politicians sometimes.
Labour: "Pretend everythings alright maybe noone will notice"
Conservative (in a hugh laurie playing king george voice) "Right old chaps the country is in trouble and its time for the poor to sort it out, get out the Maggie Thatcher Guide to The Economy and we'll get this sorted out in a jiffy"
Lib Dems "A BUNNY FOR EVERY CHILD!, A GUARANTEED UNIVERSITY PLACEMENT FOR EVERY SCHOOL LEAVER AND A MILLION POUNDS FOR EVERY BABY! WE WILL ALL LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER!"
The People "OW MY, MY JOB AAAAAH! RIGHT IN THE WALLET OOOOOOOW BLOODY HELL THAT HURT!"
The Banks"HAHAHAHAHAHAH AND THEY JUST GAVE US IT! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA....these pockets are heavy...my legs are getting tired..YOU THERE WOMAN CARRY ME! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA-"
That's British politics for the past 30 years in a nutshell.
politics literally makes me depressed at times.
Labour: "Pretend everythings alright maybe noone will notice"
Conservative (in a hugh laurie playing king george voice) "Right old chaps the country is in trouble and its time for the poor to sort it out, get out the Maggie Thatcher Guide to The Economy and we'll get this sorted out in a jiffy"
Lib Dems "A BUNNY FOR EVERY CHILD!, A GUARANTEED UNIVERSITY PLACEMENT FOR EVERY SCHOOL LEAVER AND A MILLION POUNDS FOR EVERY BABY! WE WILL ALL LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER!"
The People "OW MY, MY JOB AAAAAH! RIGHT IN THE WALLET OOOOOOOW BLOODY HELL THAT HURT!"
The Banks"HAHAHAHAHAHAH AND THEY JUST GAVE US IT! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA....these pockets are heavy...my legs are getting tired..YOU THERE WOMAN CARRY ME! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA-"
That's British politics for the past 30 years in a nutshell.
politics literally makes me depressed at times.
The quote is mostly so you'll get the notification from your inbox. This was a big mess, but I will try and remember it all.Chrono212 said:
When I look at "indie" game studios and big business I tend to think of what happened with companies like "Origin Systems" and "EA" back in the day. This was before there was really an "indie" designation, and "Origin" was pretty much a run of the mill company for the time. EA being one of the first "megaliths" for the gaming industry. Pretty much what happened was that EA bought Origin because of it's successful liscences like "Wing Commander" and "Ultima" and then pretty much destroyed it, keeping only a few things that were earning: like "Ultima Online", rather than keeping the studio intact and constantly financing projects. If your innovations don't make money constantly, then your company gets whacked by it's patron. Stuff like this is how EA got such a horrible reputation.
As far as the international stuff goes, I will say that part of unifying the planet is that there will be no more America either, rather a world goverment, based on our ideals. Right now the US is the only nation that has come close to getting large numbers of very differant people together under one banner. What's more we have the global penetration already for those ideas to functionally do this.
The problem with respecting individual cultures is that as long as there is more than one group independantly governing, things like space travel, focused innovation, and the like are more or less impossible. There are already issues with building new space stations, and what can be put into orbit because everyone is paranoid about what the "other guys" put up there. That communication satellite could have missles aimed at them on it! Who says that space station is only going to be used for peaceful research? Wait, by launching that new generation space shuttle that gives you an unfair advantage!
What's more every time someone innovates something of note, all the other nations have to monkey it for fear of being left behind or the other guys having an advantage. Not to mention the fact that there is some truth to that which is why the inventor wasn't giving it to everyone to begin with. The result being that the masses of humanity are always behind the goverments and the "cutting edge", and all of our best minds spend so much time duplicating each other that progress has slowed to a snail's pace even before you get into some of the more tecnophobic political positions that have an influance.
Enviromentalism can't be addressed because everyone is afraid of not having enough, and falling behind the other guys. The little countries need to ravage the enviroment to survive when rain forests and the like are the only things they have. The big guys want to stockpile massive reserves so they can outlast the other big guy who is also stockpiling.
You'll notice that most speculative science fiction that is remotely practical starts with a world unity, usually caused by some great disaster or whatever. Sadly that is never likely to happen and do things magically, so we have to do it ourselves. That ultimatly means that people are going to have to bring an end to their centuries or thousands of years long histories of independance, and join with everyone else. That makes people angry on a lot of levels, but in the big picture it's true.
What's more I will say that it HAS to happen if humanity is going to survive, see without space travel we are going to use up all of our resources. With those resources gone humanity might not die immediatly, but we will lose the abillity to get more resources off planet (like minerals off mars). That means we're stuck on this rock until our sun dies. Seperate nations prevent serious space exploration, but also greatly increase the rate at which resources are gathered and consumed.
On top of this things like a single planetary language which everyone learns (even if they learn others in addition to it) would be a massive boon for communication. Ditto for creating one set of rules that everyone follows. For example if you go to some places in "The Middle East" smoking a joint might be a death penelty offense. If you go there as a tourist, and light up a fatty, respect for national sovreingty means that not even the UN is going to go in there to stop this, and might actually actively act to prevent your own goverment from doing so.
A global seperation of church and state, universal laws that apply everywhere and to everyone, and so on are all good things.
Besides I will also be entirely honest in saying that if we organize the world according to US lines with voting districts, three houses that balance each other out, some allowance for local laws (though "states" will no longr be set by current boundaries) and so on, Whites are a global minority, in all honesty it's going to be the Asians with the most people in goverment going by population in the long term. In the end I care more about principle than what people look like or where they are from. Follow the ideals and I don't much care where your ancestors hailed from, and with a global unity that will matter increasingly less and less.
I point all this out just to explain my position. You say "well, would you really want everywhere you go to be like America?" and in a practical sense I have to say "yes" because America is a greatly varied country compared to most places. What's more I believe these fundemental rights we espouse should belong to everyone, and it's seperate nations and such that make holding to that principle difficult given some of the... attitudes out there. Just like being able to stop at a Star Bucks, I don't think you should risk being stoned to death because you violated some tribal custom, or executed because some whack job culture decided it was unholy to drink beer during a paticular time of year, or whatever else.
As far as 5% of the people controlling all the wealth, well I'm not a socialist or a communist and think both systems are bad. I have no problem with capitolism and people enjoying their wealth, though I do believe in the American ways we balance things out (laws against monopolies and cartels) and think that one of th ebig problems with thing is again seperate nations, with differant laws, that let people play games and avoid any kind of consistant regulation on what they can and cannot do. Today 90% of the scandals involving big business ultimatly seem to involve some multinational company hopscotching between countries and using the borders and national sovreingty to get away with whatever they are doing (or at least hide it). At any rate, one thing I think that is missed is that the members of that 5% change with some frequency, fortunes are won and lost every day. Capitolism by it's nature tends to prevent most of that money from settling in one place and staying there, as there is always someone out there looking to surpass you, and just because you leave your money to your kids doesn't mean it's safe. Idiot heirs without at least the talent for picking people whom they can trust are infamous for squandering fortune. One of the reasons why I am somewhat tolerant of "Paris Hilton" for example is that above and beyond everything else she at least has good people watching her back apparently, if she was that much of an idiot she would be broke already (and despite threats of losing her trust fund, she's still apparently loaded).
At any rate, we'll have to agree to disgree, but the bottom line is that while we will never acheive a utopia, a world unity is the only way for humanity to survive, as well as the only solution to a lot of current issues.
There ARE downsides to it, but I think they are vastly outweighed by the benefits.
The biggest problem is of course that everyone who can agree at least in principle, typically wants it to be their culture that unifies the planet and everyone adopts, irregarldess of what that culture might be and how practical it might be. In the end everyone except one group is going to be giving up theirs, or we all die.
I think we need for the world to unify soon, but I don't think it will happen tomorrow because the ideas haven't sunk in far enough. Also I am quite aware that while the simple spread of ideas can do a lot of it peacefully, there are going to be a lot of people (in absolute terms) who will under no circumstances embrace it. That means that we have at least one more "world war" coming for this, if one doesn't start for another reason. Since in order to work there can be no exceptions, that means a truely frightening amount of people are going to die.
The ironic thing is that once a throw down happens for that reason, the unity is inevitable, since in order to have any chance the "independants" are going to have to unify, and if they win... well now there is a unity irregardless. If they don't win by fighting seperatly or whatever, then the unity happens as planned.
Killing that many people is not a good thing, but since we're talking about the survival of our species, there isn't a choice, a global unity is worth that price. Once you have it, future generations of moralists can argue about it, and the specific events involved, until they are blue in the face. All without the danger of humanity dying on a resource depleted mudball.
As I said though, I suspect we will have to agree to disagree.... and apologies since the explanation gets well off the topic at hand. I'm just explaining the full logic behind what I was saying, my way of thinking (which I have explained before on these forums) influances a lot of my posts;l