Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jorny wrote:
I ran it through google translate and tried to make it a little more understandable.

Thanks -- but (no offense) I don't think the statement really clarifies how diversity ratings help the industry to grow. Also, you say Spelplan-ASGD probably did not lobby for the money -- so the Swedish government just gives out grants worth approx. 36K USD willy nilly? Or is politics the key?

 Melissia wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Industries self-regulate

Hahahahaheheheheheheheeee.... nnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooo.

The past twenty years has shown that self-regulation by business is pretty much a lie.

LOL no -- ESRB and PEGI are examples of self-regulation.

While valuable, they weren't put in place in order to bring attention to violent or sexually explicit games in order to change the industry, so that is a bad example that isn't applicable to this situation. And the only reason the ESRB and PEGI exist was because of the threat of the government doing it for them-- without that, they wouldn't.

 Manchu wrote:
Suffice it to say, the motivations here are not totally clear on their face. But it does seem to me that these ratings are not about giving consumers clearer information about games.

I'm assuming their intentions are good - they want to widen the audience of games to include more non-white males. If true, fair enough, bigger pie and all that.

However I can't help but think they're skipping some steps. This won't get non-gamers to magically become interested in games. Diversity stickers don't help if the targets aren't in the store, or know about the digital distributors.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Basically, everything worthwhile that a "diversity rating" could possibly do would be done so much better by a blog or network of blogs.

Do not tell GamerGate, because this would be an horrible, horrible breach of journalistic ethics!

B-but, I thought it was about misogyny in video games?

You really have been ignoring my posts, even the ones you quote ... For example, you claim

 Melissia wrote:
And the only reason the ESRB and PEGI exist was because of the threat of the government doing it for them-- without that, they wouldn't.

after I posted

 Manchu wrote:
Industries self-regulate to persue benefits, including avoiding becoming externally regulated.

You quoted that post except the "to persue benefits, including avoiding becoming externally regulated" part. So, yeah, my suggestion was that perhaps Spelplan-ASGD is carrying out this research in order to avoid action by the Swedish government. But jorny keeps reassuring us that the Swedish government has nothing to do with this (apart from giving Spelplan-ASGD around $36,000 to do the study). As to ESRB and PEGI

 Melissia wrote:
While valuable, they weren't put in place in order to bring attention to violent or sexually explicit games in order to change the industry, so that is a bad example that isn't applicable to this situation.

Sure but so what? Your claim was that industries do not self-regulate. ESRB and PEGI are examples of self-regulation. As I already posted:

 Manchu wrote:
A rating system is inherently agenda-driven. The current system in the US and elsewhere, for example, is driven by the industry wanting to appear parent-friendly. In other words, the system is a way to market games to people who purchase the product but don't use it. For people who play games, the rating system is virtually meaningless. And when gamers do pay close attention to the ratings, we end up concluding they are arbitrary at best and cynically manipulated at worst.

So they are good examples of the motivation and result of self-regulation in the video game industry. In other words, it isn't about giving the consumer more accurate information about the product. Nor is it even really about keeping violent games away from minors, considering how arbitrary the ratings are.

 Manchu wrote:

 jorny wrote:
I ran it through google translate and tried to make it a little more understandable.

Thanks -- but (no offense) I don't think the statement really clarifies how diversity ratings help the industry to grow. Also, you say Spelplan-ASGD probably did not lobby for the money -- so the Swedish government just gives out grants worth approx. 36K USD willy nilly? Or is politics the key?

No it is not very clear. Press releases likes to mention growth as a buzz word. But It is probably that they want to increase the recruitment base both to the industry and to gaming in general. As a side story I can mention that a lot of the heavy industry in sweden (steel, copper, mining etc.) is working very hard on diversity and gender equality issues in their smelters and mines. Industries that traditionally are very macho. Simply because they have found out that it is good for the long term growth and profitability of their companies.

The goverments set a budget for Vinnova, and may earmark a certain amount of money for some areas. Vinnova then hands out money to research projects. There might probably be some Vinnova project that deals with equality and diversity. You can probably find a lot more on this here: http://www.vinnova.se/en/. It should also be noted that the Swedish government can't influence directly how a state agency like Vinnova hands out money, for more information on this check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerstyre.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'm assuming their intentions are good - they want to widen the audience of games to include more non-white males. If true, fair enough, bigger pie and all that.

That kind of argument leads nowhere. The thing about companies is they exist to make profit. They don't need a ratings system to seek out and exploit untapped markets.

 Manchu wrote:
Sure but so what? Your claim was that industries do not self-regulate. ESRB and PEGI are examples of self-regulation.

Self-regulation at the barrel of a regulatory gun is what you're objecting to when objecting to the idea presented in this legislation.

 jorny wrote:
Simply because they have found out that it is good for the long term growth and profitability of their companies.

I don't find it hard to believe that companies open to diversity in terms of customers and employees ultimately do better, all other things being equal. My problem is not with that but rather the idea of regulating diversity in video games with some kind of ratings system.

Thanks for the link to Vinnova. Does the press release mention that is how Spelplan-ASGD got the money? I got no hits on Vinnova's site for Spelplan-ASGD.

 Melissia wrote:
presented in this legislation

As jorny pointed out, there is actually no legislation.

A video game developer trade association got money from the Swedish government to do some research.

 Manchu wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'm assuming their intentions are good - they want to widen the audience of games to include more non-white males. If true, fair enough, bigger pie and all that.

That kind of argument leads nowhere. The thing about companies is they exist to make profit. They don't need a ratings system to seek out and exploit untapped markets.

But they explicitly state that they want to find systems and processes to support them in including more groups. It is not a system like PEGI or ESRB that is discussed, they compare it with KRAV, a swedish labeling for ecologically grown food, and the different ISO systems for process control. Maybe a comparison to fair trade is more appropriate.

 jorny wrote:
But they explicitly state that they want to find systems and processes to support them in including more groups.

What does a ratings system have to do with a developer figuring out how to make games with more diversity?

 Manchu wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'm assuming their intentions are good - they want to widen the audience of games to include more non-white males. If true, fair enough, bigger pie and all that.

That kind of argument leads nowhere. The thing about companies is they exist to make profit. They don't need a ratings system to seek out and exploit untapped markets.

Oh, I agree - I think it has much more potential for negative outcomes than positive ones.

I was just making an assumption on why they want to do this. Playing Swedish Advocate, if you will

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I think it has much more potential for negative outcomes than positive ones.

Let's assume Spelplan-ASGD can also foresee all the negative outcomes we can. Given that, why do you think they would still pursue this? I'm not seeing how this is adding up. I feel pretty justified in being skeptical about this research and the more I think about it the more skeptical I get.

 Manchu wrote:

 jorny wrote:
But they explicitly state that they want to find systems and processes to support them in including more groups.

What does a ratings system have to do with a developer figuring out how to make games with more diversity?

That is a good question. I think that they are probably been looking at stuff like ISO 14001 which is an environmental mangement system, and they want to see if they can find concrete ways to work with diversity and share knowledge and strategies. FInding tools so to speak. And then some sort of process certification might be helpful. It ceirtanly is in other industries.

I don't know how they applied for the money, or what they wrote. But since it is a government agency, all relevant documents about the decision are available to the public if asked for. Vinnova has a budget for grants of 2.5 billion SEK, so this grant is not one of the big ones.

 jorny wrote:
I think that they are probably been looking at stuff like ISO 14001 which is an environmental mangement system, and they want to see if they can find concrete ways to work with diversity and share knowledge and strategies. FInding tools so to speak. And then some sort of process certification might be helpful. It ceirtanly is in other industries.

TBH all this stuff about ISOs and process certification are conceptions you have introduced. It seems like Spelplan-ASGD is interested in something very different -- a ratings system. Ratings system are related to end products, not products in development. Also, ratings systems are external to development.

 Manchu wrote:

 jorny wrote:
I think that they are probably been looking at stuff like ISO 14001 which is an environmental mangement system, and they want to see if they can find concrete ways to work with diversity and share knowledge and strategies. FInding tools so to speak. And then some sort of process certification might be helpful. It ceirtanly is in other industries.

TBH all this stuff about ISOs and process certification are conceptions you have introduced. It seems like Spelplan-ASGD is interested in something very different -- a ratings system. Ratings system are related to end products, not products in development. Also, ratings systems are external to development.

No, this is nothing I have introduced. They specifically state this in their press release.

Several news sites have noted that the Games Industry tilll together with Praxikon will be given support to investigate how a norm critically labeling could look like. The project is a pilot study to investigate the feasibility of a standard critical labeling in the computer games industry.

Many have expressed a desire for a label, but initially there are several questions for the survey to answer. What kind of "label" is requested - it's a consumer labeling such KRAV, a process marking the ISO, or something else entirely?

Google translate again. So the translation is a little weird, but understandable. KRAV is a label that shows that ceirtain ecological standards and requirement has been followed in the production of food and some consumer goods. So it is related to development. And this is a feasibility study. So they might find out that a lable is not the best solution. I certainly don't know if it is.

 Manchu wrote:
Let's assume Spelplan-ASGD can also foresee all the negative outcomes we can. Given that, why do you think they would still pursue this? I'm not seeing how this is adding up. I feel pretty justified in being skeptical about this research and the more I think about it the more skeptical I get.

I'm not comfortable assuming they can foresee any negative outcomes

The worst case scenario is they believe that the ends justify the means, and don't care if it hurts devs and the industry by introducing red tape or political bullying.

Let's be honest here - who actually reads the content warnings for games, and incorporates that into their buying decisions? Are there any parents that look at anything beyond the age restriction, if even that, when buying games for their children?

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
B-but, I thought it was about misogyny in video games?

Actually it is about reaction to people trying to make gaming more inclusive (aka SJW) . Or something.

 jorny wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'm assuming their intentions are good - they want to widen the audience of games to include more non-white males. If true, fair enough, bigger pie and all that.

That kind of argument leads nowhere. The thing about companies is they exist to make profit. They don't need a ratings system to seek out and exploit untapped markets.

But they explicitly state that they want to find systems and processes to support them in including more groups. It is not a system like PEGI or ESRB that is discussed, they compare it with KRAV, a swedish labeling for ecologically grown food, and the different ISO systems for process control. Maybe a comparison to fair trade is more appropriate.

Ive yet to see a politically correctness system work as intended aka in a positive way...

 jorny wrote:
No, this is nothing I have introduced.

I guess that's true, considering you introduced the concept in this thread and then found and posted a link showing that the study is considering both consumer labeling as well as ISO labeling (translation entirely courtesy Google):

Many have expressed a desire for a label, but initially there are several questions for the survey to answer. What kind of "label" is requested - it's a consumer labeling such [as Krav], a process marking the ISO, or something else entirely?

Indeed, this line makes the project sound even broader:

Unless the games content is the focus, what does diversity work in the production of games that do not have characters, lines or narrative?

Given that, it seems like Spelplan-ASDG and Praxikon are not at all interested in a ratings system. Rather they want to find out if they can draw up rules developers must follow to have their games labeled "diverse," is that right?

BTW that link also says the project is supported by Vinnova so you were also right about that.

 Manchu wrote:

 jorny wrote:
No, this is nothing I have introduced.

I guess that's true, considering you introduced the concept in this thread and then found and posted a link showing that the study is considering both consumer labeling as well as ISO labeling (translation entirely courtesy Google):

Many have expressed a desire for a label, but initially there are several questions for the survey to answer. What kind of "label" is requested - it's a consumer labeling such [as Krav], a process marking the ISO, or something else entirely?

Indeed, this line makes the project sound even broader:

Unless the games content is the focus, what does diversity work in the production of games that do not have characters, lines or narrative?

Given that, it seems like Spelplan-ASDG and Praxikon are not at all interested in a ratings system. Rather they want to find out if they can draw up rules developers must follow to have their games labeled "diverse," is that right?

BTW that link also says the project is supported by Vinnova so you were also right about that.

Well. The first thing I wrote in this thread was:

Maybe you should all read what the link says before posting. The Swedish government has nothing to do with this. And there is no new system being implemented.

It is the association of Swedish game developers and publishers who is funding a preliminary study that is going to look at what the conditions and possibilities for a marking that deals with issues of gender roles, norms and diversity in games. It will also look if there is a demand for this, and if it is, is the demand for something like a process marking like ISO or a consumer oriented marking.

Here is the press release:
http://www.dataspelsbranschen.se/nyheter/2014/11/13/foerstudie-kring-normkritisk-maerkning.aspx

So it is nothing I introduced and then found a link to support.

And no, this is not a about rules that must be followed. Nothing in anything they have written that I have found supports that is anything like that. The words used suggest that they want to find voluntary support systems and tools.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry! I misread your last post Manchu. It is getting a bit late here :-)

You seem to have got it right. It might end up with a system that developers can use if they want to.

 jorny wrote:
It might end up with a system that developers can use if they want to.

Right, so assuming the research shows (how?) that some party (the trade association?) can write a set of guidelines or rules that results in developing more diverse games then someone (who? again, the trade association?) will write out those guidelines so that the publisher can print a label on the box that says something like "certified diverse content"?

I want to make sure I am understanding this so I don't keep confusing it with a ratings system like PEGI/ESRB.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Actually it is about reaction to people trying to make gaming more inclusive (aka SJW) . Or something.

Why not make your own # to make gaming more inclusive?

How about #SwedishSolution? That has no negative connotations

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Why not make your own # to make gaming more inclusive?

Why would I need a #? What is the use for them, except being associated with donkey-caves? Like, say, Milo Yiannopoulos?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Why would I need a #? What is the use for them, except being associated with donkey-caves? Like, say, Milo Yiannopoulos?

You don't need one. It was just a suggestion for if you wanted to be pro-active

I can be proactive without a hashtag.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I can be proactive without a hashtag.

With a hashtag you can be pro-active with likeminded people. SWEDISH people, even.

We're getting off topic though, I think

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
With a hashtag you can be pro-active with likeminded people.

It is not like-minded people that needs to be convinced.

Alright I'll bite, what have you done to expand inclusivity in games?

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Alright I'll bite, what have you done to expand inclusivity in games?

Other than the obvious; programming a game, I'd say he's done the usual. Complain about perceived non-inclusivity


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I think it has much more potential for negative outcomes than positive ones.

Let's assume Spelplan-ASGD can also foresee all the negative outcomes we can. Given that, why do you think they would still pursue this? I'm not seeing how this is adding up. I feel pretty justified in being skeptical about this research and the more I think about it the more skeptical I get.

As someone who's helped his company receive more than one grant from 'interested' non-government trade councils, it's very likely they're just spending the money as a gesture of goodwill or because there's something else going on behind the scenes with regards to relationships between various parties in the two organisations.

While I've advised actual game devs on the topic, myself (IE invited to meetings to raised my concerns), if we're getting in to a pissing contest about whom supposedly has contributed the most, I would like to point out that like any pissing contest, it serves no real purpose except to try to shut the conversation down.