114 réponses à ce sujet

[sagoey]

IronSabbath88 wrote...

Still, the charity was used as an outlet to change the ending... just... that strikes me as wrong on so many levels.

No it wasn't.  At least, not intentionally.

Many gave donations because they wanted to and, at the same time, to promote the Retake cause.  It's easy to see it as abusing a charity but its been very clear since day one that the objective was to give to Child's Play, nothing else.  It just so happen that the group is heavily affliated with an agenda.  This is also true with any other charity: there will be an agenda behind it, it just happens that it merely becomes a banner of sort for like-minded people to stick together and make the fund-raiser stronger, as what happened with Retake and the staggering amount they managed to accomulate in the short time it was active.

Nothing will change that what most donors wanted was to help the children, that'll always be the bottom line.   

[piemanz]

Pretty sure you can still donate to the charity, just not under the pretense of wanting to help kids when your ulterior motive is entriely selfish.

[Lyne Holden]

Though I completely understand why they made that decision, having been a part of managing a charity that ended up on the receiving end of some odd donation stunts myself (namely a nude mudwrestling radio stunt that nearly ended up being a live sex show - among a few others) I would have advised them to weather the storm and maintain neutrality.

The way it was done was sort of cold and comes off as a bit smug and self-righteous to the outside observer - Not that re-take isn't, it's just sometimes someone has to be the grown-up.

Bad vibes all around.

[Asharad Hett]

Skirata129 wrote...

Asharad Hett wrote...

I'm proud of what we accomplished as a group, but please let this go. We should give to charity without ulterior motive.

again, impossible.

Sorry you feel that way.

[Vaktathi]

 

Skirata129 wrote...

according to this article by cinema blend, both quoting and analyzing responses from Jamie Dillon regarding questions posed about the ending of the Child's Play charity drive, the drive was not actually ended due to a large number of mentally disabled gamers thinking they were contributing to a fund intended to buy ending DLC from Bioware, but instead due to corporate politics, namely Penny Arcade wanting to distance themselves from the Retake Mass Effect movement.

The fact that a charity intended to help sick children was cut short, despite being enormously successful, in order for a game reviewer to remove any perceived association between themselves and a movement protesting an Industry giant's current installment in a major franchise speaks volumes more than I could ever hope to point out.

 It was never about people asking for refunds, the prime thing that PA pointed out from the beginning is that they didn't want to be associated with the Retake movement or appear to be taking sides.

Only the forum trolls that frothed every time the word "retake" was mentioned turned it into being about refunds supposedly from huge numbers of people (despite as few as 3 requests in a couple of days out of over 4,000 donors being enough to trigger a PayPal alert, and the end total wasn't affected by the refund requests), and a bunch of people didn't bother actually reading PA's piece about it they just latched onto a forum post and hitched onto the bandwagon in righteous E-Indignation. 

IronSabbath88 wrote...

Still, the charity was used as an outlet to change the ending... just... that strikes me as wrong on so many levels.

On Child's Plays front page they have space for the display of 66 corporate logo's.

These are sorted not only in terms of highest donors appear higher on the page but also get bigger logo displays than lesser donors. There are large tax, PR, and marketing reasons why these organizations give to CP. Altruism may and likely does form a part of it sure, but is anyone seriously going to argue that if those tax/pr/marketing advantages did not exist that they would still be donating, or donating as much as they do? It's unlikely.

This is the way it works for every major charitable organization, there's nothing out of the ordinary about this. It is the way things work. 

Retake's mistake was that it coulnd't hide it's other motivations due to its nature and was likely also hacking off traditional vital sponsors. 

Either way, Retake raised $80,000 for Child's Play. That fact remains. Whatever the reasons, Retake did more for them than those sitting back in armchair moral-police mode. 

Modifié par Vaktathi, 26 mars 2012 - 03:20 .

[Geirahod]

piemanz wrote...

Pretty sure you can still donate to the charity, just not under the pretense of wanting to help kids when your ulterior motive is entriely selfish.

LOL I really hope you were not being serious...

Selfish?? ok, members from the RetakeME3 movement are so selfish that they donate to a charity.

Modifié par Geirahod, 26 mars 2012 - 03:18 .

[SouperTrooper]

I do understand it from their perspective. Honestly I thought the whole drive was sanctioned by child's play but if it was not, it was wrong of the RME movement to attach it's name to it like that. RME is a rather innocent group, but what if tomorrow the Westbro church or some other group of crazies decided to tack their name to a respectable charity like that. He's not wrong in stating they need a clear policy about things like that. We shouldn't take that as them bowing to corporate pressure or anything like that. They have to think about the reputation of their charity as a going concern. While RME is a harmless group it's dangerous from their perspective to allow a precedent to be set.

THose of us who donated did a good thing. We also got a concession from Bioware. I think it's time to chill a bit.

[FlyingCow371]

Asharad Hett wrote...

I'm proud of what we accomplished as a group, but please let this go. We should give to charity without ulterior motive.

As far as a completely pure motive goes, that's not likely; nor is it required for giving to charity to be a good thing. I'm not saying it's impossible, but usually there are other things going on now. Charities do things like events...concerts, whatever. Fun things. Movtives include giving to charity, and having fun. Auctions? You buy things, and give to charity. Straight up donation? Tax deduction, plus giving to charity. Just giving randomly, when nobody is around, and not taking it into account on any tax stuff later? Probably get a good feeling from it for being an awesome person. Now in each of those situations, it IS possible for the raising money for charity part to be the major motivation behind giving, but usually there will be additional motivations involved.

Now if you can manage to donat to a charity, with nobody knowing (including government/tax people), AND feel terrible about it, and not enjoy feeling terrible...then I guess that'd be a very pure gift to charity without any extra motives. Would also be confusing as hell too.

[robertm2]

i wouldnt want anything to do with the retake mass effect people either i dont blame them in the slightest. they have proven that video games are not art because you cannot censor or change art just because you dont like it. so that means that video games will keep getting denied the same protection that movies and books and art gets which also means that even more government censorship is right around the corner. say goodbye to violence, sex and profanity in video games in other words say goodbye to almost every decent game that has been created in the last 20 years.

[KillerHappyFace]

Tycho specifically stated that the charity, though noble, was shut down because it went against the purpose of Child's Play.

His thoughts are here: http://penny-arcade.com/2012/03/21

"Child’s Play cannot be a tool to draw attention to a cause. Child’s Play must be the Cause. "

[Lyne Holden]

robertm2 wrote...

i wouldnt want anything to do with the retake mass effect people either i dont blame them in the slightest. they have proven that video games are not art because you cannot censor or change art just because you dont like it. so that means that video games will keep getting denied the same protection that movies and books and art gets which also means that even more government censorship is right around the corner. say goodbye to violence, sex and profanity in video games in other words say goodbye to almost every decent game that has been created in the last 20 years.

...and the other side of the crazy coin, checking in.

[Mage One]

There are a lot of other worthy charities out there that could always have been shifted to. The plan, I thought, had always been to cut if off after a certain amount was reached, anyway, so I'm not sure how much it mattered in the end. Otherwise, I'm sure charities like The EFF, The Red Cross, UNICEF or OXFAM would be happy to pick up where Child's Play left off.

[Vaktathi]

robertm2 wrote...

i wouldnt want anything to do with the retake mass effect people either i dont blame them in the slightest. they have proven that video games are not art because you cannot censor or change art just because you dont like it. so that means that video games will keep getting denied the same protection that movies and books and art gets which also means that even more government censorship is right around the corner. say goodbye to violence, sex and profanity in video games in other words say goodbye to almost every decent game that has been created in the last 20 years.

This art argument is silly.

Video games are art yes, but they are art to satisfy a consumer demand, a product. It is not a pure expression on the part of the creator simply in and of itself. The art comes from how the product satisfies the consumer demand. The design team works very much on that principle and has taken fan feedback and modified their existing ideas for many characters over the course of the trilogy. (notice nobody calls that a violation of the artistic integrity...). Their art is subject to approval and change, not only for business reasons (which happens all the time and plainly happened in ME3's development by Bioware's own admission, and this seems to be overlooked completely here), but by the consumers as well. If the product fails to satisfy the consumer demand, it fails in its purpose as art and thus as a work of art.


On top of that, ME3 failed it's artistic intent in its ending, the reader-writer contract was violated. At the end, after everything in the game being about choices, consequences, allies and alliances, all of that gets thrown at the window and is not incorporated in any meaningful way into the ending. The game violates its own artistic integrity at the last minute. Under those grounds alone it should be changed. 

Modifié par Vaktathi, 26 mars 2012 - 03:26 .

[FlyingCow371]

robertm2 wrote...

i wouldnt want anything to do with the retake mass effect people either i dont blame them in the slightest. they have proven that video games are not art because you cannot censor or change art just because you dont like it. so that means that video games will keep getting denied the same protection that movies and books and art gets which also means that even more government censorship is right around the corner. say goodbye to violence, sex and profanity in video games in other words say goodbye to almost every decent game that has been created in the last 20 years.

The Retake movement is not censoring or changing anything. They are giving their crique, something that art should be very comfortable with. Art critics in a variety of media can be very harsh, and do not always make efforts to be constructive with their criticism. If an art (movie,food, writing, whatever) critic thinks something sucks, he/she will let you know it with a variety of fun and soul crushing adjectives. The Retake movement is sharing their concerns with bioware. They're trying hard to make sure it's heard, and that bioware knows how many people feel the same, and that it's an amount of their fanbase/consumers that matter. That is all. After that, the ball is largely in bioware's court (ignoring fanfiction/mods for the moment). Bioware is free to say "**** you fans, this is our game, we did it, it's done, deal with it" and then see how their fan base reacts and how their future products fair. Or, if they care about people enjoying their games they have an opportunity to listen to fan feedback, as many game studios do, and improve their creation. They have a chance to make their art better, which some other media are not allowed. Although film often gets this chance, with a directors cut, alternate ending, and other stuff like that with later DVD releases.

About the second half of your post... the Retake movement is not the government. I know people don't like hearing that it's a minority of anything...but I'm pretty sure it's not a large enough majority to overturn the 1st ammendment. You can relax about that stuff. Although I think it's kinda funny you use the word "decent" to describe games with sex, violence, and profanity.

[Jayce]

Opsrbest wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I'm sorry, abusing? What? People drove up a lot of money for this and you presume to sit there and call it abuse?
So it was used to drum up publicity. How is that any different from when a company offers incentives for donations and such?
Some people seriously have a chip on their shoulder over this.

I would say using a charity of any sort to further an agenda not related to the distinction of the charity borders pretty closely on abuse. People weren't supporting it to be generous and give to the charity for the sake of giving to a charity they were donating to make it use a point and trying to force a change.

Tell that to Charmin when they tell you evey pack of toilet paper you buy results in X amount going to help replant trees.

Or to Kenco when they tell you their coffee is fair trade....

Businesses use charities to promote their products all the time. Is it cynical? Yes. Is it immoral? No.

Is it fair for Child's Play to regard Retake as setting a bad precedent cause wise? Sure, it's their decision ultimately.

But if you seriously think a group promoting a charity to promote their cause is is crass. I'd suggest you've never had much to do with how most charity fundraisers work.

[FemmeShep]

Interesting.

I talked to Gabe via Email, and he said they don't think the ReTake movement are bad people. And also said, they started the Charity for the wrong reasons and later re-stated their mission after realizing their reason for starting it was wrong. So he can actually relate to the ReTake movement, and why they wanted to donate (which was to show others they weren't bad people). It's just that, in his opinion there shouldn't be agendas/movements tied to Charity in general.

And I can respect/agree with this.

Modifié par FemmeShep, 26 mars 2012 - 03:30 .

[MikeRoz]

Skirata129 wrote...

but instead due to corporate politics, namely Penny Arcade wanting to distance themselves from the Retake Mass Effect movement.

Did we read the same article? That's not what it said.

[Lyne Holden]

KillerHappyFace wrote...

Tycho specifically stated that the charity, though noble, was shut down because it went against the purpose of Child's Play.

His thoughts are here: http://penny-arcade.com/2012/03/21

"Child’s Play cannot be a tool to draw attention to a cause. Child’s Play must be the Cause. "

See, that i don't understand, but then again I don't know what types of events they do, etc.
Typically many successful charities sell ad space or allow advertisement to local and corporate donors at events- what's the cause there? Are you allowing the cause of soft drink sales to associate with your charity when Coke or Pepsi comes calling and wants to call them selves a proud donor to (insert Charity Here)?

I don't know. I get it, but I still think it was bad form on his part.

Modifié par Lyne Holden, 26 mars 2012 - 03:33 .

[Skirata129]

robertm2 wrote...
you cannot censor or change art just because you dont like it.

about that...
www.siracd.com/work_h_death.shtml
answers.yahoo.com/question/index

[nevar00]

Yes well Gabe and Tycho are the same two ****s who profited off of a controversy where in they mocked a rape victim: shutting down a profitable charity drive due to politics (when for the same reasons they allow corporations to donate) is certainly not something I would put past them.

[Spectre-00N7]

It was great while it lasted. I understand why they had to end the group association.

[robertm2]

Skirata129 wrote...

robertm2 wrote...
you cannot censor or change art just because you dont like it.

about that...
www.siracd.com/work_h_death.shtml
answers.yahoo.com/question/index

well those are the same people who molest little boys and cover it up so dont expect them to follow any sort of rules unless its the rules they make.

[Stevens_Rock]

So Child's Play was able to see that what started out as a good idea could cause major problems if in the future and took steps to fix it. They should probably be giving advice to the BioWare writing team.