American McGee Sets the Record Straight on China's Game Policy

[Robert Rath]

Hi Mr. McGee, I'm Robert Rath, the author of "The China Syndrome [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/criticalintel/9960-The-China-Syndrome]." I'm glad that you took the time out of your schedule to respond to my column--part of the reason I started writing Critical Intel in the first place was to foster more discussion about how games interact with the world, especially internationally. This is why I've written on everything from the depiction of the Mexican Cartel War, to Ubisoft's use of history in Assassin's Creed, to conflict minerals in console manufacturing, and it's why I wrote about companies altering their products to access the Chinese market.

While I disagree with your assessment of that particular column, I'm very glad that international game development is being discussed in any context, even if it's at my expense. As an industry figure, it's important that someone of your stature speaks about your experiences as a Chinese-based game developer, since it's a valuable part of the discussion of international game policies and localization.

In fact, I wish you had contacted me directly, since I would've gladly featured your opinions on "The China Syndrome," unedited and in full, in a follow-up Critical Intel column. I've never claimed to be the final authority on any issue, and I hope to revisit topics covered in Critical Intel months or even years down the road as those topics change and evolve. I fundamentally believe that more information is better than less--and even more crucially--that several perspectives are better than one.

That said, I would like to point out a few things in your interview that misstated or misrepresented what I said in my column. I feel confident that these misrepresentations were accidental on your part, and probably stem from your personal passion for the topic and the fact that there was likely a period of time between you reading the column and discussing it here.

For example, you characterized my example of Homefront as a "straw man" argument I based on a Kotaku article, and claim that my column said the Chinese government "pressured" THQ. Consider the quote:

AM: Before getting to your questions I need to first knock down the Homefront straw man. It appears the writer used this piece from Kotaku as his source. First off, Homefront was never intended to sell to a Chinese audience. There was no "pressure" from the Chinese government. And being a 360/PS3 game, it isn't allowed for sale in China, regardless of content - just as all 360/PS3 games are banned from sale in China and have been for 10+ years.

Next, the suggestion that the "exec team will be banned from entering into China" is ridiculous. As if some Chinese government department spends time researching which Western videogame (which only sell in the West) might offend and then links publisher executives to the title and bans those executives from entering the country? This would be akin to the ESRB (yes, I know it's not a government agency, but you can't go to retail in the US without it) maintaining a list of which Japanese developers participated in the creation of Japanese-only "Schoolgirl Up-Skirt Mosquito Adventure" and ask the TSA to ban them from entering the US.

You are indeed correct that I used the Kotaku article as a source for a quote about the development of Homefront. However, I never asserted that the Chinese government exerted pressure on THQ. In fact the whole point of the article is that western companies (both in the game and film industries) make voluntary changes to their material early in the development process in order to excise material they perceive will get their content banned by the Ministry of Culture. That's very different from claiming the Chinese government pressures them.

Likely, this concern on the part of THQ executives came from a period in the 1990s when China broke off business ties for several years with major film companies over movies critical of the Chinese government such as Red Corner, Seven Years in Tibet, and Kundun. In the last two examples, members of the cast and crew including Brad Pitt and Martin Scorsese were, in fact, banned from entering China for their participation in these films. Now I'm not claiming the Chinese government would've banned THQ executives from entering China--I found that a little farfetched myself, and probably could've contextualized that quote better--but that assertion was not mine, and came from a quote from an employee at THQ's now-defunct subsidiary Kaos Studios. Therefore, even if their executives wouldn't get banned in actuality, THQ at least had a perception that they might based on past behavior by the Chinese government. Now we can have a discussion about whether this fear was realistic or not, and discuss whether or not western companies are making business decisions based on a dated view of Chinese government policies (Seven Years in Tibet and Kundun were fifteen years ago, after all) but that's different than saying the incident doesn't merit discussion.

In addition, I'd like to challenge your assertion that my piece was not well researched. While I sourced a single quote from Kotaku, I also linked articles and text from the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, China Daily, Variety, Forbes, Reuters, the Chinese Ministry of Culture website, and the Chinese General Administration of Press and Publications website. These links were only a fraction of my research, which also included material from the BBC, NPR, South China Morning Post, Amnesty International, CBS News, and a report on North Korea's military capabilities prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency. By only engaging with the Kotaku example, you've unintentionally created a perception that I don't thoroughly research my articles. Part of my founding mission with Critical Intel has been to source good information from reputable outlets both inside and outside the game industry, and I stand by my work in that regard.

Separately from the discussion about research, I'd also like to address your claim that I called Chinese regulations "intolerant." See the quote below:

The Chinese have regulations - same as most places in the world. That those regulations don't align with our expectations shouldn't invite words like "intolerant". This is just bad reporting. Who are we to dictate what's acceptable when it comes to content guidelines in countries other than our own? [My emphasis.]

I confess I'm a little puzzled by this statement, since after re-reading "The China Syndrome," and performing several searches on both the published text and drafts, I have not found any use of the word "intolerant." My suspicion is that you misremembered or misread this detail, or misspoke and meant to claim that the general tone of the article cast the Ministry of Culture as intolerant. That's an understandable mistake, but I admit a certain frustration at having a word attributed to me when it's easy to verify that I never used it.

As for the tone of the column, I can only request that you read it again. While allowing that I don't know everything about bringing western games to the Chinese market, I stand by it and believe it holds up to scrutiny. In my view the tone is fair, and I made every effort to shy away from sensationalism. While I realize the text does not reflect your personal experiences in dealing with the Ministry of Culture, I would like to suggest that the type of games Spicy Horse makes are generally set in fantasy worlds, apolitical in nature, and are unlikely to confront the same issues as Homefront or even Football Manager 2005, which was banned for depicting Tibetan and Hong Kong national teams.

Again, I value your perspective on this topic and I'm glad you freely expressed your opinion, but I suggest that what's happening here isn't me pushing an agenda or being ill-informed, but that the two of us have a difference of opinion. I believe, based on the evidence I collected, that game developers and filmmakers alter their content to avoid the MoC bans that have affected other games and movies in the past. You believe this is not a concern based on your experiences dealing with the MoC. Basically, we hold differing positions that aren't even necessarily incompatible, since it's entirely possible that game developers change their games based on fears that, as you suggest, may be unfounded. Does the MoC engage in trade protection to help Chinese products? Absolutely. However, it's also undeniable that the MoC reacts with hostility toward games and movies that blacken the image of China or contradict territorial claims to Tibet and Taiwan. I still assert that banning games with political content is not trade protection, it's censorship, and that this has led to instances of self-correction by western game developers who wish to access the Chinese market. Whether that's a bad thing or not is up to the readers to debate and decide--I see some positives, the curbing of anti-China xenophobia for instance--and my only agenda in writing "The China Syndrome" was to point out that this self-correction occurs.

Despite our difference of opinion, I really want to thank you for reading Critical Intel, Mr. McGee. Nothing could make me happier than seeing my column provoke discussion on international issues, especially when it comes from someone with a different perspective. As I mentioned before, part of Critical Intel's mission is to showcase different points of view on a topic. I fundamentally believe that more information is better than less--and even more crucially--that several perspectives are better than one.

Best regards,
Robert Rath

PS: Loved Alice.

 

[American McGee]

Robert,
Thank you for the personal response on the topic. Truth is I'm not certain we have a difference of opinion since most of what we're talking about is based on facts about Chinese regulation and censoring of media. No denying those things exist and should be labeled "bad". Where we differ is in how we choose to portray that reality to the outside world. You obviously know quite a bit about the issues surrounding censored Western media (games or film) in China - but you used that information to write what is, in my opinion, a sensationalist article which appeals to your audience's fear about a place they know only as "the next USSR" (if they listen to the mainstream news in the US.)

If your article, my response and these forum posts have done anything, it's remind me that most people aren't willing to let go their fear and prejudice - that they feel more comfortable with reinforcing their ideas about the world as opposed to reshaping them based on new information or input. Even when that new information points towards a better world. That might be one reason why writing in this tone is so effective.

You say your only agenda in writing "The China Syndrome" was to point out that self-correction occurs. One of my main points in responding was to say that things here simply aren't as dark as they are made out to be in your article. And that's because another form of self-correction is also occurring. It's POSITIVE self-correction that I wish we'd all pay more attention to - not just in China, but in the world at large. Then again, there's a reason the nightly news doesn't feature stories about things getting better. Bad news sells.

Regarding 'intolerant' - that word was in the questions sent to me from the writer (editor?) at The Escapist. He asked questions, quoted your material and I responded. His word, not yours. But the fact that he used the word in the first place is partly what's at issue here - what YOU write matters because it drives people's perceptions and might result in someone saying "intolerant" (uncertain if that's the case here.)

You are splitting hairs on "pressure" vs. "perceive".

Your research is solid - apologies for making it sound otherwise. I guess my main issue isn't the quality of the research but the tone of the article in general. Two very different things.

And I did read it again for tone, and I still think it's more negative than is warranted. But who am I do censor you!?

Happy we could all dive into this discussion. And I'm more than happy to continue contributing what I can to the topic of game development in China and the politics surrounding such. I think Western gamers owe it to themselves to know more about the topic since such a HUGE % of the gaming content they consume actually comes from China (all the major publishers outsource AAA console content to China.)

Not sure how much more time I can spend on this particular thread as we have several major product launches happening these days. Thank you, everyone, for the interesting discussion - especially Robert for getting it started. Any follow up questions, insult flinging or burning issues, feel free to email me: american (at) spicyhorse.com

 

[marurder]

I am living in China now. These are some of the gamer culture habits I have noticed.

It is impossible to talk about gaming in China without mentioning Tencent, a company that controls the largest chat program "QQ". Everyone, I mean EVERYONE in China uses it. Through this program and it's addons - many of which are games that encourage micro-transactions, Tencent has strengthened it's oligopoly on the chat/gaming scene.

Many young people (below 18) do NOT game very much at all. This is because study IS the most important part of a young persons life here. You must study hard ALL the time. Youth here live and breathe study, gaming detracts from test scores so is actively discouraged.

Casual gaming is the norm, phone apps and games are by far the most common, and are generally paid for. IF you want to talk about 'Gamer' games, most are bought fake on the street for $1, even the 'real' copies are usually fake. So this means western companies don't make much money from the 'shop' sales. Again, revenue needs to be generated from in-game content/micro-transactions, (should you want to break into the Chinese market).

Console games are indeed banned in China, however there is a grey market where you can buy/sell games and PS3's etc from shops.

I think a big obstacle is the corporate attitudes towards IP theft, I do not refer to using things unpaid for, but taking them and passing them off as their own. This occurs in all industries, making an environment where companies do not bother spending money on R&D, new IP because as soon as you sell it others z will copy and make it as their own.
The governments attitude (towards all things, not just games) is the same, especially when it comes to foreign companies. ALL of the large internet companies are tied in with "The party" This is a fact, you cannot gain power without having friends, it's the culture. In a similar manner as the US has legalized bribery.

Which brings us back to micro-transactions. You cannot make money on a new release every year, but rather develop a product that can generate moderate amounts, but you have to crack yourself into the dominated market. Chinese games do not do well overseas because they are NOT made for overseas customers. Most websites/chat programs are Chinese only - or have extremely limited English support. They are not made for 'foreigners' like other countries that try to reach as many markets as possible.

 

[Saulkar]

I do not like either, how is that? Both the States and China have their pros and cons, subjective and objective (and no, Canada is far from a shining beacon as well. You! Yes you! I know you were thinking about disputing my statement because I live in neither country). China has social and political issues that it hides behind a mask while the States share several similar issues but has an almost apathetic acknowledgement of them.

This ranges from censorship, wealth disparity, internet strangleholds/censorship/surveillance, the well being of the workforce, corporate and government corruption, freedom of press, government transparency, medical, and environmental. Both nations share all of these issues but neither of their method's for acknowledging and dealing with them is desirable from my point of view. As far as I can tell no nation is but some do a better job than others.

Lastly AM-MC came off very strange (not bad) with all of his replies. I cannot put my finger on it but somehow I was not finding closure for better or for worse or even satisfaction in any of his replies, can anyone figure this out?

 

[RicoADF]

So, what I've gathered from this story/thread:

China isn't bad because America does bad things

The Chinese government forces their own people to buy crap products to promote local business. How are people just glazing over this? It's completely anti-consumer and is just another way their government screws over its people

You are pretty damned naive if you believe every other country, including the U.S., doesn't do this. It's protectionism, and we've got a lot of it.

Do you know why most products used High Fructose Corn Syrup instead of sugar in the U.S.? Because they didn't want to enrich the Cubans by getting cane sugar from them, so they raised tariffs on cane sugar as high as was necessary until it became more cost effective for local companies to use the syrup instead, using corn from the U.S.

I would assume that was because we have an embargo with Cuba over the Cuban Missile Crisis from the 1960s. That's a far cry from locking out other countries from selling their products here. It's not even close to being the same thing.

Please give an ACTUAL example of where the US blocks out other countries. Because all I see here are Japanese electronics, German cars, and Chinese parts

well you gave 3 already, but another example is Australia. Our beef export use to do very well in the states being higher quality, then the local American farmers complained and the US gov raised import taxes and gave substatises to keep local prices down, wiping us out of your market due to cost. Similar thing happened with our film industry, except Hollywood had more to do with that due to their finances.

 

[Blind Sight]

Interesting piece, but putting words into Carl Sagan's mouth is completely intellectually dishonest. Did Sagan ever state that he was for state-based media censorship of religious and spiritual iconography Mr. McGee? He did not, and if you have any sense of respect for the man you would retract that statement. He identified himself as both an agnostic and an atheist in his writing, but neither of those instantly result in a support of censorship.

Don't use dead men to try to back up your points Mr. McGee, it shows a lack of professionalism. It also undermines the credibility of your claims of 'bad reporting' when you yourself are making unsubstantiated claims.

 

[NaramSuen]

I am quite thankful for the nuanced responses both by the interviewee and the author of the original article in question. The Escapist, and the entire world, is need of more of this. If your worldview is black-and-white, your perspective probably needs to be widened.

 

[92Sierra]

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, ESCAPIST AND MCGEE!!!!!

This is exactly the kind of articles that the Escapist should run! There are far too many people writing about China and calling themselves experts when they neither speak the language or have set foot in the country! Thank you for bringing some common sense to this matter.

As an aside, when I tell my Chinese friends about American media like Fallout 3 and Red Dawn (back when it had China in it) they laugh at the idea of China being able to destroy America and want to watch/ play the game just to see such a specatcle. They get a kick out of it!

 

[MPerce]

Holy crap, did I just read American McGee defending himself against random people online?

That's like Vince Carter visiting my house after I say he's an overrated basketball player. It's fucking awesome.

But seriously, this whole discussion has been very interesting to read. Thank you to both Mr. McGee and the Escapist for starting this informative thread.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I thought it was interesting that McGee says that 360 and PS3 games have been banned for 10+ years. Those systems haven't even existed for that long. This, in an article where he decries factual inaccuracy!

 

[RicoADF]

I thought it was interesting that McGee says that 360 and PS3 games have been banned for 10+ years. Those systems haven't even existed for that long. This, in an article where he decries factual inaccuracy!

Consoles have been banned for 10+ years, both of them are current generation consoles.

Many of the announcers, baseball buffs who don't give two licks about international politics, called him Chinese and apparently the Chinese government cares so much about what regional baseball announcers say on air that they requested that Chen be called Taiwanese.

Just want to point out, that most Chinese people do not actually call Taiwan, Taiwan. They call the country and it's people, "Chinese Taipei."

Just as they refuse to acknowledge North and South Korea and refer to the country simply as Korea. (Due in part to China's continuous support of North Korea.)

Chinese people also refer to Tibet as 'Xizang' and consider the entire country a mere off-shoot of China. And they call China itself 'Zhonggou' which pretty much means "the center of the universe." Most Chinese people believe they have a God-given right to rule the world and I am NOT making that up. (Kinda wish I were.)

To be fair most countries, especially major parties (UK and US are very guilty of this) commit the final part, believing its their god given right to rule the world and impose their values (good and bad) on the rest of the world. It's human nature.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I thought it was interesting that McGee says that 360 and PS3 games have been banned for 10+ years. Those systems haven't even existed for that long. This, in an article where he decries factual inaccuracy!

Consoles have been banned for 10+ years, both of them are current generation consoles.

But he didn't say "consoles" have been banned. He said specifically that the 360 and PS3 have been banned. Hence, inaccuracy.

 

[RicoADF]

I thought it was interesting that McGee says that 360 and PS3 games have been banned for 10+ years. Those systems haven't even existed for that long. This, in an article where he decries factual inaccuracy!

Consoles have been banned for 10+ years, both of them are current generation consoles.

But he didn't say "consoles" have been banned. He said specifically that the 360 and PS3 have been banned. Hence, inaccuracy.

And like I said, they are both consoles. Your correct that saying consoles would be clearer, but he wasn't factually wrong as they are both the consoles of today. Were arguing over semantics here.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

.... but he wasn't factually wrong as they are both the consoles of today.

But he was factually wrong.They are the consoles of today, not 10+ years ago.

Were arguing over semantics here.

The best thing to argue about!

 

[Salad Is Murder]

.... but he wasn't factually wrong as they are both the consoles of today.

But he was factually wrong.They are the consoles of today, not 10+ years ago.

Were arguing over semantics here.

The best thing to argue about!

Wrong, the best thing to argue about is grammar.

"We're arguing semantics here."

Your =/= You're

Man, you are a gold mine.

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

Now, I'm not sure if it has already been brought up in this topic, but if I recall correctly... A few years ago McGee did say that he much enjoyed working in China because the (Chinese) people in his studio there "Don't ask questions and do as they are told". I'm not sure if Mr. McGee is the right person to ask these sorts of questions.

 

[RicoADF]

.... but he wasn't factually wrong as they are both the consoles of today.

But he was factually wrong.They are the consoles of today, not 10+ years ago.

Were arguing over semantics here.

The best thing to argue about!

Wrong, the best thing to argue about is grammar.

"We're arguing semantics here."

Your =/= You're

Man, you are a gold mine.

I was replying on my smart phone Silly auto correction getting it wrong.

 

[Lunar Templar]

uh huh ... this smacked of trying to hard to justify the move to China, as well as kissing up to China.

w/e, I can get over that, what I found strange was the suggestion that the Chinese market had a chance of going global and 'taking over'. If what was said about consoles being banned to prevent competition for out side sources is true, then how would China's game company's survive on a global stage? They wouldn't be able to hide behind a monopoly in say, The UK (bet you though I was gonna say US), they'd go from being the 'only game in town', to 'one of a million', not to mention trying to steal consumers away from services they already use, and have used for years.

Sides, if it where possible it would have been done by now by some one else.

 

[Salad Is Murder]

I was replying on my smart phone Silly auto correction getting it wrong.

If you keep blaming the machines, you will not be spared in the takeover...judgement day.

AH YOO SAAR CONAH!?