PDA

View Full Version : Subsidize Game Production?



IMPress Polly
12-07-2014, 10:42 AM
I've counted myself a gamer for 23 years now and, though the U.S. Supreme Court may not agree, I feel that video games can definitely have artistic merit, and I mean a lot of it! There are a number of games I've played over the years that have reached a deeper place in my soul than any movie or book. How? By way of the interactive component! The fact that video games are a uniquely interactive medium creates for that medium the ability to personalize a story on a deeper level than other artistic mediums are capable of. Playing as somebody else can create a deeper sense of empathy than one might naturally develop for one they merely read the thoughts of or watch on-screen and thus help one to glean another perspective on life. And yet this is often not at all recognized by the wider society, and even by the gaming community itself! Visiting the art section of many, if not most, web sites might provide one with news and reviews concerning films, books, paintings, sculptures, and perhaps plays, but video games are still only included in that category about one-third of the time even now. Even gamers themselves usually whine about games that have what they might describe as a surplus of story content and doesn't give them total freedom to do whatever they want, as if that freedom would somehow equal freedom for the artist to convey to you a message. I don't think any of this is fair. This may shock the prejudices of some, but I don't primarily play video games to have fun! Most games primarily churn out entertainment value and that's the main thing most gamers may indeed want, but I am not most gamers. There are those of us who look for something more from this medium. The main reason I play video games is to learn something about life, be it that I don't have to endure its trials alone (reference: Final Fantasy VI), to question everything (reference: Beyond Good and Evil), the beauty and value of religion (references: Okami and Tales of Symphonia), that there's a subtle diplomatic rift going on between Japan and the United States that has the potential to explode into all-out conflict if we don't pay it more attention (reference: Killer 7), the power of nature over human beings and the human will (reference: The Last of Us), I mainly play video games to learn life lessons so I can begin to understand what everything in me says is a very confusing existence with no point! And I'm not alone in that. In my mind, the best games are not designed mainly to be fun and/or to provide an immersive escape from reality. Rather, my ideal game is one that plays out like an interactive novel. The unique level of character development that video games are capable of is invaluable to me in my ceaseless quest to find a convincing reason to go on, and I only hope that that will be recognized and valued by more people in time.

So what is an art game, you ask? I sought to answer that question in another thread (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/34359-An-immature-medium) on this forum and will re-post the relevant material below:

"For those of us who can be counted among the ranks of full-on game geeks (like yours truly) who might be in search of serious, artistic games more than just entertainment, it should be recognized that the player empowerment trend is the #1 enemy of art. There is an inverse relationship between the ability of developers to convey ideas to us on the one hand and our ability as gamers to control game content and enjoy total freedom therein on the other. The key to true art is letting the artist run wild with their vision rather than compelling them to survey the tastes of the 18-24 age demographic and expecting them to make only games that conform to what the results suggest is in popular demand. The latter method is how the industry churns out most of its games, and especially the blockbusters. It's a formula for commercial success and player empowerment (entitlement one might even say at this point (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/31772-Are-Gamers-Stifling-Creativity)) without a point. And while I like me some games like that, most of the time I personally prefer to instead learn something from the game-makers: a different perspective on life, perhaps. Whether one considers the likes of Final Fantasy VI and VII, Beyond Good and Evil, Killer 7, Okami, or The Last of Us (to name a collection of high-quality art games spanning the last couple decades), you'll notice that the most thought-provoking titles tend to have certain things in common, and that one of them is that they tend to be pretty linear in terms of play structure. (Okami is the exception to that rule here on this list.) They, in other words, minimize player freedom in order to maximize the freedom of the developer to convey their ideas. And when developers are thus allowed to run wild and tell the story THEY want to tell rather than the one YOU want to create, sheer brilliance, or abject stupidity, can ensue. Art games tend toward one or the other of those poles. Mediocrity is rare in art games, where it is the rule of how commerce operates. Art games are above all games that refuse to conform to tried and true storytelling traditions, established formulas and characters, and the most popular visual and musical styles, and instead get creative in all these areas, defying the logic of a profit-driven system that structurally leans in a conservative, risk-averse direction. Art games are primarily about telling a story and only secondarily about you having a funky good time throughout that process. In a true art game, everything is in service of the story: the game play, the visual style, the music, dialogue, and sound effects, et al. Therefore, if for you a good game is necessarily one in which, by contrast, storytelling must be done in service of game play or some other factor, serious art games are not for you. If you want art, you'll be willing to let artists run wild instead of expecting them to conform to your vision and embrace your play style."

That said, there are TONS of creative games being made right now, but most of them are low-budget casual games because AAA console games cost millions of dollars to make and thus involve a tremendous amount of financial risk for the serious artist. Developers, as a result, tend to avoid taking risks on new ideas for the sake of guaranteeing a return on investment. The result is that there is today remarkably little originality in the world of big-budget console games, and this lack of originality, together with the increasing price tag of console gaming, is driving people away from consoles altogether, and I'm sorry but cell phone games just are not an adequate substitute for game geeks like me who tend to prefer higher production values. Most -- and especially the most commercially successful -- retail console games today are just sequels, remakes, and (usually poor) spin-offs of films, TV shows, and occasionally books. I don't think that's fair to those of us who really value high quality art! To that end, I think society should take action to correct the aforementioned conservatizing influence of commerce. Namely, I think the government could invest a certain amount of money in the non-profit production of video games. That would help reduce the financial risk involved in game-makers' decision of whether to use a big budget to make more of the same or whether to instead try out something truly new and different and thought-provoking. Methinks that we might just get better games -- more big-budget art games, for example -- as a result! And as a result of THAT, more people might just come to recognize that video games really can be a valuable artistic medium!

We wouldn't be the first country to do this kind of thing either. Canada, for example, has been investing in video games for some time and of late that has borne fruit in the form of franchises like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Assassin's Creed, tons of indie games, and others, including my favorite game of this year, which also happens to be my favorite in quite a number of years now: Child of Light. All of those games come from Canada! I wonder what sorts of games might come out if we did the same thing here in the United States, with our much larger resources (which no are NOT anywhere near exhausted, people)! It's worth adding here that we already issue grants for many other forms of art for exactly this same reason: so that real art doesn't die at the hands of commerce! So it's not as if this is an unprecedented proposal or anything. What do you think? Do I have anything here or should the rules of commerce singularly determine what games are viable and what games are not?

Codename Section
12-07-2014, 10:53 AM
It would probably explain why those games are one giant lecture about social and racial harmony. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but they should probably come with a label that says: Warning: Prepare to Be Told How to Think.

If I'm supposed to pay for social issues, I'd rather pay for more money into SNAP so that families can get decent food to eat or money towards a light bill.

IMPress Polly
12-07-2014, 10:58 AM
Codename Section wrote:
If I'm supposed to pay for social issues, I'd rather pay for more money into SNAP so that families can get decent food to eat or money towards a light bill.

Why does it have to be a choice, Codename? It's not like we can't do both!


It would probably explain why those games are one giant lecture about social and racial harmony. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but they should probably come with a label that says: Warning: Prepare to Be Told How to Think.

Dragon Age and Assassin's Creed aren't really what I personally call serious art games, I was just listing some prominent examples of creative franchises (or what were once creative franchises anyway) that were helped by Canada's supportive attitude. The story-driven games I listed (including Child of Light, notably) are what I personally define as real art games. Those games don't give you a choice of characters or anything like that. If you get a choice of characters to play as, a multi-player mode, and a sandbox-style open-world environment to play in, it's probably not a real art game in my opinion. That's stuff the player empowerment movement demands and constitutes the opposite of story-driven play in my observation, as everything is done in submission of the gamer and the game play. Just so we're clear on how I'm defining art games here.

Chris
12-07-2014, 11:01 AM
Subsidize by purchasing games.

Green Arrow
12-07-2014, 11:04 AM
No. Completely unnecessary.

Common
12-07-2014, 11:06 AM
I agree with Chris, charge a fee. The "free" in this equasion of course is not free. The audience their targeting they want to give it to "free" but they want taxpayers who may not like it or dont want it to pay for it. Nah ill pass and what @codename said in his post

IMPress Polly
12-07-2014, 11:09 AM
Chris wrote:
Subsidize by purchasing games.

I personally do, but very, very people spontaneously buy them and that's the problem! Think about games like Beyond Good and Evil, for example. Every critic thought that game was amazing, and I bought it, along with enough others for it to become a cult hit over the last decade, but commercially it was a flop. The fact that brilliant games like that are destined for commercial failure discourages people from making those sorts of games, or at least from doing so when they're aiming to make a high-quality, big-budget production. In other words, you're going to see fewer of those sorts of games if nothing is done to correct for the conservatizing influence of commerce. I know America doesn't like art and culture very much (too sissy or whatever), but I think culture matters! I think the investment is worth it!

Codename Section
12-07-2014, 11:15 AM
Why does it have to be a choice, Codename? It's not like we can't do both!

Because you shouldn't take from me and others for something frivolous like games. It's like saying we should work hard every day and lose money so some people can own horses.

Taxes are involuntary, remember?




Dragon Age and Assassin's Creed aren't really what I personally call serious art games, I was just listing some prominent examples of creative franchises (or what were once creative franchises anyway) that were helped by Canada's supportive attitude. The story-driven games I listed (including Child of Light, notably) are what I personally define as real art games. Those games don't give you a choice of characters or anything like that. If you get a choice of characters to play as, a multi-player mode, and a sandbox-style open-world environment to play in, it's probably not a real art game in my opinion. That's stuff the player empowerment movement demands and constitutes the opposite of story-driven play in my observation, as everything is done in submission of the gamer and the game play. Just so we're clear on how I'm defining art games here.

Yeh, I don't care though. We shouldn't take from people involuntarily period, but if we're going to it should be for necessities.

Chris
12-07-2014, 11:15 AM
I personally do, but very, very people spontaneously buy them and that's the problem! Think about games like Beyond Good and Evil, for example. Every critic thought that game was amazing, and I bought it, along with enough others for it to become a cult hit over the last decade, but commercially it was a flop. The fact that brilliant games like that are destined for commercial failure discourages people from making those sorts of games, or at least from doing so when they're aiming to make a high-quality, big-budget production. In other words, you're going to see fewer of those sorts of games if nothing is done to correct for the conservatizing influence of commerce. I know America doesn't like art and culture very much (too sissy or whatever), but I think culture matters! I think the investment is worth it!


I haven't played a computer game since Doom 1. I don't begrudge your enthusiasm and enjoyment, but why should I subsidize it?

Codename Section
12-07-2014, 11:17 AM
I personally do, but very, very people spontaneously buy them and that's the problem! Think about games like Beyond Good and Evil, for example. Every critic thought that game was amazing, and I bought it, along with enough others for it to become a cult hit over the last decade, but commercially it was a flop. The fact that brilliant games like that are destined for commercial failure discourages people from making those sorts of games, or at least from doing so when they're aiming to make a high-quality, big-budget production. In other words, you're going to see fewer of those sorts of games if nothing is done to correct for the conservatizing influence of commerce. I know America doesn't like art and culture very much (too sissy or whatever), but I think culture matters! I think the investment is worth it!


Oh well, find a benefactor. If people don't want to buy the stupid games then they don't. What's with all the force, Polly?

You'll like my brand of art if you know what's good for you!

Polecat
12-07-2014, 11:30 AM
I don't believe the government should be subsidizing ANYTHING. They're broke after all.

Chris
12-07-2014, 11:37 AM
How timely! Progressive cliché #34 – “Government Must Subsidize the Arts” (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/24974-Clich%C3%A9s-of-Progressivism?p=868488&viewfull=1#post868488).

IMPress Polly
12-07-2014, 11:57 AM
Codename Section wrote:
Because you shouldn't take from me and others for something frivolous like games.

"Something frivolous like games"? That to me is like saying "something frivolous like books"!


Codename Section wrote:
Oh well, find a benefactor. If people don't want to buy the stupid games then they don't. What's with all the force, Polly?

You'll like my brand of art if you know what's good for you!


Common wrote:
I agree with Chris, charge a fee. The "free" in this equasion of course is not free. The audience their targeting they want to give it to "free" but they want taxpayers who may not like it or dont want it to pay for it. Nah ill pass and what @codename said in his post


Chris wrote:
I haven't played a computer game since Doom 1. I don't begrudge your enthusiasm and enjoyment, but why should I subsidize it?


Polecat wrote:
I don't believe the government should be subsidizing ANYTHING. They're broke after all.

Don't over-dramatize this, people. The amount of additional money in taxes you as an individual might pay for what I'm proposing would be perhaps $2 or $5 a year (assuming we didn't just take it all out of the Chamber of Commerce's completely unnecessary budget :wink:), for which society would get dozens and dozens of titles each year that would otherwise never see the light of day. I promise all that "force" won't drive any of you probably-quite-well-off drama kings into bankruptcy. :rollseyes: It will, however, add substantially to the number of high-quality titles that get made for cultural purposes rather than to make a guaranteed buck, and thus help to improve the cultural level of both this country and the indeed the world.

Codename Section
12-07-2014, 12:03 PM
"Something frivolous like games"? That to me is like saying "something frivolous like books"!


Yep. Fiction books are a frivolous purchase of government. If they bought everyone a copy of the Hunger Games I'd call that frivolous.

Anything we don't need to survive should not be bought by government.




Don't over-dramatize this, people. The amount of additional money in taxes you as an individual might pay for what I'm proposing would be perhaps $2 or $5 a year (assuming we didn't just take it all out of the Chamber of Commerce's completely unnecessary budget :wink:), for which society would get dozens and dozens of titles each year that would otherwise never see the light of day. I promise all that "force" won't drive any of you probably-quite-well-off drama kings into bankruptcy. :rollseyes: It will, however, add substantially to the number of high-quality titles that get made for cultural purposes rather than to make a guaranteed buck, and thus help to improve the cultural level of both this country and the indeed the world.

I don't care if it's two cents. When you rob from me my hard earned money to pay for some shit I don't want and someone else doesn't need that is wrong.

It's plain old theft. Nothing stopping you from voluntarily helping subsidize that industry, so go to it. If it needs subsidies then it ought to tell you that it's not something most of us want.

Chris
12-07-2014, 12:08 PM
"Something frivolous like games"? That to me is like saying "something frivolous like books"!









Don't over-dramatize this, people. The amount of additional money in taxes you as an individual might pay for what I'm proposing would be perhaps $2 or $5 a year (assuming we didn't just take it all out of the Chamber of Commerce's completely unnecessary budget :wink:), for which society would get dozens and dozens of titles each year that would otherwise never see the light of day. I promise all that "force" won't drive any of you probably-quite-well-off drama kings into bankruptcy. :rollseyes: It will, however, add substantially to the number of high-quality titles that get made for cultural purposes rather than to make a guaranteed buck, and thus help to improve the cultural level of both this country and the indeed the world.


No!

And that by the way is the standard progressive argument, that it only costs each person pennies. Those pennies add up to a whole lot when there are multiple such programs.

If the games were so good they'd sell themselves.

Polecat
12-07-2014, 12:08 PM
"Something frivolous like games"? That to me is like saying "something frivolous like books"!






Don't over-dramatize this, people. The amount of additional money in taxes you as an individual might pay for what I'm proposing would be perhaps $2 or $5 a year (assuming we didn't just take it all out of the Chamber of Commerce's completely unnecessary budget :wink:), for which society would get dozens and dozens of titles each year that would otherwise never see the light of day. I promise all that "force" won't drive any of you probably-quite-well-off drama kings into bankruptcy. :rollseyes: It will, however, add substantially to the number of high-quality titles that get made for cultural purposes rather than to make a guaranteed buck, and thus help to improve the cultural level of both this country and the indeed the world.

It is a selfish immature idea that only a child could endorse. Your idle amusement is not even on the list of things this country needs to address.

IMPress Polly
12-07-2014, 12:41 PM
Chris wrote:
If the games were so good they'd sell themselves.

...OOOOHHH, dear Lord, go re-read the OP because MY WHOLE ARGUMENT HERE has been precisely that that's not true...at all!


Codename Section wrote:
I don't care if it's two cents. When you rob from me my hard earned money to pay for some $#@! I don't want and someone else doesn't need that is wrong.

Just a small question: How do you know you won't want like it if it doesn't get produced?

Chris
12-07-2014, 12:44 PM
...OOOOHHH, dear Lord, go re-read the OP because MY WHOLE ARGUMENT HERE has been precisely that that's not true...at all!



Just a small question: How do you know you won't want like it if it doesn't get produced?



You missed my sarcasm, obviously they're not that good, otherwise why would you ask for government assistance?

WWMD - what would Marx do?

Codename Section
12-07-2014, 12:52 PM
.

Just a small question: How do you know you won't want like it if it doesn't get produced?

If people liked it in test groups someone would pick it up and produce it. Kickstarter, indigogo, deviantart--all of those things have big companies pick them up.

What you want is the power of the state involved to push the "art" you like. Would you want the state to make a pro-KKK game and proliferate it on every shelf?

IMPress Polly
12-07-2014, 01:31 PM
Codename Section wrote:
If people liked it in test groups someone would pick it up and produce it. Kickstarter, indigogo, deviantart--all of those things have big companies pick them up.

Those crowdfunding sources of revenue just don't produce big-budget games though. They just don't. The money they generate isn't adequate for it. You see what I'm saying? I mean these new, Internet-based services definitely help -- which is why we're seeing the current explosion of brilliantly creative cell phone games, for example -- but...basically all they produce are cell phone games! You see what I'm saying? A little extra help from society could go a long way toward changing that.


What you want is the power of the state involved to push the "art" you like.

Untrue. It's art in general that I would seek to foster the production of, not 'my style' or 'my message' in particular. This question is not 'Are you pro-communist?', it's 'Do you value art and culture?'

Chris
12-07-2014, 01:41 PM
If you value art, support the arts, don't make the rest of us if we don't.

Value is subjective.

Bob
12-07-2014, 02:04 PM
No!

And that by the way is the standard progressive argument, that it only costs each person pennies. Those pennies add up to a whole lot when there are multiple such programs.

If the games were so good they'd sell themselves.

I refused to vote. That is how great that idea is to me. I agree with Chris that in general...

games are how you are conditioned to wage war
Electronic games not for that purpose can also entertain
Chess is a board game that works with systems, and in talking chess, it is talked of as an attack, hold the center, capture the center, etc.

Subsidize games using your cash.

I read a sadness, a wistfulness, a craving for a real life. Maybe time spent at church can help.

IMPress Polly
12-07-2014, 02:13 PM
Yeah this is about the response I expected, though I'll concede I didn't expect opposition to be QUITE this unanimous. Ideas of mine are most always shot down, and usually by overwhelming margins. I must not have very many good ones. This forum was the only idea of mine that was popular enough to win realization so far.

Oh well. I at least get game geek credentials for trying, don't I? :wink:

Animal Mother
12-07-2014, 02:16 PM
Yeah this is about the response I expected, though I'll concede I didn't expect opposition to be QUITE this unanimous. Ideas of mine are most always shot down, and usually by overwhelming margins. I must not have very many good ones. This forum was the only idea of mine that was popular enough to win realization so far.

Oh well. I at least get game geek credentials for trying, don't I? :wink:

Art has always been funded by the wealthy because it's wrong to take money from the non wealthy for something so subjective.

If you have a game you're building and it's not shit, I'll toss you some money on kickstarter. I have money and I give fucks about it. I live pretty simply.

Bob
12-07-2014, 02:18 PM
Yeah this is about the response I expected, though I'll concede I didn't expect opposition to be QUITE this unanimous. Ideas of mine are most always shot down, and usually by overwhelming margins. I must not have very many good ones. This forum was the only idea of mine that was popular enough to win realization so far.

Oh well. I at least get game geek credentials for trying, don't I? :wink:

You might like life better by getting into it.
Consider why games take place in the child world? They compete. Forums compete for ideas.
What turned me off instantly is learning society is supposed to sacrifice so a few can enjoy games of your selection.

IMPress Polly
12-07-2014, 02:28 PM
Animal Mother wrote:
Art has always been funded by the wealthy because it's wrong to take money from the non wealthy for something so subjective.

Ah, but our income tax structure (and income taxes are my proposed method of paying for this) is still relatively progressive in this country, so I am still in essence proposing funding by affluent people who can easily afford to sacrifice $2 or $5 a year! I'm am basically just proposing that their VOLUNTARY contributions are not adequate to salvage much in the way of true art, just as relying on the voluntary generosity of rich people (charity) is no substitute for social security either. The generosity of the rich always seems to come up short when it comes to meeting human needs, be they economic or cultural.

Peter1469
12-07-2014, 02:29 PM
Yeah this is about the response I expected, though I'll concede I didn't expect opposition to be QUITE this unanimous. Ideas of mine are most always shot down, and usually by overwhelming margins. I must not have very many good ones. This forum was the only idea of mine that was popular enough to win realization so far.

Oh well. I at least get game geek credentials for trying, don't I? :wink:


Hey, I was in the same position with a vote in VIP room not so long ago. :smiley:

So we have something in common now.

GrassrootsConservative
12-07-2014, 02:30 PM
Absolutely not. We already subsidize way too much we can't afford, and video games aren't a necessity.

Animal Mother
12-07-2014, 02:36 PM
Ah, but our income tax structure (and income taxes are my proposed method of paying for this) is still relatively progressive in this country, so I am still in essence proposing funding by affluent people who can easily afford to sacrifice $2 or $5 a year! I'm am basically just proposing that their VOLUNTARY contributions are not adequate to salvage much in the way of true art, just as relying on the voluntary generosity of rich people (charity) is no substitute for social security either. The generosity of the rich always seems to come up short when it comes to meeting human needs, be they economic or cultural.

So, it's still by force? You don't have a right to even $1 of someone else's money so that you can develop art. You have a right to ask for it and people give it if they feel like it.

Mr. Freeze
12-08-2014, 01:26 PM
I personally do, but very, very people spontaneously buy them and that's the problem! Think about games like Beyond Good and Evil, for example. Every critic thought that game was amazing, and I bought it, along with enough others for it to become a cult hit over the last decade, but commercially it was a flop. The fact that brilliant games like that are destined for commercial failure discourages people from making those sorts of games, or at least from doing so when they're aiming to make a high-quality, big-budget production. In other words, you're going to see fewer of those sorts of games if nothing is done to correct for the conservatizing influence of commerce. I know America doesn't like art and culture very much (too sissy or whatever), but I think culture matters! I think the investment is worth it!

If you feel so strongly about alternative gaming you should invest your own money, start a kickstarter campaign, or go into game design and do it on your own time.

I'm a musician, so are most of my friends. While I feel that music is far more important to the human spirit than we acknowledge insofar as uplifting us and changing our moods, to take from people who didn't volunteer to support me in my musical composition is a great moral wrong.

All taxes are theft, but to take for something that is subjective is robbery.

Chris
12-08-2014, 01:43 PM
Yeah this is about the response I expected, though I'll concede I didn't expect opposition to be QUITE this unanimous. Ideas of mine are most always shot down, and usually by overwhelming margins. I must not have very many good ones. This forum was the only idea of mine that was popular enough to win realization so far.

Oh well. I at least get game geek credentials for trying, don't I? :wink:


No, no creds either! ;):)

CreepyOldDude
12-10-2014, 01:21 PM
I get your point, but I don't think the government should be subsidizing any art. Look at all the amazing works of art from history, and they were all because someone with money was willing to pay for them.

Perhaps someone should form a non-profit, for the purpose of supporting the development of artistic video games?

Chris
12-10-2014, 01:29 PM
I was going to say the Constitution allows Congress "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries...."

But then I noticed the word "useful". Hehe.

Newpublius
01-05-2015, 11:22 AM
Subsidize? Hell no. But art it can be. First time I thought of video games as potential art forms was at an exhibit at MoMA in NYC and they had an exhibit with the old quarter eater video games and of course it made me stop and think that, yes, there is a lot of artistic creativity imbued into the game.

The Xl
01-05-2015, 12:31 PM
I don't think something like video game should be subsidized by unwilling taxpayers. Nor do they even need to be, the market for gaming is absolutely massive.

IMPress Polly
01-05-2015, 06:47 PM
Xl:

My case in the OP is not that video games will stop being made if taxpayers fail to nominally aid their production (such a notion would indeed be silly!), but rather that subsidizing the non-profit production of video games will greatly reduce the commercial risk involved in the making and marketing of art games, thus rendering them far more viable, and therefore more prevalent, than they currently are. In other words, it would help advance the development of video gaming as an artistic medium instead of merely as a form of commerce-driven entertainment.

Ethereal
01-09-2015, 05:05 PM
I think a more accurate way of posing the question would be: Do you think we should steal money from people in order to pay for games that apparently nobody wants to play?

My answer: No.