Interview: Paul Gibson of Gamers’ Voice

Posted March 21, 2011 by Simon Williams.

Paul Gibson: I am a qualified solicitor based in Manchester. I specialize in commercial litigation law, so businesses suing each other basically [Paul is not practising at the moment]. I came about the Gamers’ Voice idea, as it were… do you know, it’s a difficult one because I can’t actually remember! I seem to recall seeing an invite for an event, which was the first thing representatives of Gamers’ Voice went to – a debate held by Tom Watson as to how video games could be used and how they could be promoted in British society.

So I’d already heard about Gamers’ Voice but I hadn’t been able to make it to the first meeting, which was in December 2009. I went along to the next debate in January of 2010, met up with the existing Gamers’ Voice guys and said “Look, I want to get involved in this” and from there on I just kind of got included in all the discussions and things.

There’s a main Facebook group, and then those guys who went to the initial 2009 meeting with Tom Watson set up a second Gamers’ Voice group, which was a private group just for those people who wanted to actually do something – people who wanted to make a contribution. I got invited into that group, and the rest is history.

BeefJack: How many of those original people are still involved on a regular basis? Is there a core group?

Paul Gibson: Yes, there is. We started off with about 30 people at that original meeting. We very quickly started losing people – not because people didn’t believe in the cause. It was simply that people realised it was going to be a lot of hard work and a lot of those people simply didn’t have the time to do it because of their own jobs and private lives. So, we’re now down to 10 people who are all very, very committed.

Not all of them went to the first meeting. We’ve also had a lot of people who’ve seen what we’ve been doing over the last year or so, got in touch with me and said “Look, I’d like to help out if I can”. They’ve come onboard and are, for want of a better phrase, full-time members.

BeefJack: How often do you get to meet up?

Paul Gibson: We do most of our meetings over Skype because we are entirely national. We have people based in Scotland, some down in London and Birmingham and myself and a couple of guys are based here in Manchester. The frequency of our meetings depends on what we have on at the time. We currently meet every two weeks over Skype but in the run-up to an event like our Parliamentary Games day that we had at the beginning of the year we were meeting every week throughout the end of November and December, then a couple of times a week in the actual run-up to the event to make sure everything was going OK.

It also varies member to member. Not everyone can make every meeting due to family and work commitments. Sometimes we have a meeting to deal with a discrete point that not everyone needs to be at, but, as Chairman, I am generally at all the meetings.

That said, we do try to have face to face meetings as often as possible, about once a quarter at the moment, because it’s good to put faces to names. We’ve created a bit of a family over Skype but it is nice to meet up and have a drink and a meal.

BeefJack: You mentioned the Parliamentary Games Day, which proved a great success for you, with both MPs and video games industry figures attending. Do you feel that attitudes towards videogaming are genuinely changing amongst our representatives?

Paul Gibson: Yes. Had you asked me that prior to the event I may have been slightly more cynical, but having actually met the individuals and seen their reactions to the games and to the people that were there – there was genuine shock on some people’s faces.

A lot of the MPs came up to me and said “I knew we had a games industry but I didn’t realise the extent that video games had developed.” For those MPs, when you said “video games” they imagined a young child sat in front of the original Nintendo Entertainment System with Super Mario jumping up and down on the screen. They hadn’t realised how games had come along. We had games like Heavy Rain, Flower and things like that, and they were genuinely astounded.

They had a great time. It was a successful event, if only because everyone had a lot of fun, and that’s the message that we were trying to get across: games aren’t just for little kids any more. They can be for adults and adults can have fun playing them. I said to the committee before we started: “If one MP leaves here with a changed attitude to video games then we have been successful.” And loads of them did. We had loads of people come along and play some games, including Keith Vaz. He didn’t play any games, but he came along, said hello, saw what it was all about and spoke to a lot of industry representatives. So in our view it was a resounding success.

BeefJack: So, do you think attacks on video gaming from the likes of Keith Vaz stem from a basic lack of awareness? Or because it plays well with a certain political audience?

Paul Gibson: Yes, it would be easy to be cynical and say people like Mr. Vaz are playing the political game and are saying things in order to win votes. Having met him now, my view is somewhat changed – because he came along with an open mind. I think the reason why he did that was perhaps, in his own mind, he acknowledged that he didn’t realise quite what video games were all about.

Perhaps – and this is speculation – he was a little taken aback by the furore in the gaming community every time he said something that was anti-video games. He didn’t realise why everyone was so passionately against his statements. Fair play to the guy, he came along with his eyes open to see what it was all about. He’s one of the people who may have left with opinions slightly changed.

There is a lot of ignorance about video games. Not just by Members of Parliament, but across our entire society. That, in part, is what we’re all about: we want to change that perception.

BeefJack: Talking about across society: over the last year, if anything, the level of negative media coverage seems to have increased. There’s been the Alan Titchmarsh show, Liam Fox MP’s comments on Medal of Honor, the Panorama addiction special and then recently Fox news and their coverage of Bulletstorm. Do you feel like you’re hitting your head against a brick wall when you’re confronted with this series of inaccurate and alarmist pieces?

Paul Gibson: Yes, yes it does. It very much feels like we’re hitting our head against a brick wall at times – so much so that we’ve drafted items of rebuttal then had to sleep on it, and redo it the next day to calm ourselves down a little bit, because of the frustration we often feel.

There is of course the concern that the video game industry – in my view, undeservedly so – almost brings it upon itself by trying to push its boundaries. We do have games now that are becoming a little more gritty and very adult in lots of different ways. Unfortunately, the marketing departments of these developers and publishers are perhaps missing the target slightly.

A prime example of that recently is We Dare, the Wii and PS3 game with the rather inappropriate advert. I’ve not played the game, but I doubt the advert is a real reflection of the actual content. It’s got a PEGI rating of 12, the advert’s not done it any favours, and that drags the gaming industry back into the limelight in a negative fashion.

Yet, we have things like SpecialEffect and the fantastic things they’ve been doing recently. David Cameron was involved in that, yet, while they got some coverage, it was nowhere near as much as an unfortunately titled Wii game. So we do feel like we’re banging our head against a brick wall sometimes.

We do recognise, though, that it’s not going to be an overnight change. We can’t simply have one pressure group turn up and say this is the situation and everyone go “of course!”. We recognise it’s going to be small steps – a small change here and there – and we’re in it for the long haul. We’re not hoping for an overnight miracle; we are going to be frustrated for a long time yet.

But perceptions are changing. The gamers from the ‘80s are growing up. They recognise how games have developed and their children are growing up with video games as a part of life. Perceptions will change with time – it is something that will come.

BeefJack: Do you think the video games industry could respond more stridently to incidents such as the linking of Bulletstorm to sexual violence? Do you think they’re afraid to say “wait a minute, that’s just not on”?

Paul Gibson: Yes, it would be nice if they did. But at the same time, let’s recognise that the industry does have some difficult times ahead across the globe, and particularly in the UK. A lot of developers are now struggling and the costs of a AAA title are going higher and higher. Yes, it doesn’t cost much to make a rebuttal along those lines to negative publicity or crazy comments, but I don’t think they want to be seen to be wading in. They create a piece of art, they put it out there and let people draw their own conclusions.

Ultimately, they may be taking the position that any publicity is good publicity. It might be that they are being deliberately quiet and simply enjoying the fact that their game is being splashed across televisions around the world and the controversy surrounding it.

I don’t know the policy decisions that are behind things. It would be nice to see the industry come out every now and again and make a formal statement about a game in reply to the popular media. But it doesn’t happen very often. I think they’d be setting themselves up in the firing line, and they probably don’t want that.

BeefJack: As well as promoting a positive image of gaming, and in that sense being allied with the industry, Gamers’ Voice has also taken on the role of championing consumer rights which could lead you into opposition to them. Is that something that’s been a problem?

Paul Gibson: No problem as yet. From when we were first formed I recognise that we were quite quiet from the consumer point-of-view in the first year – the reason being that we’ve been out there building our contacts with the industry and explaining who we are. A lot of the representatives from some very large entities in the industry said to us “It’s a great idea, we fully support you and we’d like to help you out”. Regrettably, each and every time we’ve had to say to them that we don’t want their help. That’s not exactly true – we do want their help but we can’t accept it because we represent the gamer. We don’t represent them as an industry. We don’t want to conflict ourselves by accepting their assistance.

So, in terms of it being difficult, that difficulty has been in turning down the assistance that’s been offered to us.

In terms of the general campaign we have: developers have to act responsibly. If developers and publishers are releasing games which aren’t complete then how is that fair for the average gamer?

Obviously, you’re aware of our issue with Call of Duty: Black Ops. There’s been patches and patches recently, but we are still getting complaints. We are still getting people saying that the game isn’t working; that they can’t get online and that the game’s freezing. You wouldn’t put up with that with anything else. If you bought a DVD, put it in and three quarters of the way it crashed and you couldn’t watch the end of it you’d take it back. You’d take it back to the shop and say this is broken.

Yet, somehow, the industry has this perception that bugs are acceptable. Now, let’s be absolutely clear: we are not saying we want games that are absolutely bug-free – we’d love them – but we recognise that bugs do slip through the net, and developers have finite resources for their QA departments. But gamers themselves are not their beta testers. We don’t want to pay full whack for a video game that doesn’t work for the first six or seven months of its release. That’s not fair on the consumers and that’s what we’re standing up against.

BeefJack: Could you give us an indication of just how many complaints you received about Black Ops?

Paul Gibson: I honestly couldn’t – the reason being, there were so many we couldn’t count them. The majority of complaints went to our contact account, and we currently have well over a 1,000 emails in there. They’re not all related to Call of Duty: Black Ops. We do have other games that people have been commenting upon such as Fallout: New Vegas, and the console Sims 3 game is apparently atrociously buggy as well. We’re looking at those at the moment, but we only have finite resources. We can only deal with one aspect at a time, so we focused on Black Ops.

One thing that did surprise us – unnecessarily so, in hindsight – was where the emails were coming from. Gamers’ Voice is a UK based entity, but the emails we had were from all around the world. We had Australians, people from India and all across the European countries emailing us. All those people were emailing just to get across their messages of support and say thank you for at least trying to do something about this. They’ve bought a game then brought it home in anticipation. They’ve believed all the hype in the build-up to the release of one of the biggest games of last year, put it in their console and it doesn’t work.

So, that was great for us. It was fantastic we were getting all that support but it was also a shock. It shows that it was a global problem and that gamers could unite around this difficulty they were facing.

BeefJack: Do you think Activision’s recent image problems with gaming enthusiasts has contributed to a breakdown in communication? When Josh Olin (Treyarch Community Manager) replied to the concerns you were raising, he didn’t seem to “get” why people were complaining…

Paul Gibson: Yeah. If you look at the way the industry’s been changing over the last few years, there’s been a remarkable success for very small indie houses, and you have to assume that the reason they’ve been doing so well is that they’re true gamers. They’re in touch with what gamers want. They’re often frustrated with their current employers only looking at the bottom line so they break away, form their own studio and come out with some fantastic games.

It’s always a problem in any industry that you get so large that the left hand doesn’t talk to the right hand, and you ultimately produce an inferior product because of it. I think there is perhaps a degree of arrogance by the large firms. They’re saying: we will produce this game, build so much hype and produce so many copies that we can’t fail to succeed simply on the numbers alone.

It’ll be very interesting to see when the next Call of Duty comes out because there is a significant number of people who won’t be buying it on the basis of what has happened with Black Ops.

Beefjack: You submitted an open letter regarding Black Ops to the Office of Fair Trading back in January. Has there been any feedback from them about it?

Paul Gibson: We got an acknowledgement letter that they had received our complaint, that they were investigating it and would be in touch with us shortly. We have now received confirmation from them that they themselves won’t be taking it any further. However, what they are going to do is transfer it to the local Office of Trading Standards, as they believe it is probably more in their remit than the OFT’s own. We understand that that transfer has now taken place, that Trading Standards are looking at it and we’re looking forward to hearing from them very shortly.

BeefJack: In future, if people feel that a game they have bought is in an unfit state, what advice would you give them? What steps should they take about it?

Paul Gibson: Well, one of the things we are trying to get across to gamers is not to accept it. If a game you buy doesn’t work – and remember, it has got to be a fundamental flaw, not something like the flying horses in Red Dead Redemption, but freezing or being unable to get online because of an error by the publisher – then don’t accept it. Stop playing, take it back to the store and say “this game doesn’t work”. Expect and demand your money back.

One of the things we have to do is get the retailers onside with this, because they are effectively the front line. We as a gaming society are going to have to change this ourselves. If developers and publishers are going to continue to release games with game-breaking bugs then gamers are going to have to take a stand.

If you get a game that doesn’t work, take it back and say it doesn’t work. It’s not a problem with the disc, it’s the actual game. It’s incomplete and not fit for purpose. See what the retailers say. If they give you a full refund, let Gamers’ Voice know – we’re very interested to know which retailers are onside. And if they don’t, please let us know as well.

Any future game releases with game-breaking bugs: let us know – that’s what we’re here for. Our own procedure is to write the developer a closed letter asking them for an explanation and see what comes out of it. Ultimately if nothing comes of that, and we do receive a large volume of complaints, we will start taking further action.

BeefJack: It’s been an incredible first 17 months for Gamers’ Voice. What’s coming up in the rest of 2011?

Paul Gibson: We’re very aware that for the last few months we’ve been very – for want of a better word – negative, in terms of Activision and the complaints. So in the next few months we’ve got some positive campaigns coming along, where we’re actually going to be trying to change some people’s perception of video games for the better. I can’t say too much about them for the moment, because a few are still on the drawing board. They’re small things, not huge, but we’ll be explaining what we’re doing and why in due course.

Another thing we’re looking at this year is a formal membership scheme. It’s still on the drawing board, but we’re looking at creating an equivalent to the Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA) in America. They have a scheme where you pay a small subscription every year and get access to discounts from retailers and other such things. We’re looking at creating something similar for ourselves as we are getting most of our funding at the moment either from kind donations from the public or from our Insert Coin t-shirts, which are selling very well indeed. Insert Coin created a shirt for us, and all profits go towards Gamers’ Voice. We’re eternally in their debt for that.

As I said before, we can’t hope to change the perception of video games overnight, but lots of small steps will take us to our destination.

BeefJack: Thanks very much for talking to BeefJack, Paul.

Paul Gibson: It’s an absolute pleasure. We recognise that BeefJack is one of the few websites that have always supported us. From the very beginning you’ve done quite a few articles on us, and we’re very grateful to you and your readers for all the support we’ve had.