1 Ethics Essay Antony Robinson Could the Royal Academy of Engineering’s ethical principles be used to improv e standards of practice in commercial markets such as computer/video gaming? Word count approx. 2200 excluding quotes and referencing Introduction - The gaming industry is the fastest growing digital market worldwide , generating larger revenues than the film, music and television industries ( Statista 2018, Statista) . This means gaming is no longer a sub - culture that can be side - lined, ignored or deemed to be the realm of ‘basement dwelling nerds’ as has been popularised in mainstream media as a stereotypical representation of those who game frequently ( Griffiths, M.D., Davies, M.N. and Chappell, D., 2003. pp.81 - 91) . The explosion in availability of elec tronic devices capable of running gaming software in the last two decades has made gaming accessible to all demographics, which is evidenced by the meteoric rise of mobile gaming breaking up the monopoly of computer and console gaming. Anyone anywhere who owns a mobile device now has access to thousands upon thousands of games of varying complexity and quality ( De Prato, G., Feijóo, C. and Simon, J.P., 2014. pp.17 - 38. ). Once, the creation of a video game was the remit of multi - million dollar electronics co mpanies, the likes of Atari and later Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft a s the time and resources required to construct such a complex piece of compu ter and software engineering were extremely costly and time consuming ( Zackariasson, P. and Wilson, T.L. eds., 2012 Routledge. ). As time has passed and electronics and computing and software packages have improved and become far cheaper and accessible to more people, smaller and smaller companies or even sometimes a very small group or even an individual can put o ut a product that surpasses even the most cutting edge game that could be produced just 20 years prior ( Westecott, E., 2013. pp.78 - 91 ) . This accessibility has led to the gaming market becoming saturated with countless options, individuals competing with me ga corporations for consumer capital and attention, oft times on an equal footing. Platforms like Valves’s Steam and Apple’s App Store have provided the opportunity to reach millions of potential customers with little to no marketing , leading to an ultra - c ompetitive marketplace with so many opposing parties , it is hard to identify another industry where such comparable practice exists ( Thomes, T.P., 2015.pp.46 - 57 ). This competition has led to companies that rely on income from games sales to identify alter native revenue streams , such as microtransactions and gambling mechanics , to squeeze extra money from consumers. The most notable example of this is EA Sports’ FIFA Ultimate Team which generates huge revenue , but has recently been at the forefront of controversy over its predatory design, intended to take advantage of the addiction tendencies of human psychology , in an attempt to extract maximum profit from minimal output ( Li, W., Mills, D. 2 and Nower, L., 2019 pp.27 - 34. ). Thus making it a far more efficient method of business than genuine game creation and design. For the first time governments took interest in the potential harm of such practices and enforced change, bringing their legal might to bare on thes e huge corporations and after prolonged and scathing media coverage, crafted legislation specifically aimed at tackling the dangerous nature of gambling and loot box mechanics ( Hong, E., 2019. p.61. ). These design choices are both a symptom and a cause of a larger problem in gaming however and that is the declining nature of game quality The increasingly crowded nature of the gaming marketplace is making a costly, long - term and high quality project a less attractive prospect , as it will not generate the re venue it would have previously ( Borg, M. et al. 2019 pp.246 - 259 ). This has led to a slow decline in the quality of games upon release over the past decade as companies strive to produce content in the shortest time scale possible, culminating in the most high profile of these products yet, ‘ CyberPunk 2077 ’ . One of the most highly anticipated releases of the past decade, but one which was knowingly released in such a poor condition that the company responsible, CD Projekt Red offered refunds to every person who purchased a copy of the game ( Cote, A.C. and Harris, B.C., 2021. pp.161 - 176. ) . The lack of legislation governing this market sector has allowed the quality of product to decline to this point, a situation that has been an inevitability due to market p ressure. A side effect of this is ‘the crunch’, the closing stages of a project where the product must be made functional enough to avoid this backlash. The ethics of which are highly questionable as employees may be driven to working in excess of 80 hour work weeks for several months at a time, resulting in sloppy rushed poor quality work driven by investor pressure ( Cote, A.C. and Harris, B.C., 2021. New Media & Society ). Lack of any clear legislation or governance has in some ways led to a race of the bottom of sorts in the gaming industry , where companies have for the past several years pushed out games with less and less polish and function to see how far they can reduce the quality of product while still charging customers as much as possible. This h as led to some serious business malpractice wherein gaming companies actively market a false product showing a better version of a game , then releasing what is essentially entirely different code ( Zackariasson, P. and Wilson, T.L., 2012. pp.57 - 75. ) . In any other engineering sector this would immediately be picked up on. Software engineering is more difficult to judge however, not only that , but interpretation of what a game is and can be is subjective , effectively allowing any discontent or unhappiness with a product to be deflected or rejected by hiding behind the guise of creative freedom. In situations where this defence is ropey at best , companies will often promise to continue working on and improving a game post release with software updates, this only allows them to get away with shoddier and shoddier releases as it gives them a crutch to lean on ( Mertens, J., 2021. Games and Culture ) . This practice has led to another of the excuses for an unfinished product, the long term or perhaps even permanent beta. Previously a beta was exactly that, the testing and polish phase for a game before the full release, sometimes this may have been public in order to quickly gather vast amounts of data and identify problems more efficiently ( Ramadan, R. and Widyani, Y., 2013 pp. 95 - 100 .). Now however, games are being introduced as betas, an incomplete product, but one a consumer is charged to experience nonetheless . Now you have paid for an unfinished product but have essentially waived your right to complain about a ny issues , providing gaming 3 companies with what amount to no less than a get out of jail free card ( Mullen, M., 2021. pp. 23 - 43 ). Now you don’t even have to create a product, you just design it partially and start chargin g for it. This has spurred a wave of spurious business practice wherein an organisation or individual will float an idea or partial code , collect consumer capital before cashing out and drop ping the project ( Mullen, M., 2021. pp. 23 - 43 ) It is this multit ude of reasons that a thorough investigation and report into the standards of practice in the commercial gaming sector is required at a government level, as well as leveraging the insight and codes of practice of bodies such as the Royal Academy of Enginee ring and its equivalents around the world. Literature Review - In order to clearly and objectively analyse this question , it is important to make a distinction between artistic quality (that of design choice and execution) against that of mechanical quality and functionality (how a game performs against its stated or claimed and marketed functions). For example, poor graphical quality compared to that of the highest rated games available is not poor ethical practice. T o claim they were however , only for the final product to blatantly fall short of this claim should be considered to be unethical, anti - consumerist at best, and deliberately in breach of consumer trust and interest s as well as possibly in breach of advertising and consumer protecti on laws at worst “ The Consumer Act 2015 ” covers consumer rights regarding digital products under U.K. law and it states: “ 34 Digital content to be of satisfactory quality (1)Every contract to supply digital content is to be treated as including a term tha t the quality of the digital content is satisfactory. (2)The quality of digital content is satisfactory if it meets the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of — (a)any description of the digital content, (b)the price mentioned in section 33 (1) or (2)(b) (if relevant), and (c)all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5) ). (3)The quality of digital content includes its state and condition; and the following aspects (a mong others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of digital content — (a)fitness for all the purposes for which digital content of that kind is usually supplied; (b)freedom from minor defects; (c)safety; (d)durability. 4 (4)The term mentioned in subsection (1) does not cover anything which makes the quality of t he digital content unsatisfactory — (a)which is specifically drawn to the consumer’s attention before the contract is made, (b)where the consumer examines the digital content before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or (c)where t he consumer examines a trial version before the contract is made, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the trial version. (5)The relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2) (c) include any public statement about the specific characteristics of the digital content made by the trader, the prod ucer or any representative of the trader or the producer. (6)That includes, in particular, any public statement made in advertising or labelling. (7)But a public statement is not a relevant circumstance for the purposes of subsection (2) (c) if the trader shows that — (a)when the contract was made, the trader was not, and c ould not reasonably have been, aware of the statement, (b)before the contract was made, the statement had been publicly withdrawn or, to the extent that it contained anything which was incorrect or misleading, it had been publicly corrected, or (c)the cons umer’s decision to contract for the digital content could not have been influenced by the statement. (8)In a contract to supply digital content a term about the quality of the digital content may be treated as included as a matter of custom. ” and: “ 36 Digital content to be as described (1)Every contract to supply digital content is to be treated as including a term that the digital content will match any description of it given by the trader to the consumer. (2)Where the consumer examines a trial versio n before the contract is made, it is not sufficient that the digital content matches (or is better than) the trial version if the digital content does not also match any description of it given by the trader to the consumer. (3)Any information that is prov ided by the trader about the digital content that is information mentioned in paragraph (a), (j) or (k) of Schedule 1 or paragraph (a), (v) or (w) of Schedule 2 (main characteristics, functionality and compatibility) to the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 ( SI 2013/3134 ) is to be treated as included as a term of the contract. (4)A change to any of that informa tion, made before entering into the contract or later, is not effective unless expressly agreed between the consumer and the trader. 5 (5)See section 42 for a consumer’s rights if the trader is in breach of a term that this section requires to be treated as included in a contract. ” From this it can be seen some consideration has been given to consumer interest with regards to digital product protection. There are however, numerous examples of poor products and anti - consumer practices within the industry. The majority of literature focuses on the ethical business practice of free - to - play and pay - to - win game mechanics that have accompanied the rise of mobile gaming Heimo, O.I. et al. 2018. pp.95 - 103. states “ if an individual wishes to follow the Aristotelian v irtue ethics code in order to develop the virtues inherent in his or her own character (as in the personal character of the developer, not a character in the game), how he or she chooses to try and generate revenue from the fruits of his or her labour is n ot irrelevant. Moreover, we argue that some of these methods are in fact vices, which are damaging to the character of the developer, and should therefore be avoided. ” This is in reference to the predatory nature of microtransactions and in game mechanics that aim to emulate casino like atmospheres, with colourful and attractive visuals accompanied by enticing sounds that encourage repetitive purchases and are known to target children and those with addictive personalities, or so called ‘whales’. Consumers who spend huge sums of money on virtual in game items or currency with no real life value. This aspect of game development has been addressed by mainstream media in recent years leading to greater accountability and recognition of such practices allowing f or greater consumer protection. The more evasive issue of declining game release quality, reliance on post release updates, hidden manipulation of in game systems subconsciously encouraging subsequent purchases (akin to Apple’s recently revealed manipulati on of battery performance in Iphones) and exploitation of beta and early access labelling is still a bubbling undercurrent, spoken about only in forums and on niche YouTube channels but not yet breaking into the realm of mainstream media. Mullen, M., 2021. pp. 23 - 43 states “ The concept of Early Access, an approach to game development and funding, promised to free developers from the tyranny of large publishers and encourage innovation by small, independent design teams. However, the Early Access marketplac e is now littered with buggy, incomplete, or abandoned games and a slew of broken promises that have sometimes risen to the level of fraud. While the Early Access market relies on a disturbing mutation in late - stage capitalism whereby workers are now asked to pay for the privilege of being employed by a company, the practice can also be used as a lens to examine a cultural fetishization of technology - abetted, open - ended possibility. ” While the current state of the gaming industry from an ethical and princip led standpoint is perfectly encapsulated by Cecilia D’Anastasio 2018 , Kotaku Ethical Analysis - Applying the Royal Academy of Engineering’s ethical principles to the identified literature exposes a clear deficiency in ethical consideration within the gaming industry. Manufacturers are not working in either the interests of their employees or 6 consumers , serving only to increase revenue regardless of the knock - on effects on all stakeholders, bar investors with the power to influence workflow. The video g ame industry has a code of ethics; set by the International Game Developers Association ( igda, core values & code of ethics) They are only adhered to by a minority in the industry. Honesty and integrity has fallen by the wayside in preference of capital , as has respect for the wellbeing of workers and the public who are seen only as opportunities. Accuracy and rigour are irrelevant provided products fly under the radar of the media, reviewers of course receive compensation for their cooperation. At least d iversity and equality has crept into the industry following years of scandals but that is another topic entirely that requires its own due consideration Utilitarianism and duty ethics do not really apply to gaming due to the lack of safety concerns involv ed with the industry. Virtuous ethics are most pertinent with the accusation of virtue signalling rife within the industry, it’s not hard to see why. Being so profit driven, virtuosity is only beneficial when it prevents loss of revenue, given this select application of virtue it is very easy to see through and as is evident by employee testimony rights ethics are being ignored in favour of project completion at all costs. This has led to a succession of whistleblowing events regarding working conditions wi thin games studios. Conclusion - In lieu of direct governance, the gaming industry has become an unprincipled vessel for greed and self - service, lacking any ethics beyond those which are necessary to avoid media outcry and protect the bottom line. Unfortunately, t here is difficulty in applying current legislation, as unlike apps or operating software, games do not have clear objectives to deliver This mak es contention of any of sections of The Consumer Act 2015 subject to a wide array of interpreta tion. This is part of the reason little action is possible currently against poor quality products, as without patently obvious issues such as constant system crashes i.e. ‘CyberPunk 2077’ (upon release), it is extremely difficult to prove a product is uns atisfactory against the backdrop of creative freedom. Furthermore, proving a product is not as advertised would require copies of all promotional material, the finished product, trials or demos and all associated code in full, to be cross examined for disc repancies. This would require an expert or panel of experts in the field of game design and development to review all evidence and provide a recommendation against any claimants. Video games occupy a unique position as complex engineering products that exi st purely for leisure and entertainment purposes, but where the malfunction or outright failure of said product poses zero threat to safety. This factor combined with widespread inaccurate preconceptions that gaming is the pastime of children and unproduct ive members of society has allowed the industry to largely fly under the radar of regulatory bodies. Targeted laws that could potentially impinge on freedom of expression and human creativity are controversial and if improperly applied can be extremely dam aging to a society, clearly a 7 solution to these issues is required however. A more achievable proposal moving forward would be the formation of an accreditation body specifically for game s or ma nufacturers and publishers. A body that would assess individua l games or companies that apply for recognition and set industry standards . Their certificate could then be added to a product release as a sign of quality , raising the expected standards of video game quality . Accreditation co uld be made mandatory for com panies employing greater than 100 people or with revenue in excess of £1m but remain voluntary for those parties that do not meet these requirements. This would ensure industry standards without excluding the indie game and start - up sector providing a rout e into the gaming industry whilst maintain ing competition and consumer interests. The introduction of accreditation bodies in other sectors has improved standards and increased quality and productivity ( Prados, J.W., Peterson, G.D. and Lattuca, L.R., 2005. pp.165 - 184 ). Bibliography: Statista 2018, Value of the global video games market from 2012 to 2021 , Statista, viewed May 2021, <https://www.statista.com/statistics/246888/value - of - the - global - video - game - market/>. Griffiths, M.D., Davies, M.N. and Chappe ll, D., 2003. Breaking the stereotype: The case of online gaming. CyberPsychology & behavior , 6 (1), pp.81 - 91. De Prato, G., Feijóo, C. and Simon, J.P., 2014. Innovations in the video game industry: Changing global markets. Communications & strategies , 94 (2), pp.17 - 38. Zackariasson, P. and Wilson, T.L. eds., 2012. The video game industry: Formation, present state, and future . Routledge. Westecott, E., 2013. Independent game development as craft. Loading... The Journal of the Canadian Game Studies Association , 7 (11), pp.78 - 91. Thomes, T.P., 2015. In - house publishing and competition in the video game industry. Information Economics and Policy , 32 , pp.46 - 57. Li, W., Mills, D. and Nower, L., 2019. The relationship of loot box purchases to problem video gaming and problem gambling. Addictive behaviours , 97 , pp.27 - 34. Hong, E., 2019. Loot boxes: Gambling for the next generation. W. St. UL Rev. , 46 , p.61. Borg, M., Garousi, V., Mahmoud, A., Olsson, T. and Stålberg, O., 2019. Video game development in a rush: A survey of the global game jam participants. IEEE Transactions on Games , 12 (3), pp.246 - 259. 8 Cote, A.C. and Harris, B.C., 2021. ‘Weekends became something other people did’: Understanding and intervening in the habitus of video game crunch. Convergence , 27 (1), pp. 161 - 176. Cote, A.C. and Harris, B.C., 2021. The cruel optimism of “good crunch”: How game industry discourses perpetuate unsustainable labor practices. New Media & Society , Zackariasson, P. and Wilson, T.L., 2012. Marketing of video games. The video game i ndustry: Formation, present state, and future , pp.57 - 75. Mertens, J., 2021. Broken Games and the Perpetual Update Culture: Revising Failure With Ubisoft’s Assassin’s Creed Unity. Games and Culture , p.15554120211017044. Ramadan, R. and Widyani, Y., 2013, Se ptember. Game development life cycle guidelines. In 2013 International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS) (pp. 95 - 100). IEEE. Mullen, M., 2021. Crash and Burn. In The Ethics of Playing, Researching, and Teaching Games in the Writing Classroom (pp. 23 - 43). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. Heimo, O.I., Harviainen, J.T., Kimppa, K.K. and Mäkilä, T., 2018. Virtual to virtuous money: A virtue ethics perspective on video game business logic. Journal of Business Ethics , 153 (1), pp.9 5 - 103. Cecilia D’Anastasio 2018, Early Access Means Nothing Anymore , Kotaku, viewed May 2021, <https://kotaku.com/early - access - means - nothing - anymore - 1830026799>. igda, core values & code of ethics , idga, viewed May 2021, <https://igda.org/about - us/core - values - and - code - of - ethics/>. Prados, J.W., Peterson, G.D. and Lattuca, L.R., 2005. Quality assurance of engineering education through accreditation: The impact of Engineering Criteria 2000 and its global influence. Journal of Engineering Education , 94 (1), pp.165 - 184.