How about antisocializing fatassering aggroizer thingamajoobies.

Jeez, DVDs are "entertainment software."

Video games is fine.

I don't think a terminology change will hurt, and while it won't usher in an overnight sea-change, it's a perception-based thing which may help over the long run. Think of it from the non-gamer's perspective: GAMES are board games, card games, and kids games like hopscotch. Football, baseball, and basketball are all games, but we call THEM sports. Which side of the fence should we be on on? In the end, it doesn't change what the product is all about.

Well, at least I'm not the only one who thinks the current term became pointless once video games had stories. There should be multiple categories that they fall into instead of all being under one thing.

A mini-game for example, is a real game.
A full-blown game with a story, is an Interactive Story.

All we have to do is wait for the old curmudgeonly senators and representatives to retire/die. If you take into account that Super Mario Brothers (one of the first super huge home console games) came out in 1985, and the average senator age is 60, and further supposing that this hypothetical person started playing console games when he/she was 15-20, then we will start seeing a good portion of politicians who actually played video games for a significant portion of their life in 2025 or so.

The name of the industry is irrelevant. What needs to change is the public perception of the product that the industry is providing.

Yeah Entertainment Software could mean allot of things like DVDs or stuff on the computer. Maybe Interactive Entertainment Software, though that is long and still could mean other things, same with Interactive Software and the like. Though Video Games really may seem like it doesnt fit for lots of games with a full story but really what else works, and calling them all different things will get confusing.

This is a stupid and pointless semantic/political debate. "Entertainment software" is too broad a term anyway and we'll inevitably go straight back to calling video games "video games". But Scopique is right; outside of the hermetic video games niche, everybody else considers games to (also) be things like board games, card games, hopscotch and sports. Did anybody consider that maybe the problem isn't the outside world's perspective on video games, but the industry's perspective on itself, and that instead of considering itself "equal or better to movies" they should consider themselves alongside other types of games? (The3rdNuisance: there are plenty types of games other than video games that have stories to them) That they should embrace the term "video games" rather than shun it? Back in the 80s, like "sports" have their own category because of their athletic specificity, "video games" were so called because of their technological specificity (in contrast to say, "board" or "card" games). Did anything really change since then?

Lowenstein, you coward.

Trying to hide what we do behind semantics is not the way to get your industry accepted. It's merely a pacifier to make you feel better about what you do.

Here's a news flash - pretty much everyone plays games, or watches games. If this is somehow a problem, then it's because people are morons. Sinking to the level of morons doesn't improve you.

I'll say it proudly. I play video games. I like video games. I advocate for video games. And if anyone has a problem with it, it's their problem. Because video games aren't a problem at all in my life.

How about Interactive Software?

I'm with Wargazm, lets have a nice long discussion about this once all the old heads are dead. They still don't understand VCRs, can barely send an email, and have no clue what SMS is, how can they pass any reasonable judgement on the youth's passtimes?

Old People + Politics + Stagnation =
Idiotism!

These old bastards have to long of terms. They need to lower the age it takes to become a Senator or Rep.

If these people can't keep up with the change of society then they shouldn't have the power to change it to there own personal liking.

Stop it. I am tired of all this name change and political correctness and trying to make things sound better or more marketable. Who exactly is complaining about the name video games? Who are they to me? I play video games, and guess what, people play video games, board games, word games and so on. I forgot that when I shoot some guy in an interactive entertainment software title, it's really happening, not that it is a game and not meant as anything more than as a game.
Wait wait, what about professional sports. That name needs to change too. Professional...fan-based skill challenges.
Just stop it. I have never been looked at oddly when I say I play video games. If anything, I would hesitate to tell someone I am involved in interactive entertainment. That sounds creepy.

We have to cope with the idiocracy while they are in power. But perhaps one way to keep their noses out of our business is to market it differently. The nature of video games has changed substantially since Pong and perhaps the name doesn't fit the industry anymore. These folks are much more comfortable with terms like "sexual intercourse" as opposed to "bumping uglies".

What would be great is term limits on senators and representatives. Like 7 term max for the house (14 years) and 2 term max for senators (12 years).

Unfortunately, that will never happen, because the only people in government that could set term limits are, you guessed it, senators and representatives. Tell me, would you get a job and say "I'll only work here for 10 years, then you have to hire someone else", especially when that position is a cushy gov't job, and you're given POWER.

Term limits should have been built into the constitution. Oh well...

Does anyone else notice that "Entertainment Software" has a close association with the initials for the company he represents "ESA"?

Video games are just fine. Having some big wig endorse another name is not going to make people change.

Remember: ESA stands for "Entertainment Software Association". The guy might have a *slight* interest in making "entertainment software" a commonly-used term.

just call it "Gaming Software". wow. Is it really that hard to come up with a name?

I think a name change is a good idea and entertainment software would do just fine. I don't think this name is too broad and general like some say. I actually disagree with saying movie dvd's would also be put in this category. DVD's is a storage medium. While it is true the some movie dvd's do have have "software" on them most movie dvd's are decoded by seperate software or hardware to allow them to be seen. I guess it depends on how loosely you use the term software. I Like the defintion on wikipedia and based upon that defintion most movie dvd's would not be considered true software. And the ones that do have true software are programs that are more like "entertaiment software" (video games) anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software

This has been grating on my mind for quite some time. Everytime the word games came up during my meetings with my aunts and distant relatives it has been pronounced with a sort of insulting lilt to it. They know full and well that my main hobby is gaming and let me tell you this: Every word about the "terrible public face and political presence" is painfully true. Ugh!

The perception of gaming needs to take a change. People mention sports with a degree of respect to them compared to video games. Technology has increased so much that the mere word 'video games' just fails to describe the pastime well anymore. Granted it wont change overnight and to get the world to change how they call it takes time but we got to start somewhere. A name change might just help but it will be hard.

The whole problem is about the terrible public face. For starters WCG should be treated with as much respect as the Olympics. Some wider coverage about the event should help increase awareness about how serious entertainment software can get.

ESRB should be enforced much more seriously, like selling alcohol to only those with valid ID. Games which are clearly too violent to be played by minors should be kept under lock and sold to those with driving license as proof of age. This will add to how serious games should be treated. It will also make Jack Thompson happy (??)

All the big magazines such as Times and Reader's Digest should do articles that help the general public face of interactive software.I could go on about how other steps should be taken but u get the general idea. Games have to be taken more seriously.

Instead of changing the term, why dont we try to identify the the probem from its root? Atari founder Nolan Bushnell said it best: "Games got violent in the mid 1980s… that lost women. Then they got long-form and complex. That lost the casual gamer."

Nintendo seems to be the only company who understands this and is trying to bring games back into the mainstream where it doesnt matter what age or sex or skill level you are because everybody is a gamer. Nintendo has succeeded to quite an extent with the DS, and they plan on further expanding the market with the Wii.

@ JRM #17 you just missed the point. They are trying to get away from the word "game".

Video game suits it just fine to me. No matter what console you play, it must be hooked up to a video source (television, monitor, what have you) in order to see what the hell is going on...thus, VIDEO game.

Interactive entertainment or interactive entertainment software smacks of political correctness.

I can just see it now. Someone walks into a Best Buy and asks, "Where can I find the video games?" Only to get a scornful look on the pimple faced retail associate. The customer seeing their mistake replies, "Oh god, sorry. What do you people call it now? I didn't mean to offend you." To which the retail associate replies "You SHOULD have asked, 'Where is your interactive entertainment software', you prejudice dumbass!"

I mean…”Interactive entertainment software” is a frickin mouthful compared to just straight “video games.” Use KISS!

"video game" is okay when you're talking to your teen peers. When your 30-somehting non-gaming friends or in-laws ask you what you like to do in your spare time, saying "video games" makes them think of immature children's activities.

that's what non-gaming adults associate video games with because when their children were growing up, that what they played--video games. In the adults minds, little boys' and girls' simplistic beeping TV games are associated with video games, NOT grand epic cinematic stories that involve adult content.

"Video game" as a term needs to go, although I have no good suggestion for a replacement.

If anyone doubts the power of PR to change perception, consider the comment in 20: "Nintendo seems to be the only company who understands this and is trying to bring games back into the mainstream where it doesnt matter what age or sex or skill level you are because everybody is a gamer. Nintendo has succeeded to quite an extent with the DS, and they plan on further expanding the market with the Wii."

That could come directly from Nintendo, but it's being parroted by someone who, presumably, has no vested interest in Nintendo's success or failure.

So, switching from videogames to something slightly more serious could cause a change in perception with people, if it's used universally. And for all of you people calling this "political correctness," come on. This has everything to do with getting the government off the back of the industry.

A "videogame" does sound like something kids play, so when you see an M-rated videogame, there's a disconnect. Will that eventually change? Maybe. But despite all claims otherwise, there will likely always be more non-gamers than gamers.

Comic books have never been able to rise out of the ghetto with most people, though they've tried with a change in their name to "Graphic Novel" for their more serious works. Do people see a distinction between the two? Do you have different expectations for the content of a "comic book" and a "graphic novel?" This stuff works.

Comparing videogames to soccer, baseball, etc. is goofy, because those have evolved away from games to sports. "Playing sports" does sound more serious than just "playing a game."

So, fine. If we want to call them "video entertainment" or "interactive software entertainment" or some other variant, that's groovy. It's the mainstream press that will use the new terms; everyone else will still call them videogames.

At Central Connecticut state university, I have been creating a game studio/club on campus, using my own beauracratic terminology for it: Interactive Electronic Entertainment.

People generally take football games, basketball games, etc. fairly seriously, and they're called "games."

Of course, anything involving people playing a game for their own or spectator amusement should only be taken so seriously in the first place.

Steve FTW.

Way to use the graphic novel example. That is exactly what we are dealing with here. When someone uses the term "graphic novel" we instantly understand that the content is most likely more mature in nature and substantially greater in length. But in essence it is a glorified version of a comic book. It may certainly only be a name change, but the impact can be a positive change.

Changing "whores" to "escorts" didn't exactly give the prostitution industry a squeaky clean image.

If they changed the name to "entertainment software" would that make me an entertainment software player?

...I think I'll keep myself as a gemer for now.

"Comic book" to "graphic novel" is the same kind of semantic bull. Whether you have a Batman "comic book" or Batman "graphic novel", it's still Batman and it appeals to a limited audience. Likewise, whether Gears of War is a "video game" or "entertainment software", it's still Gears of War and it still features cutting monsters up with a chainsaw in a gush of blood and guts. And this is the flagship, most publicized, best reviewed product coming out of the industry at the time of the year it gets the most exposure. Is it at all surprising the industry has an image problem?

It worked for comics and graphic novels. Old people say graphic novels, young people say comics. There is a place for both.

"Of course, anything involving people playing a game for their own or spectator amusement should only be taken so seriously in the first place."

Except that game theory is the foundation for all world trade and much of our economy. (For better or worse, it's also the reason why some countries do better in trade negotiations than others - developing countries often don't have economists as well versed in game theory as those in developed countries.)

I'm sure guys like John Nash - who won the Nobel Prize for his contributions to game theory - would love to hear about how games should "only be taken so seriously".

This ESA dude is an idiot.

"Changing "whores" to "escorts" didn't exactly give the prostitution industry a squeaky clean image."

No, it didn't. But I'm pretty sure "playing games" and "fucking people for money" aren't moral equivalents for most people.

""Comic book" to "graphic novel" is the same kind of semantic bull. Whether you have a Batman "comic book" or Batman "graphic novel", it's still Batman and it appeals to a limited audience."

Of course it's semantic bull. But it works.

I'm talking way outside of my area of interest, but as far as I can tell, "graphic novels" like Maus and The Dark Knight Returns have more artistic credibility with people outside of the target audience because they're not called comics and inherently associated with Archie, or some cheeseball superhero thing with day-glo spandex and big-titted women.

Do you see those elements in graphic novels too? Probably (I honestly don't know, as I don't follow comics at all). But you probably wouldn't see people trying to ban graphic novels if you put Maus in front of them; comics, on the other hand, were under the exact same scrutiny in the 1950s games are facing today. If they'd had more artistic credibility in those days, and been perceived as something more than kids stuff, those hearings likely aren't held.

"Likewise, whether Gears of War is a "video game" or "entertainment software", it's still Gears of War and it still features cutting monsters up with a chainsaw in a gush of blood and guts."

And the biggest movie right now features a guy who wrestles a fat guy naked, hands his feces to a woman at dinner, and tries to put Pamela Anderson in a bag in order to marry her. Yet, movies don't have the same stigma as games because they have artistic credibility.

Will a mere name change accomplish this for videogames? Nope. But it isn't a terrible place to start.

To those who think this is stupid, do you really view something like Shadow of the Colossus or Psychonauts as a mere videogame, just like Tetris or Super Monkey Ball?

The game companies just don't make enough to hire lobbyists so you can get that right out of your head. You guys must have no idea of how much oil companies spend on politicians and lobbyists. How do you think companies like Haliburton and Exxon get to send us to war and write legislature.

As for the name of the game. I've been calling them video games all my life; I never even thought it could be holding them back. What else do you call it? The suggestions are a bit too much like euphemisms which I don't think we need to start laying on video games just yet. It's bad enough we have them for things like Shell Shock; which is what it should still be called.

Do you think 'quiescent athletics' is too pretentious? How about 'passive simulative actions divertissements'; now THAT's pretentious. They aren't going to find anything that sticks better. I bet my grandkids are going to call them video games as well.

"The game companies just don't make enough to hire lobbyists so you can get that right out of your head."

Microsoft is the most profitable company in the world.

Everytime this topic is brought up, I'd usually admonish the thought because "video games" is a nearly perfect descriptor and it's really people's attitudes that needs to change. However, it's pretty obvious how hard it is to change public perception and often stupid little trick like a minor name change is the best means to do so. Marketers, brand managers, and politicians all know this quite well.

It's also a bit hypocritical since now if any female ever asks what industry I work in, I'll usually respond "entertainment software" or something to that effect in an attempt to hide the fact that I do work with video games. If a girl finds that out, you're getting nowhere (as my sister even jokes, my job is "girl repellant")...so sadly, manipulating perception is often easier than getting people to just realize the truth.

its to late to change the name.

e.g. you couldnt rename the ipod

Steve, you bring up good points but let me nitpick your arguments. The "comic book" stigma is something that's pretty much characteristic to the American industry, largely centered around superheroes. The France and Belgium "bande dessinee" is a respected literary form, and its range of styles and subject matters is much more diverse than the US output. There are very few Maus out there in the US; and most of these books are underground or largely unknown to the general public or the general media, Maus, of course being an exception.

The movie you describe may sit atop of this week's box office charts, but it most likely won't win the Oscar for best picture. While Gears of War can pretty much already be declared Game of the Year for all video game publications. And to answer your question : "do you really view something like Shadow of the Colossus or Psychonauts as a mere videogame, just like Tetris or Super Monkey Ball?" No, not as "mere" video games, but yes, as video games, just like Scrabble, Diplomacy or Snakes & Ladders are all equal as board games to me, or how card games are "card games" and not "entertainment paper".

What I'm suggesting is that the problem isn't in the name, because what's in a name? The problem is that video games, like comic books, are a subculture, limiting themselves to a particular audience. Everyone needs some recreation, and the way to convince the outside world to give video games a shot for pleasure is not to offer the same product with a vaguer name, it's by offering a varied range of product that targets a varied range of preferences. And make sure everyone knows about all the choice that's out there, and stop frowning on games made for other audiences than the hardcore because it's not cool or something. The video games industry has an image problem because the video games industry has an attitude problem.

Francois,

"What I'm suggesting is that the problem isn't in the name, because what's in a name? The problem is that video games, like comic books, are a subculture, limiting themselves to a particular audience. Everyone needs some recreation, and the way to convince the outside world to give video games a shot for pleasure is not to offer the same product with a vaguer name, it's by offering a varied range of product that targets a varied range of preferences. And make sure everyone knows about all the choice that's out there, and stop frowning on games made for other audiences than the hardcore because it's not cool or something. The video games industry has an image problem because the video games industry has an attitude problem."

Thank you. I agree. See my #20 comment.

I'm taking this class right now that doesn't deal with video games, but instead has three parts: Photoshop,InDesign, and Dreamweaver. It's called "Fundamentals of Interactive Media." So yes, that term could apply to things such as the web. But I think it's a perfect new term for video games. Interactive Media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_media
While I do usually have a problem with euphemisims, the term "games" just like other people have noted, isn't taken that seriously. Something like Interactive Media, allows video games to be compared to television, films, and the internet.

"The movie you describe may sit atop of this week's box office charts, but it most likely won't win the Oscar for best picture. While Gears of War can pretty much already be declared Game of the Year for all video game publications."

This is true, and largely a failing of both the Academy for dismissing comedy (not that Borat would likely be best picture, but let's assume it is the best movie of the year; it is the best reviewed thus far, however) and the lack of critical thinking in the game press.

Gears of War is great spectacle, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say we won't be thinking much about it next year because its appeal is largely visceral. Someone will do better spectacle and it will be forgotten. Is it better than Oblivion or Dead Rising (which has similar levels of spectacle)? It'll have the huge advantage of releasing later in the year, though.

"No, not as "mere" video games, but yes, as video games, just like Scrabble, Diplomacy or Snakes & Ladders are all equal as board games to me, or how card games are "card games" and not "entertainment paper"."

But do you consider Snakes and Ladders the same as Carsoconne or Advanced Squad Leader or Ticket to Ride? Though they all fall under the "board game" umbrella, there are definite differences that might be useful to separate if we were talking about board games including more "adult" content (as opposed to merely being more appealing for adults).

And that's ultimately the problem here. It's not simply that videogames is too broad a term to cover both simple games like Tetris and ones with complex themes, storylines, etc. It's that by lumping "kids" stuff in with "adult" stuff, it's harder to convince a non-fan that they aren't the same thing.

"The problem is that video games, like comic books, are a subculture, limiting themselves to a particular audience."

You see this as a problem, and maybe the industry does. But it's not a niche product like comics. It's a multi-billion dollar a year industry, with powerful giant media companies producing content for it. I find it hard to believe that it so desperately needs to expand its audience to survive.

"Everyone needs some recreation,"

Sure. But I'm not convinced everyone needs to play videogames. I've yet to see any "art" form get better when more people become casual fans. Since there will end up being more casual fans than hardcore ones, you'll see more product tailored to those people. While I love Zuma or Bookworm, I don't want every game to be like that.

"The video games industry has an image problem because the video games industry has an attitude problem."

That I agree with 100%. It needs to move out of the comic book world it currently inhabits. But not to reach different people (though it may very well do that), but to better realize its potential.

"Entertainment Software" sounds like such a euphamism -- like you are trying not to say something rude. It sounds like hentai or something pervvy.

Movies aren't really supposed to eb called Movies. they are actually called Teleplays, Motion Pictures or Films. A Teleplay is what we tend to watch.However in the 20's roughly 20 years after the first film. The slang for the words Moving Pictures or Movies became the norm. It sounds less technical than the other names and much more common.

I think the point this guy is getting at though he thinks the term "Video Games" does a poor job of letting people who are not technophiles feel welcome. Many sites with smaller games use the term Flash Games as more people will click on it.

steve,

"And that's ultimately the problem here. It's not simply that videogames is too broad a term to cover both simple games like Tetris and ones with complex themes, storylines, etc. It's that by lumping "kids" stuff in with "adult" stuff, it's harder to convince a non-fan that they aren't the same thing."

Well if you look at music and movies, each entertainment medium has kiddie content as well as adult content. Each medium has casual and hardcore content. All this content is lumped under "music" and "movies" yet its still all mainstream. If the music and movie industries were able to become mainstream, the video game industry should be able to as well. I think the problem lies else where, as I mentioned in my #20 comment. If you apply the problem I identified with the video game industry in my previous post and apply it the music and movie industries, perhaps thats the reason these industries were able to convince everyone and thus gain mainstream appeal.

"I've yet to see any "art" form get better when more people become casual fans."

An art form's worth and value can only be determined by the individual because its a subjective preference. A particular hardcore gamer may not like a casual game such as Nintendogs but that doesnt mean Nintendogs is any less worthy to casual gamers who enjoy virtual pet games.

"Since there will end up being more casual fans than hardcore ones, you'll see more product tailored to those people. While I love Zuma or Bookworm, I don't want every game to be like that."

I sometimes worry about this myself. A day might come when I dont see as many FPS games, if any at all, from a particular developer because its publisher reasoned its more profitable to focus on casual games. I can just hope it doesnt turn out this way.

On a side note, I'm up for discussions as long as the arguements involve constructive criticisms(I'm not implying that you arent).

"A full-blown game with a story, is an Interactive Story."

There's nothing interactive about the stories in the vast majority of "full-blown games with a story". Presenting them as "Interactive Stories" would be absurd. (Besides, "Interactive Fiction" is already a euphemism for text-based adventure games.)

Francois, you're just a few words away from quoting Shakespeare, so I'll just carry your thoughts out to their logical, quoted, conclusion: a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

The funny thing about rebranding comics as "graphic novels" is that for the most part, it doesn't work. Graphic novels are still considered comics, and any time I ever use the phrase, I end up having to explain it until the other party goes "Ah. Comics."

Besides, graphic novels are usually collections of comics that have been rereleased. So I always think "graphic novels" is just a shorter way of saying "reprinted comics collections".

The sad thing is, though, that the ESA is just wasting their efforts. I have a question for those who applaud the move. What would be better - if the ESA pushes to get "entertainment software" to replace the term "video game," or they spend that time and effort using video games to positive ends?

You know what kind of things removes stigma from video gaming?

Using video games to help sick kids, a la Get Well Gamers.

Using video games to help education, like Civilization.

Using video games to help kids get in shape, like DDR.

Helping adults maintain their mental sharpness, like Brain Age.

Encouraging social interaction, like World of Warcraft or Second Life.

Start bragging about those kinds of things. Start encouraging more of those things. That's what will get video gaming accepted by the world at large, not a stupid attempt at changing a name that's about 35 years old.

"Well if you look at music and movies, each entertainment medium has kiddie content as well as adult content."

Music, in general, has such a long history that goes back hundreds of years, so it's harder to compare to games in any meaningful way.

But rock n' roll only had artistic credibility when the Beatles hit, and it still doesn't in some circles. (Rap definitely doesn't, except with its fans.) Movies took a long time to be taken seriously.

Both have been attacked for making little Billy turn into a murderer or pervert; however, both had also reached such a mature level that there was plenty of "art" to say, "See, it's not just this 2 Live Crew crap." Condemn the Crew, you lose the Beatles too.

Since the game industry is even younger than the film and music biz, it's having a harder time having a body of work that says, "See, this is what we can do." And games aren't easily experienced by non-gamers; you can listen to a complex pop song by the Beatles (which were way beyond what anyone else considered possible in the 60s), or watch Midnight Cowboy (only X-rated movie to win "Best Picture") and see the artistry. But how can we expect someone to play through Shadow of the Colossus?

So, I think re-categorizing some games as something else makes some logical sense to distance itself from true "game-y" games, even if I don't believe it'll have that much of an impact.

"Interactive Media"

or

"IntMedia" for short.

That is all.

Does anyone else remember the phrase "interactive movie" that was banded about a few years ago, during the advent of CD-ROM gaming? Does anyone remember the games that got produced?

7th Guest. Under A Killing Moon. Wing Commander III. Stuff like that. WC3 was okay, when you finally got to play, but the cinema got in the way of the gameplay. Game companies forgot what it was they were meant to be doing and split up movies with mini-games.

Maybe it'll be better this time around. I mean, for all the cynicism displayed above, "graphic novels" do perform better than "comic books": The Sandman has won literary awards, and Maus won a Pullitzer Prize. Maybe we have use both phrases (games and interactive entertainment) to describe different facets of gaming. Serious and non-serious.

Doubt it, though. As long as developers keep pushing out "mature" games relying on gore and breasts that defy all laws of nature (DOA, I'm looking at you), it doesn't matter what we call this hobby of ours.

Y'know, I'm suddenly reminded of the video game crash of 1983. In order to penetrate and reinvigorate the American market, Nintendo named their new console an "entertainment system". Actually, come to think of it they're doing the same thing with the Wii and DS now...

Whatever, maybe entertainment software wouldn't be such a bad idea.