Bad Policy Letters Hurt Us
Ilkka Paananen’s recent open letter opposing the EU's proposed game monetization regulations was meant to defend the games industry. Instead, it leaves me with more questions about what the "campaign" amounts to. As someone in the game industry, I very much care about the industry's bottom line and its ability to use every design tool at its behest. To effectively move the needle, you need to influence policymakers, and Ilkka Paananen has built up a local Finnish profile by touting Supercell's massive tax payments and commenting on topics like immigration policy. Instead of blasting the local papers, the Financial Times, or even his own Twitter (!!!), he chooses LinkedIn to deliver the message?
Not only were there no co-signers, but more than two weeks after its release, no major CEO has come out and supported it. You're telling me Ilkka couldn't call any of his European friends on speed dial and get them to sign something? Not even someone like Mark Pincus who while not in the EU, could at least lend a voice to this? And where is Tim Sweeney? He spends all day on Twitter bitching about monopolies, but can't be bothered to spend a single tweet on the issue? As recently as Oct 11., he tweeted, "Want freedom to compete? Do business in Europe." I get he wants EU regulatory action against Apple and Google, but leaving your own industry by the wayside is something else.
The content of the letter wasn't particularly inspiring either. Why in God's name are we getting into analogies with theme parks and families of four in a policy letter? The goal is short and sweet: “jobs and coming to the table to find reasonable solutions that encourage European growth, employment, and political power.” Cooperation, not defiance - this sets up watered-down regulations that produce a symbolic win, the highest political good. Instead, the letter positions the regulation as a referendum on game monetization.
As the wonderful, totally sane, and informed LinkedIn comments on his post will tell you, Reddit sees this as its next effigy to beat, which politicians may coop. In the post-Battlefront II world, games have avoided regulatory action outside of one cranky Dutch politician by reducing salience. By reopening that debate in the letter, Illka effectively raised the corpse. While a 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 of F2P is necessary, a policy letter isn't the right place for it, and politicians don't care.
The deeper issue is that everyone in the industry knows these regulations are being drafted by people with almost no understanding of how games actually work. That doesn’t make them harmless. Bad law written by ignorant hands is still law. The correct strategy isn’t moral outrage in the press. It’s organization, data, and lobbying; the European games industry has a right to defend itself!