• Insurance Companies Reject Development Team Because of In-Game Violence
    15 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Founder of indie development team, Serellan and design director on Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor, Christian Allen, released a tweet stating that his company was recently rejected for insurance due to the "violent nature of the games" they are producing. The full email Allen received was displayed in the tweet and is re-posted below: "I am responding to your email dated November 12th and to your voicemail message this morning. We have made some phone calls and, unfortunately we do not have a market that will offer a premium proposal for your operations. This is due to the violent nature of the games you are producing." As the Serellan is still fairly new, they have to date only released one title; a tactical first person shooter called Takedown: Red Sabre. While due to the nature of the genre the game does contain violence, it is no more violent than your average FPS and contains little gore. The news that insurance companies are refusing to insure development teams based on the content of their games comes at a time when Target and Kmart Australia, as well as the Warehouse Group in New Zealand removed the popular title Grand Theft Auto V from their shelves due to the violence against women the game portrays. The Women’s Front in Norway has initiated a similar proposal to get the game removed from stores, though so far none have agreed.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://techraptor.net/content/insurance-company-rejects-development-team-game-violence"]http://techraptor.net/content/insurance-company-rejects-development-team-game-violence[/URL] I suppose they are more likely to get sued because of their related drama, therefore the higher insurance requirement, but being outright refused with that as the directly stated reason is quite funny.
Makes sense.
[QUOTE=Passing;46659565]Makes sense.[/QUOTE] ...No it doesn't?
[QUOTE=Passing;46659565]Makes sense.[/QUOTE] From the perspective of the insurance company it kinda makes sense, in that all of what they do is assess risk of a certain company and provide rates based on that, even if they're dicks about it, good luck changing that without ripping up capitlism. They were really stupid for claiming violence as a reason though. I feel like the importance of this article is more about how dumb controversy kicked up by assholes can have wide reaching effects. But whatever. edit: to clarify, this insurance covers lawsuits made against the company.
[QUOTE=Passing;46659565]Makes sense.[/QUOTE] how the fuck so? from the creators of "videogames make you kill people and cause mass shootings in school" and "videogames are the reason war exists" if those were movies, nobody would give a shit
I thought that guy was saying that sarcastically. Like "Yeah, makes fucking sense, those idiots"
The insurance companies assess the risks involved with the particular business. Also you forgot to mention this. [quote]Fortunately, after contacting a different broker Serellan was able to secure insurance through a new company, though this came at a higher cost than their old policy, and the delays cost the team time and money as well as putting some development work on hold.[/quote] So yeah, it was just a shitty broker. And it's obvious that somebody even if ever so slightly more likely to get sued is trying to get an insurance against the lawsuit, it gonna be more expensive. They are choosing their way of business. Insuring your company that does controlled demolition in middle of the city with tons of dynamite will be entire different deal than insuring a company that just breaks rock in surface mine, as the risks involved are much higher. The actual problem is that there's the higher risk of drama around violent things, but that's not the Broker's nor the insurance companies fault.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;46659617]From the perspective of the insurance company it kinda makes sense, in that all of what they do is assess risk of a certain company and provide rates based on that, even if they're dicks about it, good luck changing that without ripping up capitlism. They were really stupid for claiming violence as a reason though. I feel like the importance of this article is more about how dumb controversy kicked up by assholes can have wide reaching effects. But whatever. edit: to clarify, this insurance covers lawsuits made against the company.[/QUOTE] I should of said this to begin with as it was essentially what i meant.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46659633]The insurance companies assess the risks involved with the particular business. Also you forgot to mention this. So yeah, it was just a shitty broker. And it's obvious that somebody even if ever so slightly more likely to get sued is trying to get an insurance against the lawsuit, it gonna be more expensive. They are choosing their way of business. Insuring your company that does controlled demolition in middle of the city with tons of dynamite will be entire different deal than insuring a company that just breaks rock in surface mine, as the risks involved are much higher. The actual problem is that there's the higher risk of drama around violent things, but that's not the Broker's nor the insurance companies fault.[/QUOTE] (I had to cut things from the original article, rather not get banned. Did mention it by referencing the higher insurance cost though.) it's not that the game is violent, it's that there's a history of stupid drama around red sabre developers. the reason for denying coverage, that the game is violent or even especially violent, just plain isn't true. [editline]7th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Passing;46659648]I should of said this to begin with as it was essentially what i meant.[/QUOTE] First post advice if your not actually a gimmick account: Write longer, less vague posts or you'll inevitably get banned for any number of things including sniping. Bans are common and (usually) temporary around here though.
Easy way around it: make an E rated game, even if it's shit. Some companies have a range of titles they've produced and I'm sure they have no problem. Even quality games, I mean look at Valve. Portal 2 is E, and Left 4 Dead 2 is 18+.
The Takedown: Red Sabre crew got turned down for insurance? I have a feeling they weren't denied because they made a somewhat violent game, but because they made a shit game that pissed a lot of people off.
[QUOTE=TestECull;46659676]The Takedown: Red Sabre crew got turned down for insurance? I have a feeling they weren't denied because they made a somewhat violent game, but because they made a shit game that pissed a lot of people off.[/QUOTE] Oh, THAT game? Damn, I keep confusing it with H-Hour. Probably doesn't help that they were announced around the same time with the same premise.
[QUOTE=Memobot;46659665]Easy way around it: make an E rated game, even if it's shit. Some companies have a range of titles they've produced and I'm sure they have no problem. Even quality games, I mean look at Valve. Portal 2 is E, and Left 4 Dead 2 is 18+.[/QUOTE] A game development studio shouldn't have to make a E rated game because an Insurance company says so. If the studio wants to make their games with an everyone rating, good. But it shouldn't boil down to "lets make less Violent games for our precious insurance company!"
[QUOTE=Passing;46659565]Makes sense.[/QUOTE] Name a developer who has been sued because other people committed crimes and may have played their games... I'll give you a hint: 0 because while politicians use it as fodder, nobody ever gets sued because someone violent watched or listened or played their content [editline]7th December 2014[/editline] This is like how banks were refusing to do buisness with legal pot dispensaries because of some moral high ground yet they feel compelled to give out unreasonably high interest loans to the most vulnerable people then lie about their loans and sell them off as sub-prime leaving the borrower scrambling to figure out who they owe money to Banks and insurance companies are in no position to take a moral high ground when they exist in the lowest pit
[QUOTE=coolgame8013;46661012]A game development studio shouldn't have to make a E rated game because an Insurance company says so. If the studio wants to make their games with an everyone rating, good. But it shouldn't boil down to "lets make less Violent games for our precious insurance company!"[/QUOTE] They don't have to though. It's just one insurance company, the devs aren't bound to them by any stretch. If the insurance company wants to turn down potential customers for arbitrary reasons, that's their business. There's always plenty of other companies are willing to be more reasonable.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.