Because it demonstrates that all the money that is needed to "fund" educational videogames is already in the system; with how much money is being wasted you could probably ensure that every child had their own computer that was fully loaded with state of the art educational software.

On top of this, if the software is funded through schools buying the effective products you are going to end up with far better solutions than a large government organization handing out sums of money to companies based on arbitrary (or often corrupt) criteria.

no it cannot. You are either inentionally or accidentally blurring the details to suit your own arguments.

This is for independant developers to qualify for art grants for educational projects. There are literally thousands of indie developers who are competing for these kinds of grants (independantly funded ones) to fund their projects. Not everyone gets it. You say, "it can easily apply for it and get it".

With what imaginary criteria are you now basing your argument on?

You remind me exactly of the video, because just like them, your overexaggerations and spin is just a distraction, requiring opponents to spell out what it actually is without getting to say any real argument for it. The nerdy guy in the vid has to devote his whole first portion to explaining how the announcer is wrong (which he is).

Now, people like you just make arbitrary decisions on whatever you feel like thinking. "It can easily apply for the grant and get it". This quote flies directly in the face of that guest, and tells him he's a liar. Without basis, without evidence, without logic, you decide what is right and what is wrong.

It's appalling that this is the kind of vocal majority I hear every day.

No facts, nothing. Just blurring the lines between what things really are, and what you can scare us into thinking they are.

This bill is to allow indie developers to compete for NEA funding where they once weren't allowed to. They are not spending more money for funding. They are including different competitors. They are for educational games.

Of course, this great chunk of fact just above, will be ignored, replaced by an overly muddy "some people would call CoD educational". Right>?

AH, I get your point now.

But while that is a good solution, this bill is not including any more funding that NEA already gets. It's not costing more money, it's taking money from say, someone who wants to draw a childrens book and applies for a grant to get professional grade markers, and gives it to someone who wants to develop a typing game of some kind.

While you do provide a solution, it's really a solution to something that isn't the real issue. We don't NEED to cut back on waste in order to allow devs to compete for funding, specifically. We need to cut back on waste in order to help fix the economy as a whole, but cutting off those teachers is not a necessary step in allowing indie devs to make a typing program for kids, if you get my point.

That's a 3-4 step solution. Cut back on the union power somehow, fire the teachers, convince the school board to reinvest in computers (because you know there is going to be competition from every department like new fields, new school, science lab, gymnasium, etc), and then create grants for developers.

In the long run, your solution is better, but why can't we just allow for indie devs to apply for funding anyway?

Well theprof00, you have more patience than I.  I could only offer a dumbfounded stare at the responses to my initial post in this thread.

he said games that are considered art can get grants.

so if GTA and COD are art, they can get grants.

whos to say only small indie developers make games that are art.

and why should only eductational or indie games get funding while others do not, thats goverment proping up companies, thats socialism.

they criteria to get grants is for it to be art, what makes COD not art.

your just listening to some, not all of what the nerdy guy said and going with it. your ignoring half of what is true.

your also acting as if money going to some vague discription of "art" and "educational" games is okay. its not.

I have no further interest in arguing with you.

You are blending different things together and answering questions with questions.

"they criteria to get grants is for it to be art, what makes CoD not art?"

Not only are you missing a key component in that it is educational, but your question is NOT an answer. Rhetorical questions are not answers. You also forget that there is a  process to getting granted. You aren't going to get granted because you want to write a comic-book about war, you get granted by making something educational. I should know, I've been granted, and so has my gf, and they were both for school equipment with the intended purpose of education.

I've never heard of someone getting an NEA grant for something as superficial as CoD. You need to write a proposal and explain exac...shit why am I even trying to help you understand?

It's just another distraction. Here I am explaining how something works when the process is easily available on the internet.You don't know how granting works. You don't know the criteria. You don't know the correct examples. And you don't know what you're talking about.

This bill is good because the people who get grants for educational purposes are for childrens television, educational books for kids, music, etc. There is no reason that games should be exempt from this process. If there is an ability for tv, print, and media to get these grants, then so should games. There are kids books where you press a button and a sound clip plays. That is simply a low tech game. I am 100% for this bill because it enables altruists and entrepreneurs alike get the tools needed early on (like I did when I was in school). Hell, half of these grants go to high school aged students.

why should government give some games money and others non, under some flimsy vail of art.

there is no reason why COD should not be considered art, while some random indie game is.

frankly i dont care what they consider art (though anything and everything can be, like random broken glass is art), i just dont want any of MY money going to this.

Fox News is just a Joke,  that comic strip nails in on the head as far as that video clip is concerned.

@osamaobama

Stop commenting on something you know nothing about,  its so blatantly obvious you dont know what you are talking about. theprof even explained it to you in very good detail and you couldnt understand it.  There is more to the criteria that has to be met than if its an artsy game or an educational game. No game company whos revenue is in the 100s of millions per year is going to get a grant from the government. So while COD and GTA may be considered art,  it doesnt meet the other criteria needed for this grant.

you clearly didnt wathc the video either then because the comic strip isnt even close to what happened.

also if games like call of duty cant get the grant, then thats even worse. that means some companies get privledges over others.

also what criteria has to be met more than being art. nerdy guy said, it has to be designated as art to get grants.

i couldnt care less if grants only went to indie devs, i dont want any of my money going to that stuff, not activision, ea, or anyone.

Yea should doesnt mean yes they are getting it like you made it out to be.