Is it fun? The "gimmick" should be irrelevant.

WOW. See gamers do good..we help injured people,donate livers and combat world hunger... Wonder if Angelina Jolie is going to become a gamer.. :-P

On a practical level, great idea for the reasons you listed.

However, still just seems innately wrong to me. We play with our virtual pets and compete against each other for the rights for one person's third world country kid to get food? What happens when the other kid gets sponsored by someone who sucks? No food?

It seems too....American? The whole 'Let's make holding someone's life in our hands seem more FUN!'

Meh, but it's better than nothing. Whatever gets people to help.

@Setzer IIDX: I think that you're wrong. Anything that's better than doing absolutely nothing is worth spending your time on. I can assure you that being 'American' has nothing to do with it.

I find it slightly creepy in a way (especially after reading what Setzer IIDX just said) but at the same time it is a nice idea I guess.

Freerice is another game kinda like this... I use the term "game" loosley here as its not much more fun than the Vocab portion of the SAT.

@alextz: I agree completely, anything is better than doing nothing.
It's not so much the mission I take issue with, because with that, you can't find any fault. It's helping. Helping is good.

It's the medium through which they're going to get help. The whole 'We're really only committing some of our time because it entertains us' image that this seems to give off towards public service and helping those that need help. It seems to go hand in hand with the whole 'What's in it for us' image us Americans have gotten from views from other countries. Of course, I base that image from what I've heard from my pen pals in other countries, so it's admittedly a small sampling.

Again though, I take no issue with the site in and of itself. I have an issue with the fact that a site like that is necessary to help out others. But as you said, it's more important that people are helping.

This is an innovative, and good, idea.

But where does the money come from?

i hope they dont do something like have you play the game, earn up credit, and then "let you" use your credit card to turn the game money into real money which would be used to get food and what not for 3rd world kids, simply because the idea just doesnt sound like something that could work. but who knows, people buy bottled water all the time.

personally i hope they basically create a fun way for doing things (such as sending out e mails informing people about their mission and what they can do to help) which they would use the profits from to buy the things (like food and medical supplies) for people in 3rd world countries

i dunno...hahah my idea actually isnt all that great. what i'm getting at though is that i hope they come up with a creative, innovative, and fun way to build up funding. Because if they dont...this project seems like something that will go the way of the dodo...only quicker

I disagree.

If you really care, then send some money and do it in private. This is primarily about sanctimony and alleviating the guilt of pampered westerners.
The idea that starving people only get to eat if I can have a bit of fun while donating a pittance in real terms is frankly abhorrent.

Socially conscious?

Bollox, it's about striking a pose and feeling smug and self satisfied. At least something like Child's Play has a direct connection between the act and the charity.

You want to be innovative?

How about this, instead of buying that next AAA title, forgoe the pleasure of playing that game and donate every cent to a charity of your choice, and do it in private; never telling anyone about your good deed, then every time you feel like you're something special for doing it, remind yourself of your comfortable life whilst people in places like Darfur avoid starvation, rape and torture on a daily basis.

How about that for innovation?
Anyone think that's a good idea, or is that taking things too far, by actually asking you to do something, instead of pretending to do something like this piece of shit suggests we do?

Just an idea?

Oh, and yes, as I write this post I realise it applies to me as much as anyone else.

@Cruithne: Don't you think that's a tad over the edge? While I see exactly where you're coming from, we both need to give the devil his due. It's a means to an end. At the end of the day, they've figured out a way to essentially 'trick' people into helping others. Much as a parent will 'trick' their child into eating their veggies by playing a game with them or using reverse psychology.

It's sad that it's necessary, but if it works, well go them. It's also going to be even worse if this game gets popular and it gets elitist yuppie oldbies that their shit doesn't stink, but again, that's a relatively small sacrifice.

@Cruithne: I see your point, and I agree up to a point. But the thing, it's a huge problem, one that likely won't be solved entirely by any purely financial solution (aside from just social/cultural issues, there's a lot of logistical/environmental problems with getting people what they need; and then there's the question of what "need" even is...) -- but every little bit helps, doesn't it?

Wow...I never thought this topic would be so controversial... I mean helping people is helping people, no matter HOW you do it, right?

Wow...I never thought this topic would be so controversial... I mean helping people is helping people, no matter HOW you do it, right?

Well, I guess for some people it is, but ponder this. Let's say you have a huge warehouse full of rice, and you're in city full of homeless starving people.
Naturally they come to you for help, and you're prepared to help them...on the condition they convert to your religion.

What do you think?

Should we feed starving people because it's simply wrong that we should be so fat and bloated whilst they have nothing, or should we feed starving people because our god thinks it's a neat way to get the numbers of his followers up, or because we have fun whilst doing it?

Like I indicated earlier, I think Child's Play is a wonderful idea, but there's a line which, once crossed, stops it being about true altruism and more about the person giving than the person recieving.

What if you suck at the game and can't win anything?

I can see a poor kid saying "I wish I could eat today, but some noob is sponsoring me :(" to the kid whose sponsor is #1 on the leaderboards.

(It is an interesting idea, though.)

Oh, and sorry for posting again... but I think that they may generate money from ad revenue, so by many people going on to their service, they will generate more money if that is the case.

It's actually not a bad idea in my eyes.

... I've never been a big fan of Altruism. Not to say I don't give. I do. But it doesn't lead me to give enough. They have found a way to actually SELL charity to people other than guilt. I say good for them.

But playing this game doesn't make you a good person. ... Especially if they release it on Xbox Live. With voice-chat. Then this game might make you slightly less of a good person. (I kid, I kid)

@fanty: Certainly not... helping people by hurting others, for instance, is not acceptable. Also, there are LOADS of cases where people think they're "helping" when they're actually hurting. The road to hell really is paved with good intentions. People think they're "doing good" when they shelter their children from extreme emotional experiences, but it's turning out that kids that are sheltered like that during their formative puberty years end up being emotionally retarded for the rest of their life.

I can see this game being just one more way people can reach out and help others. Rather than looking at it and saying "You could be building a hut in Uganda instead of playing this game" you should say "You could be playing Halo and not doing anything whatsoever to help people instead of playing this game and helping some".

@Setzer IIDX: I certainly see your point that this can be viewed as a way to make charity seem simpler and more detached than it actually is. But that's going to have to be the way it is done in the future as most of the children being raised today are so insulated and "protected" from extreme emotional experiences that they will grow up without being able to feel empathy for suffering people. They won't be able to understand how those people feel because during the years of their life that peoples frontal cortexes develop, puberty, they are hidden away and sheltered from everything, even fiction that might disturb them. They'll be like a child who is never exposed to speech before the age of 5 - if you miss that window of development, you're crippled for life and can never develop those skills.

@Cruithne:

@otakucode:

I see what you both mean, but I see this as a tool for the young set...kids who can't write checks or go overseas to build huts. I mean it is being pitched as a neopets type of thing right? I mean my daughter participated in a "read-a-thon" where each page you read saved a tree in the rainforest. It was sponsored by a consevationist group, and the kids will (supposedly)get pictures of the trees they saved in a few weeks. Would you call that bad? Am I missing the point here?

@Cruithne: Does it matter if they're doing it because they're having fun on the game? Quite frankly, in the end the person on the other end is still getting fed. Sure, the motives of the person helping out are a little twisted, but quite frankly I'd rather see someone getting helped than not no matter what justification the donator is using.

I'm reasonably sure that they won't actually just assign you a sponsor child who goes hungry(ier?) if you don't play. Although that would be a beautiful marketing tactic for getting people to play the game, it'd be incredibly irresponsible. I imagine what will happen is that the money will be donated to a charity who distributes the resources as they're needed, possibly with a sponsor child face over it to make the experience more personal.

I don't really have the resources to make significant contributions to charities like this, although I do donate when I can. If my playing a game means that the creators of said game or their sponsors will donate some money? Then I'll play the game and be happy that I'm contributing where I couldn't otherwise.
Should the sponsors just give out the resources in the first place, without the game as justification? Well, maybe. But unfortunately that's not how the world works and I'm not exactly going to condemn something that's trying to help just because their methods aren't as direct.

Please convince me otherwise, but it strikes me that complaints about the Terrible Vanity of altruism, -- those in this thread included -- are usually a thin rationalization to assuage the complainer's guilt in not, him or herself, providing help to those less well off.

If this system is indeed going to convert ad revenue into charitable donations, then what's the harm?

Well first off, I've no particular interest in persuading anyone else of anything, I'm just here voicing my opinion, you can take it or leave, you can even assign darker selfish motives to it, as in the post by Nobody, I assure you, I'll still get to sleep tonight.

Ever see one of those charity telethons where the latest Boy Band comes onstage to sing their latest song and asks people to phone in with their donations?
Ever notice how the majority of contributers just seem to coincidentally have a new album/single/movie that they're plugging as well?

I'm sorry, but they can"t have it both ways, either they're doing it for altruistic reasons or they're using it as a convenient way to enrich their own lives, whilst wanting to be held up as paragons of virtue at the same time.

Once again we go back to the Child's Play charity.

Cui Bono?

Who benefits?

In the case of Child's Play, the only people who benefit are the children, and that's the kind of charity I can live with.
This game is not about charity it's about people profiting from advertising revenue and throwing a pittance of their revenue to charity as an enticement to people to come and make them even richer.

This seems only superficially different than just donating a part of the proceeds from any transaction to charity. Isn't that what a lot of companies are doing all the time, right now? I think it's the entire operating model of the (RED) campaign.

I also think everyone's jumping the gun on the 'altruism' tip. I don't think anyone would claim this is altruistic, or that most celebrities would consider good deeds that raise their public profile altruism. Well, some extremely detached and vain ones might, but that's beside the point. Helping people doesn't have to be altruistic. If I open a new business, and can afford to hire and pay well a number of employees, then I'm still definitely doing something good for people regardless of how much profit I make. It's certainly not altruism, but then I wouldn't limit myself to only helping people when it cost me something. That would be futile, because before I knew it, *I'd* be the person that needed help.

I think it's nice idea, but what if Something,Inc went into some of these third world countries and trained the people for jobs doing phone support for this game. That'd be something crazy.

If this is something akin to Gunbound where the money you earn goes towards a cause, and it's actually decent, I'll log on once or twice a week to earn some cash for a poor starving kid. If the gameplay is actually great, i might actually waste a ton of time on it. :D

You will never solve world hunger if you don't teach people about safe sex. All the worlds problems come down to overpopulation and indulgence.

Actually if people look at the big picture behind this "game" you'll see that someone out there is tryng to find a way to bring up this issue. I mean we get bombarded with save the children commercial's and its not helping whats so ever but this game is another way to reach out and bring up this issue. SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING!!!! Now maybe just maybe this game might get people just thinking just a smidge to understand this is an issue that is a huge concern because people are going out of there way just to reach you with this game and I see this game as another way to reach out at us, I say us because sadly I'm also that same person who changes the channel when a "Save the Children" campaign comes on. I hope this will get us active, its sad that we can only hope.

Nonsense, there's more than enough resources on this planet to feed and clothe every man woman and child over and over again, it's about the distribution of wealth.

Oh and Codexx, why wait to see if the game is good before deciding to help a starving child?
Why not just help them, regardless?

@themule: sorry if I sound redundent, I dont mean to be.

All I can say is that this game has the potential to do some good in this world and that is all that really matters since we should not care how people are helping those in need since what is most important is getting what is needed to those that need it. Also I am unsure if someone has already said this since I am unable to read all the comments currently but the money that is getting donated appears to be coming from people that wish to sponsor the game or partners of the company.

Two thumbs up! I like it.