Video Games Charity Raises Over $10 Million 50
jones_supa writes "Gaming for Good, a charity established and fronted by celebrity gamer Bachir 'Athene' Boumaaza, has this week passed the significant milestone. At time of writing the group's tally stands at a tame $10 million. It works like this: game publishers donate games to the charity, without asking for profit. Regular folks buy points, which can then be exchanged to games on the website. Finally the money used to buy the points goes to charity. So in one way they're really just buying games, but instead of the money going to publishers, it's going to a good cause. Money raised is going to the international charity Save The Children, where it can be used on health programs in Malawi, Indonesia and Bangladesh."
Well.. (Score:2)
Mod parent Funny (Score:1)
Ha ha ha!
Imagine a shit company like EA actually trying to do something good! I'm still chuckling at the idea ... thank you for making me laugh.
Re: (Score:1)
Ha ha ha!
Imagine a shit company like EA actually trying to do something good! I'm still chuckling at the idea ... thank you for making me laugh.
Well they did the Humble Bundle thing, with 100% to charity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it looks like indies & older titles mostly.
but yeah, it's the publishers donating the money.. unless "profit" means just that they're giving their "profit margin" on it away, the blurb wasn't really clear about that, but should just say "donating games" if they're donating the games totally(since hey, the profit margin % is pulled out of the ass with products like this, it's not like it's milk or something they have a definite buy in value on..).
(OK OK, I read it, "Games are donated by supporting develo
What's in it for me? (Score:2, Troll)
Is buying games this way any cheaper than retail?
If not, where's the incentive to help this charity?
Sorry if capitalism is out of style these days, but that's what keeps the world going and the bills paid.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the price but if it's more, your decision to buy from this charity is based on how much spare cash you have. Capitalism has been kind to lots of people so they might want to go for it. You shouldn't sweat it if you prefer not to. It's a charity; you donate if you want to and can afford to. If not, buy your stuff elsewhere.
Re:What's in it for me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if it's no cheaper, you would have paid that amount anyway if you purchased the game through more usual means, so channeling the same amount of funds to an entity that does something good with the money is the incentive. You get the product at the same price you would have paid and the money goes to a good cause -- how is that not an incentive?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The specifics are another matter -- as I said, I didn't read TFA so maybe this particular example has lots of faults. But the general principle should be clear to anyone who is capable basic rational thought and empathy -- somebody that doesn't think capitalism is the sole arbiter of all value(s).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's simple. The games of no value to the publisher anymore. It would cost them time and money to make it open source or otherwise available for free. By giving it to the charity they get a tax deduction which will cover all the legal costs. The charity gets a bit of cash, the Game doesn't disappear from history and you get to play a game you otherwise would have had to pirate.
Mixed signals (Score:3)
At time of writing the group's tally stands at a tame $10 million.
Is a tame 10 million a good or a bad number? Were they expecting more, since it's only tame? Or is tame a good word when talking numbers?
I'd rather donate to Child's Play (Score:5, Interesting)
Also this guy's s/o is way out there... she tried to trade BJs for votes to get elected to the Belgian senate, and offered to take the virginity of any neckbeard who 'defended net neutrality'.
I think the only reason this has gained any significant traction is the "reward" people get for "donating". Though really all that means is that it's the game publishers who are donating, and the people buying games are just buying games. So... congrats? I guess it's better to buy from a charity than Walmart, but still, given the background of these people I wouldn't be surprised if some scandal emerged eventually.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What I say is not bullshit. The guy's s/o is Tania Derveaux and her 'antics' are well recorded. I have a hard time trusting somebody who gets into a serious relationship with a person on record as trying to buy votes with blowjobs. (Even if that's potentially more honest and ethical than most political behavior.)
I'm do think it's fair to judge someone by the s/o. As long as he is transparent with the organization's financials what they do elsewhere is generally irrelevant. Who know, maybe Tania's ability to "get out the vote" is what he found attractive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody who is a bad judge of character where it is most important is most likely either a) deficient of character themselves or b) dangerously/irresponsibly naive/gullible. Neither is a quality I want in somebody acting as an intermediary for millions of dollars. Quite frankly it's only the responsibility factor that makes it even important to me. If I was just casually interacting with somebody who had a crazy s/o, I wouldn't even give it a second thought. However I wouldn't want them to be, for instance, my business partner for the reason outlined above.
While I understand your POV I think a s/o is different from a business partner. I know a lot of people with a s/o whom I consider crazy or unstable, but whom I still think are decent and trustworthy. I wouldn't chose their s/o as a business partner but that is a separate issue form working with them. Again, if the org is making their financials available and audited by an independent party than the s/o antics are a non-issue to me. YMMV.
In this specific case it appears the s/o's offer was made in satire and
Re: (Score:2)
And joke or not, it's a pattern (i.e. done more than once) of very irresponsible and tasteless behavior to pretend to offer bulk sexual favors in exchange for political action.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not only a bad judge of character - apparently your reading comprehension isn't so great. I see you've backed off your original statement of "she tried to trade BJs for votes to get elected to the Belgian senate" - let's look at the actual story behind your claim that his s/o actually offered blowjobs for votes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEE [wikipedia.org]
Seems to me the satirical nature of that poster and the associated campaign is pretty clear. But hey, let's just smear a guy because of something that yo
Re: (Score:2)
Nor was I "backing off" of anything, I merely dealt with how the possibility of it being a joke did not ultimately make the scenarios (plural) redeemable, and furthermore we'll never know what would have happened if the conditions had been met, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstood my antecedent, I'm talking about evaluating character by proxy, how people evaluate others is itself a dimension for how they themselves can and should be judged.
Certainly, but I would put far much more stock in whom they chose as business partners than their s/o. There is a far broader emotional component to an s//o than a business partner and a business partner impacts your reputation and dealings in a more direct manner. In short, people do crazy things for love which does not by any means make them crazy. In this specific case, his s/o was making a point about politician's promises in a very unorthodox manner; and not intending to be taken literally. Or, in poli
Re: (Score:2)
You don't trust him because you don't know anything about him. Let me be the first to inform you that it's pretty easy to look someone up on the internet these days.
We also knew plenty about Bernie Madoff now didn't we. And really it matters squat whether or not something is approved by USAID, since USAID has also "supported" various charities that funneled money to islamic terrorist groups.
Well you're free to donate money to whoever you want, but I wouldn't to this group. And it's similar to reasons why I don't support groups like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, United Way or the Red Cross.
Re: (Score:1)
That's great.
What's their expense ratio - I can't find it.
Like those police "charities" that telemarket, for every $1.00 they collect, they keep $0.98 for "expenses".
Re: (Score:2)
You must be talking about this random charity, since many child's play dontaions go straight to the hospital?
Or maybe you're too RTFA to catch FAQ #1 which says historically under 6% overhead? A couple quick web searches, hitting both the Washington Sec of State and one of the various charity rating places both point to similarly good numbers.
Re: (Score:1)
That's great.
What's their expense ratio - I can't find it.
Like those police "charities" that telemarket, for every $1.00 they collect, they keep $0.98 for "expenses".
They take NO CUT! Because he actually cares for the charity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqlTxyKXiCw and also they are such a small team that they don't need to pay employes to help them make a budget an stuff like that.
He "Athene" makes all his money of his youtube channel: http://www.Youtube.com/Athenewins
Re: (Score:2)
Here is Athene's credibility for the 10M$. www.savethechildren.org [savethechildren.org]
Now go to his AtheneWins [youtube.com] channel and watch his interviews on Bloomberg TV [youtube.com] Fox [youtube.com] CNN [youtube.com] CNBC [youtube.com] Wall Street Journal [youtube.com]
It would be great if Steam and others took over the idea and donated many millions t
but instead of the money going to publishers, ... (Score:1)
How BF4 should of been released (Score:2)
Having people pay say $10 for it, half going to charity. EA and Dice would of done something nice and for $10 you can't really complain about it being a POS.
Financial Information (Score:5, Informative)
Congratulations to everyone involved. The few Athene videos I saw when he started were lowest common denominator attempts at shock value, but I'm glad something good is coming out of it.