Hacker News Reader

Comment by swiftcoder | Hacker News Reader

> I feel like the need for constant growth (instead of just sustainability) is what has caused much of the issues in the current gaming market.

I'm not sure the investment group attempting to diversify Saudi oil income is going to be less profit oriented than the stock market in general

View on HN

> not sure the investment group attempting to diversify Saudi oil income is going to be less profit oriented than the stock market in general

For what it’s worth, MBS is reportedly an avid gamer.

So is Elon Musk.

To expand on this, the central issue is disreputable people obtaining a high degree of control over an industry; that their interests overlap is of little relevance - if anything, it’s a viable smokescreen for PR campaigns.

It's just a shame the smokescreens are at best some annoying exhaust from a car. Not really hiding much.

But yes, investing in a game doesn't mean you're actually making a game you'd find fun.

Muhammad Bonesaw grew up on Age of Empires, and enjoys(/enjoyed) CoD. They also want to use it to shape global perspective. I think signs are good, or at least less-bad.

Interesting - how do you imagine that he would use the likes of CoD to shape global perspective?

By making sure that Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an ally in the game’s canon rather than generic MENA terrorists.

It sounds silly at first but the US military has been doing something similar for ages with Hollywood, at least since WWII. The difference is the armed forces use access to military equipment for filming as the carrot rather than financing the productions directly.

The US Army has literally put out a video game as a recruiting tool: America's Army.

From a gamers perspective, anything trying to actually convey a message would be a win against grey-goop slop franchise titles that play it so safe they can barely convey more than “you hero. Kill bad guy”.

That the message is going to be “Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are tier-1 allies / partners / powers” depends on your perspective. Lots of gamers outside the US these days!

I mean, presumably the same way the US military has been using AAA shooters (and Hollywood) to shape global perspective the last few decades. I can't say I'd be against a few big titles where the brown guys get to have the starring roles...

That said, given Saudi Arabia's whole vibe, one can't expect that angle to go all that well for anyone else's representation (Women, Israelis, LBGTQ+ folk...)

Could you share why you feel the Saudis buying a huge company like EA to "shape global perspective" is a good sign?

I feel that the Saudis purchasing EA is specifically a good sign that future EA games won't be profit-focused at the expense of quality.

I was talking to the GP and P comments in regards to the company's focus. They discussed the problems of current EA and whether future development would be increasingly profit-driven at the cost of quality.

>>I feel like the need for constant growth (instead of just sustainability) is what has caused much of the issues in the current gaming market.

>I'm not sure the investment group attempting to diversify Saudi oil income is going to be less profit oriented than the stock market in general

I suspect that EA was not purchased with profit as the primary motive, and that decreasing quality further would run counter to their aims.

I think their motives are more sinister and subversive. I'm not sure what the relevant equivalent term to (e)sportswashing is for this. Gamewashing or whatever. I think buying EA is going to be a prominent example of it.

My comment included calling Saudi Arabia's Crowned Prince Mohammed bin Salman by his nickname Mohammed Bonesaw. This refers to his alleged direct order to assassinate and butcher Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.

The 15-person Saudi agent hitsquad used a bonesaw to dismember Khashoggi, hence the nickname.

This makes clear from tone and context that I do not feel that the Saudis buying EA is a good sign overall.

I realise that relying on tone and context clues to remove ambiguity is not good accessible writing so I apologise for that.

PIF bought the English football club Newcastle ~4 years ago, and have raised season ticket prices by 15% since then. They have capitalists at the helm who don't care about soft power.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6180646/2025/03/06/newcastl...

To be fair, if they're actually buying it for the whole sportswashing thing and not for the short-term cash profits, could it maybe be a good thing for the games? Better games == more effective sportswashing?

Either way, human rights journalists lose.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com