BBC News, technology & entertainment

BBC News continues to list its pretty extensive games coverage under 'Technology', rather than, say, Entertainment. What do you think: should games continue to be classified as technology (along with YouTube and Google, as it is now), or is it time for genres to be updated?

I don't think the BBC is alone in this categorisation, but - in my humble and very personal opinion - it gives the impression that the BBC isn't quite in touch with how much mainstream entertainment games have become recently (even though I think it is).

GooTube isn't "technology" to a percentage of internet users - generally, those who have grown up with it, or those who have been using the internet for a number of years - and the question is now, is that percentage the majority - or still the minority?

Comments

[Brinstar]

That WoW article should certainly be categorised as entertainment rather than technology. There's nothing about technology in the article at all; it just tells us that BC will be released in January and a bit of background.

[bob]

Interestingly, the article about the Playstation 3 launch is under "Entertainment," so the computer gaming articles aren't all relegated to the "tech ghetto." Their "Entertainment" articles are usually more about personalities, oddly dealing very little with actual entertainment.

To address your question, though, regardless of how "mainstream" internet video and video games are (and clearly, they are), it seems to me that they do belong in the tech section (despite being entertainment related). The technologies that make YouTube and WoW possible are both new and changing, and as they change, so does the experience they provide. In contrast, the nature of what a film is hasn't really changed since they introduced sound. Would we call either Google or YouTube an "entertainment company"? If the article about YouTube is entertainment, isn't the article about Firefox as well?

And don't forget- there still is a significant portion of the developed world that has no connection with internet video and computer games. The cultures of the 'first world' have become highly fragmented. Commercial "mainstream" culture has become so youth oriented it can be easy to forget that a significant portion of society is outside that, and has become alienated by it. (The world really doesn't revolve around young people, no matter what advertisers would have us believe.)
I tried to explain YouTube to my parents recently. Their response was, "why would anyone want to watch that?" Ironically, they *are* on the internet and have probably enjoyed a YouTube video or two, but the idea of a web service composed entirely of amateur and semi-amateur videos seems absurd to them, and hardly entertaining.

[Andy``]

'Interestingly, the article about the Playstation 3 launch is under "Entertainment," so the computer gaming articles aren't all relegated to the "tech ghetto."'

Is console gaming rightly classified as "computer gaming"? It's along the same vein, but the two tend to be treated somewhat differently from time to time (read: most of the time). In which case, why the divide?

Where it's suited is entirely dependant on who's reading it. One group will see it suited in tech (due to not understanding, or it all being code and electronics anyway), another group will see it fitting in entertainment (cause that's what it is). I think it'd be more suited to it's own section tbh, if they're going to keep up high coverage - it reflects the more mainstream nature of games at the moment, while not confusing/demeaning people who don't 'get it' by bundling it in elsewhere.

Now change every instance of "games" in the last paragraph to things like YouTube, and any other things which could be bundled into either one in the same manner. Something along the lines of 'technological entertainment' emerges, and there's (theoretically) enough content in there to warrant it all in its own place.

[playclever]

This has irritated me for a LONG time. The "Entertainment" section on the BBC site may as well read "Celebrity". On the flipside, though, perhaps games get a more prominent showing this way? Who knows.

[Seb Potter]

I agree completely, especially about the blurred line between entertainment and celebrity.

I'd like to see "Virtual" as a section, but I guess you'd start to need to just duplicate all the categories of real-life news eventually. Certainly Eve alone could fill a politics news channel.

[dj]

I'd say it's eitehr entertainment or culture. Not really technology, which suggests science or industry to me. If you were talking about the way YouTube works, the battleground matching systems coming up in WoW or the power of the xbox vs. the ps3, then that might be technology.

[WandringSoul]

Always annoys me, but then - the Beeb's not exactly up to the minute when it comes to game news is it? Take the WoW story 'breaking' about the delay - only 5 days late.

How many WoW players on seeing that story will think 'Ooh, I didn't know that?'

Same with their game reviews - always weeks or months behind game launches, and always very superficial. Yet stories like Nicole Richie being told to 'eat damn you', are up to the minute and in depth.

So - Beeb in touch? Not as far as I'm concerned.

[praxis22]

Keep it technology, I never look at entertainment, I presume it's the home of celebrity, TV, etc.

[George]

I often think this whenever I'm at BBC News - why are movie stories under entertainment but games under technology. I feel it should swap, but at the same time, I feel like that's me pushing forward an agenda. Putting them under entertainment would, for much of their audience, constitute a proactive push to get them to change their impression of games. I don't really feel that for the majority it would reflect their worldview.

I think it's a few years off yet. Perhaps Christmas 07 or mid 08.

[Alice]

I think they'd fit in Culture, quite happily; unfortunately the Beeb doesn't have a Culture section yet.

Also - george - awesome email addie. How long have you had that?!