A decent write up on the situation as it stands : http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2012/dec/12/developers-tax-credit-legislation

Two key points;
1) This isn't the final draft yet so is likely to change
2) The film industry and the French games industry already operate under rules very much like this

There is also a good point in the last paragraph about WHY the causes are a good thing with regards to how tax money is spent.

Your publisher doesn't influence your art in any way?

This is a straw man. The existence of something bad doesn't excuse the existence of something else bad. Sacrifices are usually required when one tries to balance art with financial viability, that doesn't make it an ideal situation.

The criticism of your peers doesn't influence your art in any way?[/quote]
Do you mean co-workers or people not involved in it's creation? For the former it would imply that I am THE artist rather than us, my coworkers and I, collectively being the artist. The definitely influence my contribution to the art, but collectively we should influence the art only as we collectively intend(in a perfect world anyway).

It's not as if someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to create a British game. If your artistic integrity is worth so much, then you are free to fulfill the criteria in other ways (i.e. develop it in Britain, with a British team), or you can refuse the tax break altogether.
[/quote]
I think my point is being misrepresented. I'm not hurt by it, I'm just not a fan of using tax incentives to influence things that have little-no measurable impact on the society. Criticism is not the same as a call to arms.

If the UK is forced to do it this way because of the EU, frankly I don’t get it but that certainly shifts the blame and the dim light. Why does the EU make it this way?

This should be rectified. The EU does in no way impose such a thing on the UK. What the UK is doing here is the same thing that Ireland has been doing for decades: An entirely legal and community-subsidized form of tax fraud. You take EU subventions under some cover (here it is the "culture" cover), and steal the highly competitive, high profit industry leaders from the rest of the community by offering them tax gifts.

Did you ever wonder why virtually every major company in the EU had their "official office" and the entire support division moved to Dublin little over a decade ago? One word: tax.

The only thing you could mock on is the fact that the EU is so stupid as to allow such a thing to happen, but that's just how it is. Similar could proably be said about what's happening with Greece and Spain, but alas, nobody has the balls to drive the hard course that would be necessary.
So it happens that the common man in Greece is still starving, and the rich are still not paying any taxes, and we're putting billions into a bottomless hole (covering banker's gambling debts and subsiding their luxury lives). Same in Spain where people are losing all they own after working for a life time, while the king goes on safari, hunting endangered species (and being proud of it). The only ones who aren't punished are those who lost the people's money.

All in all, it would be much more human to stop all of that, but this isn't how the world works.

[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1355331751' post='5009881']
(in a perfect world anyway)

We don't live in a perfect world. If we start from the assumption that art can occur in a vacuum, we'll never get anywhere useful.[/quote]
I never said art occurs or should occur in a vacuum. I said, quite specifically, that it shouldn't sacrifice the artist's intention. In what world are those statements the same?

I'm just not a fan of using tax incentives to influence things that have little-no measurable impact on the society.

Culture has no societal value?
[/quote]
That's not what I said. I chose my words very carefully.

edit: I will clarify though that I mean corporate tax incentives rather than pesonal.

Perhaps I've misinterpreted, but that sounds a lot to me like you are saying that the promotion of British culture through video games will have little impact on society?

The difference is that it doesn't have a direct measurable impact. Culture has trickle down/non-tangible impacts that are significant, but as far as tax incentives go I think it would make more sense to promote more tangibles.

The promotion of their own culture, on the other hand, I maintain is a core function of any government.
[/quote]
Perhaps this is where we differ. I view culture proceeding from society. The government represents and governs the society, but the culture is defined by the people moreso than the government that represents it. At least that's what I prefer.

edit: To be clear, on the above I have more of a problem with them trying to define what their culture is/should be (eg: 4 points if the video game depicts a British story or a story which relates to an EEA state) rather than them promoting their culture in whichever direction it should naturally go (eg: you are british and making art, have some tax incentives).