Thanks, Ian. All excellent points. We had hoped to get more publishers on board, but, without a clear "on board" to be on board on (!?!), it didn't make much sense. you're right in sensing that it's alex's personal connection that enabled us to even think of moving forward at Leapfrog. you're right also in guessing that we are still in the research phases. if a process like this could be used to help developers get feedback early in the process (and jim, henry, eric, philip, and i get a lot of consulting offers that we just don't have the time for because we are just about tapped out in time), then that's good.

thanks for your honest, critical thoughts. we were hoping that the conference would pull that out. holler if you have other thoughts about these issues, or whatever.

Thanks for adding this comment, Kurt. As I said, my concern is really just that, and I'll look forward to seeing where this inititive goes.

I think you make a good point about the "on board" to be on board; sometimes it's better to get things started knowing they need revision, so long as everyone understands what's provisionary and what's not.

Something else i should mention -- in no way, do i think that leapfrog would actually trying to be capitalizing on something like this. think about it -- they already own their market and their branding is pretty established, so why they would want to create a market category where they pretty much own the space already is questionable.

Also, to reiterate, the announcement was that "there is a proposal on the table to get feedback on." I don't think that at any point anyone said that this was happening, or that even 10% of the details were hammered out.

Finally, I see something like the seal helping -- just to do things like help distinguish between "phonemic awareness" and reading. I'd like to get a mechanism to get companies like leapfrog to make more open-ended games that embody more of the learning principles in contemporary computer / video games.

Point taken, my criticism is less about Leapfrog actually capitalizing from this seal than the sort of improprietous implication that the purpose of the research initiative was principally to give Leapfrog a marketing tool. I know that's not what's really happening, but I do think that it is an obvious conclusion to come to. LeapFrog and MIT aside, one of our biggest challenges as academic game researchers will be how we keep research projects separate from, yet participating with, commercial interests. And that's a responsibility we have to bear.

As for the announcement, you are right about the letter of MIT's announcement, but if you read the press, you'll see how it was spun. Here's an excerpt from CNN's story:

A group of educators, developers and game publishers believe they might. The consortium, calling itself The Education Arcade, is launching a "games for learning" seal of approval to help consumers identify titles that teach more than hand-eye coordination.

Later it says "... The Education Arcade is tweaking the labeling guidelines ..." "Tweaking and "launching" certainly don't telegraph that only 10% of the details were hammered out. Again, I know the press tells the story they want, and maybe this is one of those cases where they wrote the interesting story rather than the accurate one, but I think that kind of an outcome was almost inevitable.

Finally, I'm hopeful about the idea of a seal, really I am. It may be a good idea. I'm not dismissing the idea on principle, just the way the current iteration of it was presented.

Thanks for keeping this dialog going. That's really the best way to work on these challenges.

Best site for Poker