Well, looks like the infamous Electronic Arts may be trying to be trying to buff its public image (or, more likely, exploit yet another public resource) by endowing a chair at USC. One of their own, Bing Gordon, will serve first in the chair, though it's slated to rotate every few years.
Yes, I would like to say, "Yippee, videogame studies is gaining some legitimacy in the academy." Unfortunately, EA represents all that is filthy and disgusting about the videogame industry, and their presence on a college campus can only be bad news. My guess is that all "research" that comes out of this department will demonstrate the technical superiority of EA's game technology--or explore ways they can further consolidate their control of the industry.
It's really shameful as well that the first endowed chair of videogame studies will be firmly in support of closed-source, proprietary software development. I bet any students who actually gain access to code will be asked to sign non-disclosure and probably non-competitive agreements before being accepted into the class.
I agree, but..
Matt, I completely agree with your assessment of EA, but as the field of games studies starts to take shape, I'd be cautious about separating ourselves from the industry wholesale. First, the debate over whether there really *is* a games studies (as a disipline or field) is yet to be settled (though it likely will take hold at DiGRA in Vancouver this summer). Second, the industry view of research is wide and varied--from what I understand at USC, they're not studying games per se, rather, they are thinking of games and education as TRAINING new young programmers/artists/designers. So what they do there will be interesting for us to watch as ivory tower members, I think.
In other words, yes, EA has a terrible record, but they're doing something influential and powerful as well. To write them off wholesale is a bit premature, imho.