Child's Play charity brings in a whopping $1.4 million

But he believes so strongly that we're nothing but mindless, bloodthirsty killing machines playing our murder simulators. Maybe we all thought Child's Play was a charity for killing children.

Wait... It wasn't?

JT swore to donate $10,000 to charity several years ago if some weird conditions were met - which they were; an event that I believe was one of the fundamental reasons for the founding of Child's Play. He later backpedaled on that promise, I still to this day don't think he fulfilled his own obligation.

Pretty much shows how trustworthy self-professed "born again" religious nuts are. It's more about them, their celebrity status and money, than it is about truth, honor and decency. Jack Thompson is a complete disgrace of a human being. I even use the words "human being" loosely in his particular case...

In response to "Disgruntled Goat"

I agree that keeping businesses like Amazon out of the loop would cut out the middle man and create more bang for the buck. I have not seen either way if the companies like Sony Nintendo etc etc donate directly.

I disagree about how you believe the money should be spent. It is not a charity based on building new hospitals or bettering the gamer image. It is to provide entertainment and escape for children stuck in hospitals. $1.4 million is nothing in the world of construction or operation costs for a building. Its a world of difference for children stuck in a bad situation with no real entertainment or escape from the reality of sickness.

Simply because the charitable outreach program stems from a gaming community does not require that program to revolve around the purchase of video games. Yes, games can indeed aid in the comfort and convalescence of hospitalized children, but we also know there are millions of children around the world for whom inadequate medical care exists and, in terms of priorities, I think it would only enhance the charity's message to suggest that we, as gamers, don't possess one track minds. In other words, we're not only interested in games. Rather than trying to shoehorn the purchase of video games into philanthropy, that same money could go to better use elsewhere while the organization could continue to ensure that hospitals are well stocked with suitable gaming products for young patients.

Contrary to popular belief, $1.4 million actually can go a VERY long way toward the construction of schools and hospitals in developing nations around the world. Recently, an organization I'm a part of donated just over $13,000 to Free the Children, who were able to construct three classroom buildings in Kenya with that amount, as well as provide teacher training and educational materials. You can imagine what $1.4 million could accomplish just with that one organization.

Domestically, you could refurbish inner city school libraries throughout the los angeles area using Access Books. You could establish computer labs for children around the world via Room To Read. $1.4 million could create scores of new college scholarships each year. Instead, we're buying DS Lites at full retail price. Again, I'm not saying that effort is worthless - far from it - only that the power of Child's Play could be put to much greater use. If they would only press game companies to donate the products themselves - and it's very low cost publicity for them to do so - you could achieve the same results while putting hard earned donor money to work in other ways that don't result in lining the pockets of game companies and retailers.

But that is not the point of the program. making wishlists and getting games in the hands or suffering children are one thing, organizing the purchasing of land and building takes a LOT more work and staff.

Also the bigger organizations like feed the children and others are companies. Only small portions of each dollar spent goto the actual children.

I think Child's Play is a great idea but I also like the idea of having other gamer-targeted charities that did what some people could call "more practical good," such as raise money for developing nations, poor local schools and hospitals, etc. The actual fund-raisers could be video game-themed but don't involve the purchase of games, e.g. big game tournies that require entry fees, a portion or all of which is donated to Charity X.

I do love Child's Play and think it's a great start when it comes to gamers giving back, but there's nothing wrong with expanding upon the idea! :)

Child's Play has a very focused goal and target which is probably written into its charter: Providing hospitalized children with video game entertainment to make their stay more enjoyable. For them to do anything else would likely require revisiting and altering their charter and have less focused goals, which wouldn't necessarily help them as an organization going down the road.

Also, don't discount the value of entertainment in the healing process. A positive mindset goes a long way towards healing and recovery. Anyone who has been hospitalized for an extended period of time (or has had a friend/relative hospitalized), can tell you that you lose part of your humanity. You have little to no privacy, you are out of your element, you have no freedom of movement (can't leave the hospital, perhaps not even your bed), etc. Anything that can provide a sense of normalcy makes the hospitalization more bearable and returns at least a little bit of humanity to the people stuck in that situation.

The argument that any charity is misguided because it isn't helping the starving/sick kids of Africa is facetious at best. Based on that logic, I should contribute anything to my local humane society. Those animals should just be euthanized in the cheapest way possible, so that more money can be funneled into African schools and hospitals.

You're still missing the point.

I have no problem with them ensuring that toys and video games are made available to hospitals - that's a laudable goal.

The problem is, they could achieve that goal far more efficiently without lining the coffers of Amazon.com and these game companies. This is a charity whose sole purpose, at present, is to pay RETAIL prices for gaming products. I'm sure the industry LOVES that, as does Amazon.com.

No matter what areas of philanthropy interest us, I think we're all well served by analyzing the organizations we support and ensuring that they're making the best possible use of our money. That's why Charity Navigator et al. exist. If Child's Play wishes to consider itself a legitimate charity, it should welcome this sort of scrutiny and work to maximize its effectiveness year in and year out. We shouldn't be so patronizing as to hold it to a lesser standard. I think we do the cause no service by falling into a lockstep mentality in which all critical thought is deemed "hate."

I love that there's a great cause out there for gamers to support, but personally I wish it made more of an effort to trim some of the fat away from donation spending. That's all - and I really don't see why that's such an objectionable request. If I donate $1,000 to Child's Play, why should roughly half that money line the pockets of Amazon.com and a game company when the same products could be donated directly by the companies themselves or, at the very least, offered at manufacturer cost?

So Jesus was a gamer?

WWJP: What would Jesus play?
Left 4 Dead of course! :p

I always pegged the J-Man as more of a GTA kind of guy.

Are you trying to imply the media has an agenda? I highly doubt that! (/sarcasm)

C'mon, you know he's rolling some God of War for a change of pace from his own life.

Thanks.

Yeah. 50,000 copies of Age of Conan is what sick kids really need.

Wrong. They never sold more than 57 copies.