The first videogame was spawned quite some time after the first motion picture, with Pong (Atari, 1972) arriving a full seventy-seven years after the first motion picture, Sortie de l’usine Lumière de Lyon (Louis Lumière, 1895) and the influence had by film unto videogames is undeniable, from presentation and narrative to more capitalistic pursuits such as franchising, distribution and exhibition. This is not to say that every videogame is developed with the intention of being a narrative-heavy critical darling, much like every film is not made to be an arthouse, indie darling. Videogames still exist in many genres and formats, from the resurgence of the ‘retro’ visual style of games like FTL: Faster Than Light (Subset Games, 2012), rather unceremoniously assigned to the genre broadly known as ‘Indie’, to the rise of ‘Live Services’ such as Destiny 2 (Bungie, 2017), the videogame has managed to steer clear of total homogeneity. The same can be said for film, we are still able to enjoy an action thrill-ride like Mission: Impossible – Fallout (Christopher McQaurrie, 2018) and on the other hand bare witness to a very different breed of film such as The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (Ethan Coen & Joel Cohen, 2018), the former, a Hollywood blockbuster and the latter, a straight to Netflix Western of a much smaller scale. What this essay intends to discuss, is the history and evolution of the circuit of the human and the entertainment media we consume, which is to say, how we as players or as an audience engage with the game or film, to what level we engage with it and how this differs across time and genre in the West.

To begin dissecting the concept of the circuit, what must first be discussed is the notion of ‘play’ and its evolution throughout history. Johan Huizinga (1955) describes play as being ‘universal’ and an activity enjoyed by animals alike, he also indicates that play, despite its universality, is not ‘instrumental’ to our lives. He outlines, what to him are, the five aspects of play; play is free, play is not ‘ordinary’ or ‘real life’, play is distinct from ordinary life and occupies its own time and space, all players must follow the rules of the game (ordinary rules of the everyday are suspended) and finally, play is connected with no material interest and no profit can be gained from it. Of course, when Huizinga first published this in 1938, these five aspects may have applied but since the very beginning of videogames in 1972, these five aspects have slowly begun to lose their relevance to what much of the Western world views as ‘play’. Consider now, at the time of writing, that a ‘Triple-A’ (AAA) videogame will sell at full retail price for upwards of £50GBP and that within 24 hours of its release, Grand Theft Auto V (Rockstar Games, 2013) made $800million (Goldfarb: IGN, 2013). Of course, there is an argument to be made that one could refrain from ‘play’ such as this but as is the nature of any evolution, there is not any particular way to go back once one has arrived and as ‘play’ has arrived in the exceedingly profitable place it has now, it will not be returning to 1938. It is in this sense that play is not free, not in the material sense or in the sense of freedom to do as one pleases as there is a barrier to entry. Huizinga’s second aspect of play is almost true, but it is better addressed alongside the third aspect. There are many games designed to simulate parts of reality, usually parts of reality that a large amount of the player-base does not participate in but videogames such as Microsoft Flight Simulator X (subLOGIC, 2014) can still be considered simulations because they imitate the ‘real world’. Equally, play is not solely confined to its own time and space, with mobile games and portable consoles like the Nintendo Switch it is possible to turn play into something one participates in at any time or in any space they deem to be convenient or acceptable. Huizinga’s fourth aspect is also subject to scrutiny in the era of videogames, as most every popular videogame released will be set upon by, for lack of a term less steeped in pop-culture implications, hackers. The term ‘hacker’ does not refer to a hivemind and not all subject to the label will have the same motivations, it varies from game to game with it being most problematic when allowed to thrive unpunished in competitive titles such as Rainbow Six Siege (Ubisoft, 2015). Finally, Huizinga refers to ‘material gain’ which in the year 2019 is the primary interest of videogame publishers, with the CEO of Take-Two, publisher of Grand Theft Auto V, publicly stating that his company are ‘under monetising its users’ (Whitaker: The Escapist, 2017). These are not abstract occurrences in the games industry, the modern industry of ‘play’, but are exemplary of the way ‘play’ has evolved since Huizinga’s work in 1938 and the way the implications of the circuit have evolved over time.

Roger Caillois (2001) outlined four types of game: ‘Agon’ referring to a competitive game, ‘Alea’ referring to a game of chance, ‘Mimesis’ referring to simulation and Ilinx referring to vertigo. The four can be combined and with this, form the groundwork for most every videogame to ever and that will ever exist. With this is as the basis for the circuit formed by a player and a game, it is clear that the most basic elements of the circuit have remained unchanged but it is the human element that has continued to stretch the boundaries that Caillois’ four elements present.

The ‘circuit’, pertains to the connection or connections between the human and the game or film, but it is not so simple as the human merely picking up a controller and playing a game, there are countless implications attached to this process. Even when one removes the videogame and brings the concept of ‘playing’ to something more traditional like playing the game of football, the implications still remain, albeit different implications. There are many implications as to a child playing football. The child may support a team, the child may collect football cards, the child may have friends who play football and mutually, they all wish to remain ‘in the loop’, each of these elements feed back into the other and the child continues to play football. This is not an exhaustive list but the cause and effect nature of the analysis of the circuit, in this context, means that if one so desires, one can find every segment of what is essentially described by Friedman (in Lister et al., 2009: 306) as a ‘feedback loop’:

‘What makes interactions with computers so powerfully absorbing – for better or worse – is the way computers can transform the exchange between reader and text into a feedback loop. Every response you make provokes a reaction from the computer which leads to a new response, and so and, as the loop from the screen to your eyes to your fingers on the keyboard to the computer to the screen becomes a single cybernetic circuit’ (Friedman in Lister et al., 2009: 306)

Extend Friedman’s references to keyboard, computer and screen to controller, console and screen and one can see the obvious similarity, it is more than similarity though, they are identical scenarios. The player inputs commands to the controller and before their eyes, a ‘reaction[…]which leads to a new response’, Swink (in Blomberg, 2018) and Blomberg write that ‘In general terms, videogame controllers are all devices that [translate] muscle movement[…]into a language the computer understands’. The circuit that is created is a cybernetic one. While the player is playing the game they become ‘a fusion of the two[,][…]a cyborgian subjectivity – composed of wires, machines, codes and flesh’ (Kennedy in Lister et al. 2009: 306). Blomberg (2018) refers to the controller as being ‘an integrated part of the videogame experience’ and goes on to reference Keogh who acknowledges that ‘as one becomes more experienced, the controller becomes more habitualised and recedes more and more to the background’. Consider this alongside the ‘cyborgian subjectivity’ and one might begin to see the way in which the circuit remains with the player once it has been established for enough time and this does not stop with just the experience of playing the game, very often the circuit will enlarge to incorporate more of the player’s ‘space and time’ – referring back to Huizinga – than just the space and time in which they are actually playing the game.

Black Mirror: Bandersnatch (David Slade, 2018) is a bridge of sorts between the game and film, lending more heavily toward the medium of film than God of War (SIE Santa Monica Studio, 2018) for example, which alongside its focus on narrative and cinematic elements, is very traditional in its 3^rd person action-adventure ludic interface. Bandersnatch however, could be considered less immersive in its ludic interface as the viewer, or player is stopped at intervals and prompted to make decisions about the direction the narrative will progress in next. For those who can be considered ‘cyborgian’ in their relationships to their controllers, Bandersnatch presents them with the television remote, an unknown medium for them to interact with in relation to anything even slightly resembling a game. While the ludic interface presented to the gamer is similar to that of a branching-narrative RPG like Mass Effect 2 (BioWare, 2010), the medium that would typically create a ‘cyborgian subjectivity’ fails to create that and the ‘integrated part of the experience’ fails to be as integrated, particularly with a piece of media as experimental in format as Bandersnatch. Similarly, motion controls which claim to be more immersive are also guilty of disrupting the circuit of the player and the game. One might argue that Bloodborne (FromSoftware, 2015) is especially guilty of the decision to include what are from the perspective of the game’s ludic interface, redundant motion controls that only remind the player that they are holding a controller in their hands, in the ‘real world’, counteracting the ‘habitualisation’ referred to by Keogh. The Last of Us Remastered (Naughty Dog, 2014) is also guilty of including motion controls that disrupt the player-game circuit by utilising the controller as a reverse-simulation of the game’s flashlight feature, forcibly reminding the player of the controller in their hands as they shake it to prevent the torch, wielded by the game’s lead character, Joel, from going out. Blomberg and Keogh acknowledge how essential the controller has become to videogaming, not just for a means of controlling the game but for the layout that players have come to expect and how that guides to an extent the player’s ability to form an easy circuit with a game. Recent endeavours to further utilise the concept of a controller have typically only led to, as was previously described, a ‘forcible’ ejection from immersion and implication in the game and instead misguidedly imply the player in the ‘real world’ space they are playing the game within.

Newman (in Lister et al. 2009: 306) states that ‘the interface [of a videogame] is a continuous interactive feedback loop, where the player must be seen as both implied and implicated in the construction of the experience’. Again, the ‘circuit’ varies depending upon the player and the game, which is exceedingly important when utilising Newman’s claims. In a narrative heavy, single-player experience the player is subject to the narrative and while they are able to interact within that narrative, the narrative will not change. This would surely contest with the concept of ‘freedom’ when playing a videogame and instead be closer to a film in its construction, whereby the film will always have the same narrative from beginning to end every time it is viewed. An example of this is The Last of Us, by progressing through the ludic elements of the game, you develop the narrative elements of the game. They exist in tandem making it impossible to progress in any capacity without also completing the story, the game is linear from both a ludic standpoint and a narrative standpoint but its linearity does not detract from the way the player is ‘implied’ and ‘implicated’. This is due very simply to the interactivity of a videogame. Consider ‘interactivity’ alongside Hayles’ (2007) idea that ‘stimulation works best in other words when it is associated with feelings of autonomy, competence and relatedness’ , despite the linearity and unchanging nature of The Last of Us, the player remains stimulated, because to simplify what Hayles states, they are in control of the moment to moment within the ludic interface.

Hayles (2007) found from a study by the University of Rochester that gamers ‘found even more satisfying than the fun of playing, the opportunities offered by the games for achievement, freedom and in some instances, connections to other players’. Hayles’ findings only acknowledge a fraction of what the ‘circuit’ can mean but within that fraction is a hugely significant factor – and an indication of how great the number of implications a circuit can contain. The ‘connections to other players’, much like the example of the boy whose friends play football, suggests the player will form relationships that bring the player back to the game. The game is not solely about the ‘playing’ of it, it has various implications to the individual. Lister et al. (2009: 306) suggest that ‘the “real world” is not left behind for the blinking lights, geometries and disembodiment of cyberspace’, which alongside the claims made by Kennedy (in Lister et al. 2009: 306) support a notion that the player never truly leaves behind the real world, no matter their level of immersion, as the human component of the ‘cyborgian subjectivity’ must remain a constant for it to even be considered a ‘cyborgian subjectivity’.

The circuit of the player and game has grown in complexity since the era of Pong, when the player was only able to play against one other human at a time and the circuit very isolated to those two players. Those two players could of course share the result of their matches of Pong with others and the ‘circuit’ for each player would expand to include the meaning given to their personal experience with the game by their friends. Today, there is a far greater potential for sharing the experiences of one player with countless others thanks to the existence of online multiplayer services like Xbox Live or PlayStation Network (PSN). With these services, the player is able to share their experiences with other players with immediacy unknown to players as far as even the early 00s. This interconnectedness of players is now one of the greatest parts of the circuit of the modern gamer, it is not restricted to just the friends of players, its reach extends to platforms like YouTube and Twitch where the circuit becomes almost infinite. One of the core components of sharing one’s videogame footage on the internet, is the desire to make money. In the last decade, the term ‘Let’s Play’ has made itself more and more well known but what does it refer to? This itself has changed over time, with it becoming one of many definitions for what are now recognised occupations for a handful of the gaming community. Felix Kjellberg, known by many as ‘PewDiePie’, made his start on YouTube as a ‘Let’s Player’, uploading videos of him playing a game and giving commentary over it simultaneously. He is now arguably the most well-known YouTube star but this was not always the case as every YouTuber begins their YouTube career performing ‘free labour’. A ‘Let’s Player’ will begin by inadvertently advertising a videogame for a publisher and delivering content for YouTube to capitalise on without initially paying the uploader. This is subject to change, as with increased popularity on platforms like YouTube, comes increased earnings and the boom of ‘Let’s Plays’ saw rise to numerous other channels all seeking the same popularity but really only performing free labour services for YouTube and their favourite videogames. Further than simply the recording and uploading of videogame footage is the rise of critique videos in which the uploader will critique a particular videogame, sometimes garnering millions of views. ‘I HATE DESTINY 2 – I’m Done.’ (I Hate Everything, 2017) is just one of these videos and further than just the differing style of content is the impact a video such as this can hold, with the potential to influence the sales of the game and the way the videogame will be remembered in time to come.

It is important to understand the significance of internet content and its influence as it has made the circuit of the player and the videogame less intimate than it has ever been. The internet has turned the circuit into a network of gamers all interacting with each other and bringing further meaning to each individual’s respective meaning, this has even reached a point where to become a part of a particular game’s community, it is advised that one views preliminary YouTube content to learn the ‘meta’ of competitive shooters like Rainbow Six Siege or Fortnite (Epic Games, 2017). More important than the videos, is the concept of the ‘meta’, which in itself is a circuit specific to the interior of any one game, typically competitive. This is one of the areas that challenges to what extent a player will be invested in and by extension, a part of the circuit of a game. The ‘circuit’ as has been mentioned before, is not the same for each player, it is a personal circuit within a network of other circuits that together create the type of network that Latour (in Lister et al, 2009) refers to in studies of ‘Actor-Network Theory’. Actor-Network Theory suggests that the individual does not have individual agency but instead finds agency within a network of others, it also does not make a distinction between human or computer when using the term ‘actor’ as all within the network are given agency by the other. The ideas proposed by Actor-Network Theory are especially true of online multi-player videogames as without other players, or human actors, there would be no videogame to play, equally, the videogame as an actor would have no agency within the network without actors to play it.

An interesting question raised by Actor-Network Theory (Latour in Lister et al, 2009) is one of the value of ‘alternate currencies’ in videogames. Many games have fallen foul of the ‘microtransaction’ but not all are as egregious in their application of microtransactions as others. Fortnite and FIFA 19 (Electronic Arts, 2018) are two of the best cases to study in reference to Actor-Network Theory as they are both guilty of forced scarcity but in different ways. Fortnite presents its users with a ‘store’ containing ‘skins’ that only affect the player character on an aesthetic level, these skins are of varying quality or ‘rarity’ and of course as the ‘rarity’ increases so to does the price, this is not the primary concern, however. The primary concern is one of ‘value’ and ‘rarity’, because for something to be rare, it must be ‘(of an event, situation, or condition) not occurring very often’ (Oxford Online Dictionary, 2019) and if the developers of Fortnite are in control of what is effectively an infinitesimally duplicatable piece of digital content, then it is no longer rare. If all 200 million Fortnite players (Gilbert, 2018) purchased a skin of the highest tier of rarity, it cannot be considered a rare item but it would maintain its status as ‘rare’ because ‘rarity’ is an arbitrary concept in an isolated economy managed by one company and utilised by one, albeit incredibly large, network of individuals. The same can be said for FIFA 19 which specialises in forcing its players to have to ‘pay-to-win’ by purchasing ‘packs’ of yet again, varying quality, each with differing chances at the best and unsurprisingly, rarest players. The difference that is beginning to become apparent is that Fortnite gives every player access to its ‘rarest’ content, whereas FIFA 19 gates it behind odds slimmer than <0.1% and with odds that low the most efficient way for a player to get what they may want is to gamble real money on products in an economy run by the developer. Both of these examples relate to Actor-Network Theory by the way they influence the human actors to purchase products, much like the aforementioned example of the boy collecting football cards, the player desires to remain ‘in the loop’ – and by extension the circuit – with their friends. Equally the game’s role as actor in the network cannot exist without its players who spend money, which is not to say that the game provides a service but instead merely acknowledging the roles the individual parties play to maintain the greater circuit.

Dreams Rewired (Manu Luksch, 2015) claims that digital media is the ‘mobilisation of dreams’ and videogames are possibly the perfect manifestation of this notion but there is a danger to videogames providing us with access to our dreams. For some, the desire is as innocent as building a house in Minecraft (Mojang, 2011) but for others, it could be to build a Nazi monument in the same game and this is not a disparaging comment on the freedom that Minecraft affords a player but a comment on the personal implications an individual can inject into their player-game circuit. However, for some, the actions they take in a game is meaningless to them, so if a player decides to murder civilians in Grand Theft Auto V, this might not be their ‘dreams realised’ (Dreams Rewired, 2015) but is the player utilising the freedom presented to them within the game’s sandbox, to what extent this is the individual’s player-game circuit varies by the person as Grand Theft Auto V presents a linear narrative within its open-world as well as Grand Theft Auto Online, which is Grand Theft Auto’s answer to Actor-Network Theory (Latour in Lister et al, 2009). The aforementioned ‘danger’ only increases in games that abide to what Baudrillard (1994) labels a ‘simulation’, meaning a simulation of the ‘real world’. Bown (2018) writes in reference to Black Mirror (Charlie Brooker, 2011-)and Blade Runner 2049 (Dennis Villeneuve, 2017) of the possibility that ‘robot lovers of the future may do nothing more than narcissistically affirm the user’ but with our potential for simulation, videogames have already made it to a very similar point. Expanding on this, Bown refers to the application Replika (Luka, Inc., 2016), which is the realisation of the fiction presented in both Black Mirror and Blade Runner 2049 as the app is designed to ‘match your personality and become your best friend’. If these are the dreams that people want realised, then the gamification of human relationships will only continue, as Bown also acknowledges the existence of the ‘smart condom’ i.Con which tracks the sexual performance of the user and sends statistics to a smartphone app. What is concerning about the i.Con is that it does present a player-game circuit that could easily develop into a feedback loop where the ‘gamer’ turns their libido into a ludic interface and alters their perception of reality, turning an aspect of their very reality into a simulation.

For some, the gamification and simulation of ‘real world’ events can be more real than the reality they inhabit. For those who are addicted to a simulation or ‘simulacra’ – a fictional world with no ‘real-world’ elements – (Baudrillard, 1994), they are in ‘denial of reality’ (Diamond, 2010) which is an interesting notion to consider when a player might choose a simulation of reality instead of reality. This is most problematic in mobile games like Episode (Episode Interactive, 2013) that present relationship scenarios to anyone who can navigate the App Store, which with the game’s 12+ rating could well be children who will be influenced by the gamified portrayal of romantic relationships. A more perverse game, closer to the fears expressed by Bown, is Summer Lesson (Bandai Namco Studios, 2016) which is evocative of a highly exploitative player-game circuit where the player, being all-powerful, is given charge of teaching an attractive, young female character over Summer. It creates uneven power dynamics and presents a reality to those more susceptible to influence that is not real and has the potential, much like the i.Con to alter a person’s perception of reality as it gamifies something intimately human.

In conclusion, the inherent natures of the human and videogame mean that there will always be a circuit created between the two elements, the implications of the circuit, however, are numerous and will never be as simple as ‘the player plays the game’. What the player brings with them is their humanity and what that humanity means in the era they belong to, in the information era that this essay belongs to, the player brings an immediacy of communication and dissemination of information that allows for videogames to be implied in much more than the countless rooms they are being played in. There will always be dangers to this power games now have to spread but it is the player who has allowed for games to hold the power they now do and the player ultimately holds the power to stop the player-game circuit or in wider terms, the player-game network from being implicated in any further elements of human life. Simulations have the power to distort our humanity but so to do they have the power to enrich an individual to ‘mobilise their dreams’, again, it is the player who maintains control of this. What is essential to maintain, is the understanding that the ‘circuit’ will never be a homogenised constant for every player but instead the circuits that each player develops with the videogames they play are what forms the network of people able to provide each other with meaning in the videogame worlds they choose to inhabit, be it in masterfully crafted narrative of God of War or the freedom of the ludic interface of Grand Theft Auto V, while the circuit always exists, so to does choice within it.

Bibliography

Baudrillard, J. (1994) Simulacra and Simulation. Michigan: University of Michigan Press

Blomberg, J. ‘The Semiotics of the Game Controller.’ Game Studies 18, no. 2 (September 2018). http://gamestudies.org/1802/articles/blomberg.

Bown, A. ‘Tech Is Turning Love into a Rightwing Game’. The Guardian, May 3, 2018, sec. Opinion. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/03/tech-love-rightwing-game-facebook-dating-app.

Caillois, R. (2001) Man, Play, and Games. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Diamond, S.A. (2010) “Avoidance, Sobriety and Reality: The Psychology of Addiction.” Psychology Today. Accessed January 25, 2019. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/201002/avoidance-sobriety-and-reality-the-psychology-addiction.

Dumazedier, J. and McKenzie, M. (1974). Sociology of Leisure. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Gilbert, B. (2018) “How Big Is ‘Fortnite’? With More than 200 Million Players, It’s Now Equal to Nearly Two-Thirds the US Population.” Business Insider. Accessed January 25, 2019. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-people-play-fortnite-2018-11.

Hayles, K. (2007) ‘Hyper and Deep Attention: The Generational Divide in Cognitive Modes’, in Profession, 2007, pp.187-199, available at: http://media08.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/my-article-on-hyper-and-deep-attention

Huizinga, J. (1955) Homo Ludens; A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. Boston: Beacon Press

Goldfarb, A. (2013) “GTA 5 Makes $800 Million in One Day.” IGN. Accessed January 23, 2019. https://www.ign.com/articles/2013/09/18/gta-5-makes-800-million-in-one-day.

Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I., and Kelly, K. (2009). New Media: A Critical Introduction (Second Edition). London: Routledge.

Whitaker, R. “Take Two CEO Company Is Under Monetizing Its Users” | The Escapist. Accessed January 23, 2019. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/170468-Take-Two-CEO-Company-is-Under-Monetizing-its-Users.

Filmography

Brooker, Charlie (2011-). Black Mirror. [TV] UK: Zeppotron, Channel 4 Television Corporation, Gran Babieka

Cohen, Ethan & Cohen, Joel (2018). The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. [Film] USA: Annapurna Pictures, Annapurna Television, Mike Zoss Productions

“I HATE DESTINY 2 – I’m Done. – YouTube.” Accessed January 25, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqyco2NYBOs.

Luksch, Manu (2015. Dreams Rewired. [Documentary] Austria: Amour Fou Vienna, Ambient Information Systems, Bildschon Filmproduction

Lumière, Louis (1895). La Sortie de l’Usine Lumière à Lyon. [Film] France: Lumière

McQuarrie, Christopher (2018). Mission: Impossible – Fallout. [Film] USA: Paramount Pictures, Skydance Media, TC Productions

Slade, David (2018). Black Mirror: Bandersnatch. [TV] USA: House of Tomorrow, Netflix

Villeneuve, Dennis (2017). Blade Runner 2049. [Film] USA: Alcon Entertainment, Columbia Pictures Corporation, Sony

Ludography

Atari (1972). Pong. [Video Game] Arcade Cabinet. Atari, Inc.: USA.

Bandai Namco Studios (2016). Summer Lesson. [Video Game] PS4. BANDAI NAMCO Entertainment: Japan

BioWare (2010). Mass Effect 2. [Video Game] Xbox 360. Electronic Arts: USA

Bungie (2017). Destiny 2. [Video Game] Xbox One. Activision: USA.

EA Vancouver (2018). FIFA 19. [Video Game] Xbox One. EA Sports: USA.

Epic Games (2017). Fortnite. [Video Game] Xbox One. Epic Games: USA.

Episode Interactive (2013). Episode. [Video Game] iOS. Episode Interactive, LLC.

FromSoftware, Inc. (2015). Bloodborne. [Video Game] PlayStation 4. Sony Computer Entertainment: USA.

Luka, Inc. (2016). Replika. [Application] iOS. Luka, Inc.: USA.

Mojang (2011). Minecraft. [Video Game] PC. Microsoft Game Studios: USA.

Naughty Dog (2014). The Last of Us – Remastered. [Video Game]. PlayStation 4. Sony Computer Entertainment: USA.

SIE Santa Monica Studio (2018). God of War. [Video Game]. PC. Sony Interactive Entertainment: USA.

subLOGIC (2014). Microsoft Flight Simulator X. [Video Game]. PC. Microsoft Game Studios: USA.

Subset Games (2012). FTL: Faster Than Light [Video Game] PC. Subset Games: China.

Ubisoft Montreal, Ubisoft Toronto (2015). Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege. [Video Game] PC. Ubisoft: France.