KEY
Bold:		Interviewer
Regular:		Respondent
[ ]:		Uncertain word(s)	

Good morning Mr [anonymised].  Thank you very much for agreeing to take part in this interview.  I will now just provide a brief introduction about the project and then we will go over some details about the interview.  Obviously the fact that it’s being recorded and you need to be aware of it.  There is also the detail of the consent form that I sent a couple of days ago.  It needs to be signed obviously for methodological reasons but you can do it in your own time, it doesn’t have to be done now, as long as you can provide your consent verbally now that you accept to take part in the interview, that the interview is going to be recorded, that you can interrupt and stop me at any time.  And also I need to provide you with a reminder that the interview will be anonymised and it will become part of a dataset and we will look at the interviews as a whole, as a dataset, rather than individual interviews.
So do you agree then to take part in the interview?
Yes.
Fantastic.  So the interview is being recorded like I said.  The project, Gaming Horizons.  The project started in December last year.  We’ve been working now for six months.  We met already approximately a month ago in Luxembourg for the digital learning participatory meeting.  So you may remember more or less what the project is about, but I will provide you with a brief introduction.
What we are trying to do at Gaming Horizon is to interrogate, ask questions, critical questions, about how video games are framed as a research and innovation priority in European institutional context.  So in the context of funding programmes, Horizon 2020, in order to understand how games are framed as something that requires institutional funding, requires support.  And what sort of aspects of gaming get prioritised, what aspects are left in the background because of this process.  This is one aspect of the project.
Alongside is a critical interrogation aspect that is also a more proactive, creative you might say aspect, where we engage with policy makers and developers and members of the public, stakeholders, in order to define alternative frameworks for more educationally, culturally, socially relevant use of games in society.
So the rationale underpinning the whole project is that games are not just a collection of technological tools but they are a very culturally relevant medium.  And they are pervasive, they are part of young peoples’ lives and they are an increasingly significant part of culture.  So the way they are framed as an innovation, as sort of an area that requires support and funding needs to be expanded.  So that’s the rationale underpinning the project.  So there are two phases of the project like I said.  The critical interrogation and the more – you might call it creative or participatory design aspect, where we engage with people and we try to define these alternative frameworks, alternative views, and so on.  
So this interview with you, we are trying to get in touch with people, we call them experts, with the insider knowledge of how themes and priorities are shaped and how they become basically priorities.  So I will ask you questions about your background, about the role that you have in defining some of these priorities and gaming theme particular, in the context of Horizon 2020 and possibly also looking back at Framework 7, FP7.  And so you will have just an opportunity to talk about these issues in an unstructured way.  Please think of the interview mainly as a conversation.  So I will ask just a number of broad questions about how gaming is featured in Horizon 2020, how gaming is featured generally in the European discourse, in the way people talk about these things in European circles and so on.
So can we maybe start then with some background about you?  If you can describe your current role and your involvement in the European policy?  Just to have that kind of background about your role and your position.
Well, yes.  I am currently the head of the unit that among other things supports the development, research and innovation on ICT for learning.  As part of that endeavour at European level we do support research on the applications, trying to understand what are the peculiarities and the emotional and psychological underpinnings that attract people and in particular young people into games.  Understand what they are and try to repurpose the analysis that we extract out of that knowledge into a known entertainment reuse of these features for learning and acquisitions of skills.  
Sometimes we refer it as gamification, sometimes as serious games and sometimes about educational game or game based learning.  So my role there since I am head of unit is to structure or let’s say contribute to the strategic guidelines in the unit.  But I do have a record of work in this area.  Because prior to being head of unit I was deputy head of unit and project officer in charge of research in ICT for learning, over the past sixteen years.  My background is a scientific one, I am a computer scientist by study, with the specialisation in artificial intelligence.  So I did work in the area of intelligent learning systems myself, then I joined the European Commission.  Again, for sixteen years I’ve been attached to it and I’ve been one of the people pushing the agenda for the modernisation of education and technology through this.
Over the past let’s say five years I have been working on serious games and gamification.  Yes, the result of this work together with my colleagues here at the European Commission is a number of European projects that are dealing with serious games, and networks by the way that are structuring this research field which are interested.  That is the background let’s say.
You mentioned the repurposing of gaming technologies, gaming approaches, from the entertainment industry in order to pursue more serious or applied applications of gaming.  One of the things that we are actually trying to explore in this project is precisely this kind of tension or distinction that has emerged between entertainment games and serious games.  And something that we’re wondering in the project is whether that distinction is actually useful in order to sort of pursue a more socially relevant function or purpose of games?  Whether that is something that is actually valuable or is something that maybe should be questioned a bit more?  
Can we maybe talk about that kind of distinction between entertainment and serious games?  Could you maybe tell me where that kind of distinction comes from?  Why there was this idea of repurposing or transferring or basically taking something that was born in the entertainment industry and then repurpose it for more applied – maybe describe a bit the process or trajectory?
Yes, I think that this emerged over the years.  The scientific route on game based learning have not been discovered yesterday.  Let’s say game based learning has always featured in the education sphere.  For obvious reasons, because it attracts the interest of youngsters in using the technologies so people have always tried to integrate the game into the pedagogys.  So from Montessori onwards.  Now without going back to these scientific routes of education what has happened, which I can testify here, is in our endeavour to personalise the learning experience we did realise – the community realised, not us – that there are certain features which go beyond let’s say the verifications of whether a certain test has been successfully responded or not, and then trying to analyse what is the knowledge that was missed.
It was realised that there were factors that went beyond the mere checks of knowledge and would go into the sphere of psychological – let’s say the psychological dimensions and the emotional dimensions.  So even when it came to the analysis of creativity and the kind of new skills that people would need for the labour market or for the 21st Century let’s say, you realised that these distinctions, these analysis of knowledge and skills acquisitions had to go beyond what we had at that moment in time in the so called learning [content 0:12:03] management systems.  
So we realised that the role of emotion was growing and analysis of the psychological underpinnings was also growing.  And so somebody started to create this new kind of approach to gaming, which was, okay, I will – what was the idea?  We do take some of the characteristics that engage the kids when they play games, which is that you have a quasi professional game, so Fifa 2010, this kind of stuff, with very engaging graphics and playability of the character itself.  They said, okay, we know how to do this, so we know how to engage the kids.  We know that you need a narrative.  The narrative is linked to a new way of passing information, it was innovation in pedagogical terms at the time.
And somebody said, okay, let’s put them together and see whether – and I remember the first of this project – let’s see whether we can actually free a princess in a tower – this is the game, this is the narrative and this is the adventure and that challenge that they put forward.  So let’s see whether we can explain a concept related to optics by letting the players engage and embrace the challenge of freeing this princess.  Creating the game was not an easy task.  At the end of the day it does include – it’s a quite significant financial endeavour to do that.  But they managed to pass the messages of the propagations of light because the guy had to understand how light propagates to open for instances certain doors, or to make certain steps forward to go from one chamber to another chamber.
So the game itself was filled with principles in relation to electromagnetics.  Those who were engaged in the game because of the game they also acquired knowledge.  You see that experiment, which was probably one of the first that we supported, was done to try to let the students acquire that knowledge almost without having a knowledge in itself that they were acquiring the particular skills.  It was a trick in a way.  I think that these were some of the first experiments.  Which shows what?  If the game is actually appealing – by the way regardless of the technological complexity, but if certain game features are very well developed, well, the kids they do play and you can – and since then you’ve seen what testifies to that is if you go in your Apple or Google store and you look for educational games you find hundreds of these titles, for covering mathematics or others.
It also became apparent in supporting that research that there was a missing component there.  That interdisciplinary wise you would need to include another set of scientists in supporting research.  So teachers were important, computer science were important, game players were important, but also those who would look into how, from a cognitive point of view and also some from a narrow psychological point of view, they would contribute to a better understanding of why the game can work or does and does not attract people in learning.
So what happened then, for instance one of these projects did really check whether a game using if you want a quasi real character, or a game that was using a cartoon, influenced or not true functional magnetic resonance tests, the engagements in learning activities that could be detected at brain level.  And the results, if I remember correct, they did actually show that the more the character is close to the human the better you have effects in relation to learning, even in relation to sparkling new knowledge.   One of these projects through these fMRI did manage to show that there were moments where the learning process in itself appeared.  That was to me the proof that you have an effect through a certain experiment, that was the project probably was in 2004/2005, one of the early projects.  
So what emerged since then?  The sector emerged and when the sector emerges the directions in which the research goes are augmented, so they’re really magnified.  In the US at the same time you would see the emergence of serious games, even the word serious games.  By the way, one of the major scientists shared the family name, is called Stacy [anonymised], but we are not related and we don’t know each other.  And he was one of the scientists in the US who pushed the research on serious games because it showed that you could use the emotional component of games to train adults and to train kids.  And there was a huge amount of money that went into research for adults, especially from the military sector.  
In Europe we continued our engagement and we tried another experiment.  We said, okay, why don’t we let play kids with characters, a quasi human character, for a purpose which – then we explained what is the purpose.  So we moved away from the trick, and we said what is the purpose?  Well, it’s a social purpose.  Let’s see whether we can teach digital resilience through this game to kids and specifically digital resilience when they are confronted with cyber bullying.  There was a stream of projects that focussed their intention, FearNot and others, they focussed their attentions on developing a game which was good in quality in graphics terms, very fluid in the animations of the character.  It was a virtual world.  And what was the purpose of it?  
So the little character in the game was subjected to bullying in his school.  And the player, in this case the human, the kids at schools, they would engage into a discussion with this guy who was bullied or this little avatar, and would tell him what to do.  So that is also a part of the learning theory which the idea was that the empathy would generate the learning process.  So what did they do at the end of the day?  They built this game and they sent it to schools and they said, guys, play this game and try to teach this guy or try to engage in a conversation with this little avatar and tell him what he has to do.  So then the kids, they were telling the guy, go there and tell him stop.  Or go to your parents and tell your mother.  The game would develop differently on the basis of the suggestion given by the kids.
So the kids could actually see immediately what the reactions of the environment was, including the bully and the bullied.  So in a way it was transferring knowledge by engaging into the reflection processes of the learner in itself and let’s say revealing the effect of certain tools or certain strategies.  
I’m going to interrupt you now because there was other – this is very, very helpful actually.  I just want to full – can I say explore this idea of seriousness a bit more if you don’t mind.  Would you be able to just summarise in a few words what makes games serious or applied according to you?  You mentioned obviously knowledge acquisition or skills acquisition, you mentioned learning concepts in physics or digital resilience from cyber bullying.  So these are types of knowledge, types of skills.  Would you be able to expand on what actually are the factors, the dimensions, that according to you make a game serious or applied?
I was going there through the examples.  Because as I said at the beginning it wasn’t clear what was happening, what was the purposefulness that would make the difference between what you call a game and an applied game.  So the intentions of teaching a certain behaviour, which is the key word that is missing in what you just mentioned.  So it’s not only acquisition of skills or retention of knowledge, it is also work on behaviour that this research revealed, that games had an effect on it.  
So what we did, and what makes the difference, I know that I am not – I have never been by the way – the person who likes to identify everything with a keyword, I don’t believe in the word serious games or applied games.  What just emerged is that if you want to teach a particular set of knowledge or a particular behaviour you have to differentiate the learning pedagogies that you have.  And the game does give you that possibility in a way which is completely different from the educational systems of today.  Even if you compare it with MOOCs which is in the digital world the parallel of our educational systems, they have not embraced a very high level let’s say gaming environment for teaching purposes.
And the real issue here is not whether they are serious or they are not serious, the real issue is whether the number of titles that are sold, of games that are sold, in Europe or worldwide testify that this is an environment which is very engaging for the kind of target group that we are targeting for learning purposes.  And it also revealed, research, that they are very good at leveraging certain emotional reactions.  So our point was, okay, so why these kind of – the same emotional creatures are not used when it comes to education and training?  Some says that it’s a matter of demand, some say that there are organisational barriers.  Because even though you would say yes, but you realise these games they do attract the kids, then when it comes to the integrations in schools the teachers may still be very reluctant to use a game because they say, well, after all it’s a game.
So the distinction, I would say in a way I think I tend to agree totally with you, this is a question that in itself needs to be posed when it comes to research.  Is there a distinction or are we missing the point that this can actually complement other forms of learning.  Now what we try to do there is to distinguish the components, to isolate the components of games which can be repurposed and see whether this kind of if you want market failure can be addressed.  We have invested significantly so I guess over the next two or three years we would see some of these results emerging from that research.  If you take the RAGE project, this is the biggest civilian programme funded worldwide.  
RAGE, of course, yes, I know RAGE.
If you want this is the tip of the iceberg, if you look at the technologies for ICT.  So this is the top that we have now.  Now we have to demonstrate that that is possible and there is are business opportunities around it for companies to invest and at the same time we would master what are the barriers to reuse these games in schools.  I think that the three components make the difference when it comes to entertainment and non entertainment.  Whether I would qualify what is that qualifies the serious games, frankly speaking, whether my son is playing Fifa or is playing something else, at the end of the day it’s whether the end results which is probably the acquisitions of skills is met.  I don’t think there is one single answer but all together they can contribute in my opinion.
Right, okay, that’s great, thank you.  Now let’s move on a bit to the—
I just want to – as this is a conversation – I want to add I was confronted with this reaction to the word ‘serious’.  Because the industry said, well, you are diminishing the value of our entertainment games if you call them serious.
Yes, there is that danger, that’s exactly one of the things that we also noted in our conversations.
So somebody said, you have to use applied.  Applied to what I said?  I must say, I am one of those who say it – you are focussing on the wrong page, so you can use whatever words you want, at the end of the day these are technologies for learning.  So the question is, does Fifa 2017 teach my son to play football?  Probably not.
Probably not.
Does Fifa 2017 teach my son the role of team playing?  Probably yes.  So should we say that Fifa is an applied game, is a serious game, or is an entertainment game?  What I care is that if my goal is to teach team building or team playing, that game is integrated into the pedagogy and it is used for certain specific reasons and you will see that they will engage.  Where the problem is surely is that if the game has the sole purpose of entertaining and scoring goals you may lose that, so it’s an opportunity that is lost.  
Lost opportunity, that’s an interesting thing.
The key issue here is to show that there is also business opportunity in not missing these – there is a business opportunity to not also missing these opportunities.
That’s very helpful, thanks, as a clarification.  Now I would like to touch a bit on the way serious games, gaming in general, is featured in funding calls, the way it’s presented.  From your perspective and as someone obviously involved in policies and strategies and to an extent in defining also these programmes like H2020 and sort of expectations that underpin these programmes.  What are the expectations?  What do policy makers expect from projects, let’s say H2020 projects or FP7 projects which maybe just ended or maybe are still running, where gaming is either a primary or secondary component?  Because that’s something we also noted in our analysis of these programmes.  Often gaming is a primary component and in other calls it’s a secondary component.  It’s like one of the ways in which for example dissemination or impact can be achieved.  So there is this kind of distinction.  So what do you expect from your position, as a policy maker, what are the expectations generally, institutionally?  If you can expand with me on that.
Okay.  So I think that I will be exact on these distinctions, so primary and secondary and they are different.  So the primary intervention was really on gamification if you want.  And this emerged over the past three, four years.  There were two major calls and they were quite diverse, quite different, and they looked at the issues in gamification.  So first one was to create a critical mass of researchers, interdisciplinary research communities, so interdisciplinary researchers, those who develop games and those who will be using those games for learning purposes.  So really the critical mass, that is the RAGE project, significant budget, talking about millions of Euro in one single project.  That would gather together the excellence in Europe, structure the area, have the critical mass to create those components and to put those components there for others to reuse for building let’s say these applications for learning and education purposes.
So the first problem there was that we believed that it was necessary to create a critical mass and this interdisciplinary research which was not [0:32:34].  So those who did game for playing football, they were only looking at that, so they didn’t ever discuss – and even those who did game based learning, they looked at strategies of game based learning but they did not necessarily engage in discussion with those that produced market if you want quality games.  Now we also realised that is the strategy, that for the primary intervention you have that critical mass.  Now the take up is done by the video game players and this is part of the creative industry.  
As many other sector of this creative industry area the shape of the business community is quite peculiar.  There are a few very known and very big companies and hundreds if not thousands of small/medium enterprise that are working in this area.  So we needed to calibrate the interventions there and so we had a second round which called for very small focussed projects that would lower the bar for these organisations to enter the sector and see whether this would address the market failure.  So the primary intervention was gamification in general.  We did not go too much on – there were experiments in the old – gamification emerged as one of the key trends, even Gartner once they published this report.  
But what happens with gamification is that every time you move an industrial sector you have to repurpose completely the game as if it is a new project.  So the number of components that you can actually reuse from one sector to another is quite limited, which means that every time you do this kind of project it’s very expensive, that’s if you want slowed a little bit this hype around gamification.  So for our primary investment there was really to make sure that we can explore whether there is a market failure – well, there is a market failure, whether we can address this.  
Now on ICT for learning we also did not rule out the possibility that people would use game.  Why?  Because of the entrance of the Holy Grail of technologies for learning, which is the possibilities to have the teachers or the trainer to personalise the learning path according to what the individual learner needs.  So we thought this search of the Holy Grail should not let’s say close the margins of explorations.  So if game can be part of this tailoring of the experience then people should actually explore that as well within the search of personalised learning.  
So any intelligent tutor may still be a game.  And in that sense it’s secondary if you want to the explanation, to the search.  I am not sure that we did use the game for dissemination purpose purposefully.  There might be some who have done it, that’s okay, fine, but we didn’t specifically mention it.  Where the intention was on the secondary aspects was that game can support this personalisation activity.  So there might be research on other aspects that are not relating to understanding the primary concerns that we had which is how can we repurpose these characteristics from one sector to another sector. 
Right, okay.  Thank you.  I have just one last sort of set of questions about ethics and ethical aspects in game development.  I’m going to open up the question and see basically in an unstructured way I’d like to explore your thoughts about what sort of ethical issues may be involved when designing games in general and when designing games for specific goals or purposes.  So issues there may be at the design stage or issues there may be at the usage stage, the way people use, young people use these games.  So I’m going to open that up for you and then maybe there are some specific aspects which we may explore depending on how the conversation develops.
I think that we had started the discussions on ethics, actually not with games per say, but even when we went to the personalisation of learning.  Because at the end of the day you have to disclose your data and the way in which let’s say intelligent tutoring systems they do use data to personalise learning is also an analysis of ethics or screening ethics.  By the way you know that we always have a screening or an ethical report when we do support research.  And we did point to our experts, there are aspects which are known to present ethical issues, but there are also other aspects in games that may emerge as an ethical issue.  And I cut it short because I give you directly the example that is one of the most discussed now which is the Blue Whale game.  Do you know the Blue Whale game?
The Blue Whale game?  No, I don’t know this one.
Well, then you should get accustomed to that, this is a very interesting example of how you use certain characteristics of games or gamification, which in this case is the challenge.  So this is a game that has got fifty levels of challenges and you move from the easiest to the more difficult one.  There are people that engage in this game.  So for instance at the beginning you have to say a few words to a person that you don’t know.  So you move from this kind of easy challenge to more complex and very difficult challenges.  Throughout this game some people leave the game, which is okay, some others stay.  As an effect it is reported that more than one hundred kids or young people committed suicide because they got to the challenge fifty.  And if you say what is the most important challenge, it’s take your life.  
Now this is under investigation, because if it is an instigation to a crime it is a crime in itself, if it’s an instigation to suicide it’s a crime, so it’s under investigation by the police.  It shows that there are ethical issues attached to the use of games.  And why?  Because at the end of the day you use certain psychological factors as a way of nudging people to go into certain behavioural mode.  And when you go into certain behavioural mode you can do it consciously or unconsciously.  And that is where at least for games people do pay attention whether this is happening or not. 
For instance, what would happen if a game which has been developed for certain particular aspects of education then starts also to send advertising messages embedded in the game.  Not in the same delivery form as an advert as in messages that you find in the broadcast industry but in another more subtle form, including the way in which the character is shaped.  Is this acceptable or not acceptable?  These are questions that I guess you want to explore.  I think there is an issue but we need to consider that this is no different from any other form of – let’s say if you take it to the extreme it’s coercion into a certain kind of behaviour.  So we need to pay attention but we need to address first the research elements in trying to understand.  So it’s not just the marketing campaign, they use the same technologies.  So probably some of these ethical issues are found in other sectors of the creative industries.
And as I said, this is why we do screen the projects that we receive with ethical reports.  Other ethical issues which we have encountered and we stress is that at the end of the day for our specific target we are talking about children.  And so consent is a major issue.  For us it’s very natural to deal with ethical issues because national legislations they are already in place, so we do enforce ethical screenings in our projects.  So it’s pretty natural that we take into account these kind of ethical issues when it comes to research projects.  Because our primary target is children.  If it would have been say another target sector of the population, I don't know, we still would have done the ethical issues but for us it’s natural.  This is not something that comes and takes us by surprise, I guess we should look at it.  No, we do, and we are taking this seriously even beyond games by the way, it’s not just games, it’s technologies in general.  Again, it all started with the personalisation and the data that we have to read.
So it’s like a cross cutting – running across.  Yeah, that’s very helpful.  One last thing I wanted to ask, in the entertainment, the mainstream gaming industry, the last few years there’s been quite heated debate about certain ethical aspects which have to do with things like representation.  The way gender, different races, the way people with different abilities, are portrayed in video games.  This kind of discussion is also linked to a very similar discussion about the composition of game development teams.  The fact that they are very homogenous in terms of gender, in terms of race, in terms of ability, so there is this kind of problem and that is reflected.  
If you have a development team that is mainly made of white male with certain interests and certain background then this will reflect in certain gaming experiences that tend to exclude other groups and other identities.  So this has been a very big debate in the mainstream gaming industry.  I was wondering whether in the serious/applied or whatever sector there have been sort of – there is awareness of that debate?  Whether there is something similar or if it’s something that you think doesn’t really apply at all to the sort of things that you generally – the sector that you represent is trying to do?
Yes, we have been confronted with this problem I think.  And I have two examples.  One was about the gender or the sexifications of the heroine that was supposed to win everybody else, which was considered to express a certain kind of – sorry, that did emerge as a discussion but not within a research project.  So we have never addressed this if you want from a sociological point of view because we looked at the technological components.  What happened once was that a game was supposed to have characters.  These characters, their natural setting was a school room in a multicultural country.  So you would be confronted with different cultures and with different religions, with a different way of addressing certain things, with a way of addressing – so that I found interesting.  
If you want to have an effect which is a lasting effect on the learner you have to render the environment close to what is real.  Or you have to use a metaphor for what is real.  By having a very biased approach, let’s say the examples, you would see that the results are not so significant.  There was issues of culture, so if you have to tell the guy that is bullied that he’s bullied because of the colour of his skin you have to say so and you cannot just ignore that this may be one way of bullying people.  So they were confronted with the problem, the researchers, they said, how do we address this problem?  How do we make it – you want cultural representative but we do not bias ourselves because of that.  And I found the solution was brilliant.  They said, okay, so we have to check whether there is a transfer or knowledge inter-culturally without biasing and therefore we organise a mission to Mars.  And we create characters that are diverse.  So they did not offend the cultures, they replicated the diversity of understanding, of living styles, of awareness of people through characters which were not real, they were not on the herd.
So they were all completely fictional?
Completely, they were completely diverse, so it was relatively genius the game and the subject of the project was, can we use this metaphor to transfer the skills that we want to transfer into a society where diversity exists without biasing the game in itself but keeping the authenticity of the game.
When you say that the characters in this particular game were diverse, you mean in terms of the way they looked, their appearance?
Yes.  Their appearance and the kind of cultures that they were portraying.  I want to be clear here, because the Americans for instance they have extensive research when it comes to inter-cultural mediations within a game.  Because of course they had the soldiers exposed to a completely different environment in Afghanistan.  So there is emerged that you have to have a very authentic setting otherwise the learning is not good.  In that sense they did develop probably the most advanced a game for instance where they taught soldiers to treat with judges who are of a different culture.  So that has to embed all these diversities within the game in itself.
Now the idea of going to Mars was – well, you may go back to check what the results of these projects were.  The researcher who led the research, she is in the UK, she was at Edinburgh University, Ruth [0:50:02].  So you can get in contact with her and check what the results of this inter-cultural mediations of game.  The project was called [0:50:15] if I’m not wrong.  
That’s very helpful, thanks.  So basically the way you see it is we need to take into account this issue, it’s like a problem that needs to be solved.  In order to solve the problem, in order to ensure the games can achieve their objectives, we need to take these things into account to maximise – is that right?  It’s mainly a practical issue, would you say that?
This is not only a practical issue, it is a way of replicating settings in the most authentic form.  The problem is that this is a very peculiar class of games, which are not necessarily representative of all the games, so it’s not Candy Crush or Physics taught through Angry Birds. 
We are at the end of the interview and I’m aware of your time commitments, so I want to wrap it up.
GTA.  Probably this applies to GTA, the game.
Of course.  I want to ask one clarification, just one word that you used a few times throughout the interview, you mentioned market failure when talking about the serious/applied sector.  What did you actually mean by market failure? When did you get that kind of – you became aware – the idea that there was a market that had failed?
When we were exploring it when we discussed the gamification issue and specifically the reuse of these technologies for public goods.  And we saw that most of the companies they went for the – so they did not address the educational part of the game, they only looked at the entertainment part of the game.  So the effect was a collateral effect, Angry Birds and Physics.  But it was a collateral effect.  But nobody thought at the very beginning to reuse it in an educational setting or to reuse the physical models which has been developed for Angry Birds for a game in a lab.  And we said, but this is an opportunity because there is an educational market, so why don’t you do that?
I get it now. 
So understanding the complexity of that answer it takes time, in itself it’s a very complex answer.
Thank you very much, [anonymised], that was the last question.  I want to thank you again for your time and for your very, very helpful answers and comments.  I need to remind you again of the informed consent.  I sent it and I will resend maybe the form.  It just needs to be signed and we need to have everything on record.  Hello?  Are you still there?  Because you froze for a second.
Yes.
So yes, I was talking about the informed consent and how important it is to have that kind of form signed.  I will be probably in touch at a later stage, I would like obviously when the next outputs are out, we are trying to get our interview – also you will probably know about the project in the future.  But we want to keep all our interviewees in the loop as to the future developments and the outputs that will come out.  So there will be maybe added opportunities hopefully to engage in discussions or possibly another interview if you’re still available.  Have you got actually other questions for me or clarifications you would like to have?
No.  Thank you and I have to leave you because I have another meeting in three minutes.
I understand.  Thank you again very much for your help and your collaboration.  Bye.