Following the recent news of the Xbox Live lawsuit, Microsoft has officially confirmed the free Xbox Live Arcade game being offered to Xbox Live users.

The side-scrolling title, Undertow, will be available on January 23 at 2 am (PST) until January 27, 11:59 pm (PST) as Microsoft's compensation for their Live service downtime over the holiday season.

Xbox Live's Major Nelson has issued this comment on the forums:

"If you have already purchased the game, you can contact support and they will take care of you."

Those that wish to visit the site can do so here.

Regarding the news of the Xbox Live lawsuit, the plaintiffs' lawyer, Jason Gibson, has recently spoken with MTV to defend the lawsuit against heavy criticism by the media and consumers.

Gibson has denied allegiations that the Texas residents are seeking excessive financial benefits from the lawsuit by stating that his clients are "college-educated" individuals who treat the Live service downtime as a "real issue." Furthermore, he explains that they are seeking to be compensated for the Xbox Live services they failed to receive.  

MTV has reported that others have pledged their support with over 50 plaintiffs joining the lawsuit. Despite Microsoft's apology and their publicized promise to compensate Gold members with a free yet unconfirmed Xbox Live Arcade game, Gibson has declared that the class action lawsuit will proceed. 

Microsoft has not issued a comment in response at this time.

We at GameBump have a policy about not mentioning the name of a certain troll/bully lawyer unless we absolutely have to. This not yet being one of those instances, I'd just like to say that -- whoever he is -- he faces trial today against the Florida Bar who seeks to disbar him for his legal antics as of the last few years.

His attempts to delay the trial this weekend failed, and as much as he decries the discrimination against him for his "Christian activism," because Christians are the most repressed minority in America, the trial will go on as schedule. The court has apparently even cleared out its whole schedule this week just for this.

Will MFA be disbarred? Without any legal leg to stand on, will he still try to poach grieving families and convince them to blame video games? Will he still be invited to appear on Fox News every time someone under the age of 25 commits any act of violence? Who knows. I can't see him going gently into that good night just because of a massive embarrassment like this.

Check out GamePolitics for full coverage.

Late last month, Texas politician and gubernatorial candidate Star Locke proposed a $10,000 per-abortion tax on medical clinics and a 50 percent tax on soda that "contains added glucose, fructose, and sucrose." Likewise, Locke suggested a 50 percent "grease tax" on "all food prepared by deep-frying or cooking in any form of oil or grease for human consumption." Locke justified his radical tariffs, stating to the Amarillo Globe: "I take the position that the founding fathers took: that the power to tax is the power to destroy."

One can only imagine the ensuing riots at speculation of a $9 quarter-pounder, but though Locke's levies are illogical (if not unconstitutional), one final suggestion topped the cake: to pass a 100 percent sales tax on violent videogames into law.

While gamers shouldn't fret about paying $100 for the next Halo or Grand Theft Auto update, they should worry that Locke's "solution" is indicative of a growing trend in American politics - more than ever, legislators are pushing for laws that illegalize the sale of violent and mature videogames to minors.

Pro-regulation figureheads like Jack Thompson would have us believe that games are mental intoxications – that each time I pop Killzone or Resident Evil into my console, I’m subjecting myself to content that will ultimately brainwash me into a volatile, aggressive sociopath. In a January 8 article published this year on The News Tribune, Thompson claims: "Teens […] have a neurobiological developmental deficit that can, in the worst case, turn them into "Manchurian Candidate" killing machines."

Thompson’s pseudo-scientific indictment of the gaming industry is remindful of the language used in prescription medication ads: "…side effects of playing Counter-Strike may include nausea, dizziness, or assaulting your friends and family against your will." …Perhaps we should consult the Surgeon General as well.

Are there games that are inappropriate for minors? Absolutely. Does it mean that every 17-year-old should be prohibited from buying games because they haven’t sufficiently “matured” enough to handle certain content? Is a generalized, age-based ban an appropriate and effective way to protect our children from violent games?

Unfortunately, one reason these questions remain is the fact that our legislators are largely ignorant of video games as a medium, and are instead informed by a few highly-specified and over-dramatized examples. Titles like Manhunt and Mortal Kombat, while clearly members of the "mature" category, have redeeming artistic qualities, but are construed as typifying an industry-wide epidemic.

Of course, it hasn't helped that the gaming industry has grown so quickly. Not 20 years ago, having consoles and personal computers in the household was a radically new idea; in 2004, the gaming industry posted revenues of $10 billion – more than Hollywood. Culturally and otherwise, gaming's footprint hasn't quite been measured by society, and it’s part of the reason we’re seeing unrealistic regulations.

But if we reflect, the recipe seems familiar: new technologies, new forms of expression, and new ways of perceiving reality have a predictable way of muddling anyone we elect into office. Film, television, and radio represent some of our most highly-regulated businesses; and politicians would rather attack industries that subjectively “pollute” our minds than the ones that pollute the very air we breathe.

If the term "scapegoat" seems too harsh, examine an excerpt from the Baxter Bulletin, an Arkansas newspaper. In an article about Jacob Robida, the recently-accused offender in an attack at a gay bar in Massachusetts that killed a police officer, the paper published this quote from Massachusetts Prosecuting Attorney Paul Walsh: "My look at the search warrant (for Robida's home) was that the investigators turned up no video games. […] From the information we have here, there is no proof video games were involved."

Thank goodness that Robida’s PlayStation or Xbox weren’t accomplices to his hateful act. But who suggested a game-crime connection to police? None other than Jack Thompson, the Miami attorney that seems to involve himself in national investigations when it suits his interests.

Inexplicably, videogames have become society’s insanity plea for murder, violence, and other crimes. Will increased game-regulation really attenuate these problems? Likely not, but it begs a more important question - how do we strike a balance between allowing freedom of expression and understanding a medium for what it is, but also aiding parents in choosing what their child should or shouldn’t be exposed to?

Ultimately, parents’ and law-makers’ understanding of video games has to mature. Politicians seem under the impression that each time Joe twelve-year-old blows away some poor virtual soul in Halo, they’re going to take it into the streets. But the way people interact and are affected by video games isn’t that simple.

Individuals that commit crimes "inspired" by video games have more deeply rooted problems - an inability to distinguish reality from fantasy. While games with violent content could serve as an impetus for troubled youths, they ignore the "bigger picture;" the fact that ultimately, people are responsible for their own actions.

More generally, society needs to take the initiative to hold a view that recognizes videogames as a legitimate form of communication and entertainment, not a system designed to drill teenagers on the intricacies of executing a drive-by shooting. People seem unwilling to accept the idea that society's ills are rooted in more significant problems than computer-rendered characters engaging in a virtual firefight.