Help: The Game Collection Benefits War Child Charity

Eleven developers, including familiar names like The Creative Assembly and Rovio, have teamed up with War Child to help raise money for children in areas of conflict. The bundle includes 12 unique games for £9.99/$14.99 and all proceeds go to the charity. It’s an excellent chance to do good while playing some fine games.

The collection features a nice mix of genres, with some real time strategy, puzzle, endless running, and visual novel numbers thrown in, to name just a few. Among them is Malkia, a strategy game set in a fictional African country in which you help a mother develop her business and care for her family.

There are a number of games in the collection that raise awareness of families and children coping with war, too. Emily: Displaced tells the story of a girl dealing with the aftermath of a violent uprising in her country. A Verdant Hue looks at how we heal after conflict, as you help to restore your family’s garden. Overall, there’s a good variety of simple fun and games that might really make you think.

War Child is doing important work in countries in conflict or post-war recovery, helping children receive the protection, education, and psycho-social aid that they desperately need. The organization has collaborated with the games industry in the past, and have raised over £1.5 million with the help of studios and industry enthusiasts. You can learn more about the organization on their website, and be sure to take a look at the game collection on Steam.

Sponsored links by Taboola

More from the web

From this site


  1. mtomto says:

    Maybe I’m going to hell for saying this. But sometimes I wonder why we pay trillions in foreign aid via tax and a truckload of seperate industries doing the same thing – not for free. It’s an entertainment industry now and somehow I think that’s wrong. Even when we get told that ALL profits go to the intended charity, then HR, marketing, wages etc etc has to get it’s cut. I have heard of many that didn’t see a penny.

    It’s a matter of getting countries a sustainable economy with education etc… a billion “feel-good” charities wont fix the problem with foreign aid contries. I might be too harsh, but if people wont fight for democracy, freedom of speech and allow people to love whomever they want, then I’d rather just cut all aid and charity. Let them live how they want without help. We cant help build on top of corruption, war and religious disputes.

    I know you might say that it is because of corrupt leaders that we don’t always just pay the countries and do these targeted charities. In many foreign aid countries, you secure your future economy by getting 10+ children and a lot of charity supports this. I would probably do the same if I was in a foreign aid country, but it actually just worsen the overall problem. It is simply not sustainable. We need massive Marshall-like recovery programs for peaceful, democratic countries – no matter what religion they have.

    The current status quo is like peeing your pants to get warm. It feels good, but not a solution in the long run.

    Maybe it’s a bit offtopic, but I get a bit frustrated when marketing, entertainment and charity is mixed. Face it, you do this to feel better about yourself. If you really want to “help”, why not just pick a “real” aid program and pay there?

    • Premium User Badge

      Lars Westergren says:

      We pay closer to $135 billion in aid, at least in 2014, not trillions. Yes, some disappear to corruption, but we do it because it is the right thing, because economic growth elsewhere makes us richer too, because reduction in poverty means higher education, chances the countries can afford to care more about the environment, and chances there are reduction of the circumstances that cause extremism, war and refugees.

      As for the “omg the darkies have so many children if we give them money there will be an explosion” has been discredited for decades. When child mortality decreases and parents can afford to invest in healthcare and education for their children, birthrates drop sharply. This has been true globally for decades, check statistics from the WHO, the Worldbank, or the Gapminder site if you want some snazzy animated graphs.

      > I might be too harsh, but if people wont fight for democracy, freedom of speech and allow people to love whomever they want, then I’d rather just cut all aid and charity.

      But poverty and war breeds extremism, how can you expect democracy and tolerance to thrive there?

    • Poor People says:

      But democracy in the hands of the uneducated is open to abuse and will unravel any further attempts to democratize the population. Without balances and checks democracy can turn into ochlocracy, where the tyranny of the majority will lead to suppression of the minority. If freedom of expression was absolutely granted to everybody, ironically nothing will stop members of the empowered majority from abusing their freedom to deny minorities their freedom.

      Lars Westergren is right. To exert change, change has to come from the ground up, not from the top down. Without improved quality of life AND critical thinking, handing a population with poor civic services a democratic system is the equivalent to giving a bunch of wild monkeys construction tools and expecting them to build a sturdy house.