Slashdot Mirror
ESRB Responds To Mixed Review From FTC
Thanks to GameSpot for its interview with Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) president Patricia Vance, following yesterday's publishing of a 'Marketing Violent Entertainment To Children' report [PDF link] by the Federal Trade Commission. The report's findings are discussed by 1UP, noting the FTC "still gives mixed marks to the American games industry when it comes to marketing mature games to a younger audience." Vance indicates that "ESRB's focus will continue to be on getting retailers to display signage at the point of purchase that increases awareness and use of the rating system", although, even after improvement over previous years: "69% of survey participants (aged between 13 and 16) were able to buy an M-rated game without hindrance, including 55% of unaccompanied customers." Outside of the ESRB's duties, "The FTC's chief sticking point was still with the placement of [M-rated] videogame advertisements... [which] still frequently appear in enthusiast gaming magazines and other publications technically aimed at a teenage audience."
You see ads for those energy drinks (what's that one drink that starts with B?) and the FTC doesn't throw red flags all over the place about how dangerous that drink is to developing teen bodies.
Sheesh.
I've just skimmed the first 30 or so pages of the report, and there seems to be a whole lot of waffling, with statements such as "Although neither of the magazines have a readership that is 45% or more under 17 (years of age), each has a sizable readership among teens and older children."
The 45% figure cited is the limit that the gaming industry's regulatory commission allows a magazine's readership to be before it is considered to be aimed at a teenage audience. What worries me is that the FTC report mentions that companies are in compliance with these guidelines, then slams them by claiming their "sizable teenage readership" without defining what exactly that means.
Most 13-16 year olds would have no problem getting in to see the matrix revolutions which shows kung fu kicks to the head and amounts of people getting torn apart on the ends of machine tentacles.
I find it puzzling that video games have much higher standards applied to them in comparison to movies. Consider GTA, 18-cert. For what? Swearing,car-jacking,violence. What about gone in 60 seconds? 15-cert for exactly the same stuff.
May the Maths Be with you!
I think we have to remember that the original study was politically motivated(it was called for by then-President Clinton almost immediately after Columbine, when idiots like Brent Bozell, Steve Allen, Joe Lieberman, and Sam Brownnoser started whining) and politically biased(it was favored to support Gore and Lieberman's views on the entertainment industry and it was released within 2 to 3 months before the Presidental election, which Gore lost) to begin with.
After reading the GameSpot article, I believe that the FTC investigators did not take into account three things:
1) the average age of a gamer today.
2) the average age of a reader of a specific magazine(i.e. EGM, PSM, GamePro, Nintendo Power), as average age dictates the direction and content of the magazine.
3) the primary age group of the viewership of TV programs that have game advertisements(i.e. WWE Raw, WWE Smackdown, TRL), or the difference between cable and broadcast TV.
On the plus side, the FTC pretty much admitted that the rating system does work(Joe Lieberman has even gone on record recently as saying that the ESRB rating system is the best rating system in the entire entertainment industry), and that retailers are starting to check IDs more(the report showed that a 13- to 16- year old was more likely to buy a R-rated movie or a music CD with the PA sticker than to buy a M-rated game without being carded), so the industry as a whole must be doing something right.
It also seemed to pretty much leave the video game and movie industries alone and focused mostly on the music industry, so that might still be the case when the next biased report comes out next year. Another report we may have to worry about is if the censorship-happy FCC decides to do their own biased reports. But that's for a another time.
== BearDogg-X ==
69% of survey participants (aged between 13 and 16) were able to buy an M-rated game without hindrance, including 55% of unaccompanied customers.
This is not the fault of the game industry.. it's the fault of all the Wal-Marts and Best Buys in the world that employ people that don't ask for id when someone young-looking tries to buy a M rated game, or they ask for id but then sell them the game anyways. There have been several documentaries on news shows about this type of thing. Secondly, even if there was 100% enforcement, if the parents don't care, they will just go out and buy the game for the kid anyhow, so...
If rated-M games can't be advertised in game magazines, where CAN they be advertised. Its just stupid. Movies trailers for R-rated movies can be shown in theaters before PG-rated movies and nobody complains. The trailers themselves are usually rated g or pg.
Just typically overreacting, call me when "GTA7: Bangkok Vice City" ads show up in Nickelodeon magazine.
"I forgot my mantra."
So why would these companies ask for id? Don't ascribe to corporations the motivations of morality. These are the same companies paying kids 6 cents an hour to make Nike shoes. Why would they turn away a sale? A sale is, after all, a sale. Ferengi have more business morals than corporate America!
There is no law requiring that people buying games be IDed, to fines for failing to ask for ID, etc. Unless there is such a law, no corporation will do such a thing unless there is actual consumer backlash. Due to the amazing level of parental overwork because of the lack of socialized child raising in North America, that is not going to happen because the parents are two busy working 2-4 jobs to keep being able to give money for their kids to spend.
It's a very large and viscious cycle. If you want it to change, you're going to have to enforce penalties on corporations or allow parents the time to actually parent their children.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
When the ESRB was first forced on the game publishers ~10 years ago the standard byline of the time was "We don't want to censor game manufactureres. We just want parents to have the ability to know what their kids are actually buying!"
Now 10 years later... There are too many M-rated games being advertised in game magazines that kids read. This is bad.
Check out the seat belt laws too... 20 years ago in my state it was "We don't want to arrest people for not wearing their seat belts, we just need a seat belt law to increase awareness." So the law was written such that you couldn't be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. You could only get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt if you were pulled over for something else. 2 years ago, they had the law changed. "Too many people are still not wearing seat belts, so we need to pull people over so that we can save more lives." So now we have random spot checks throughout the city where they take a look and see if you're not wearing your seat belt.
But remember, this is all for your own good.
It's a good analogy, however, the key difference here is that the Constitution is a major factor that makes or breaks this entire issue.
The First Amendment is a powerful defense for anybody, especially an entertainment medium like video games. Appeals courts have twice blocked laws restricting game sales by ruling that video games have equal protection under the First Amendment as movies, books, and music. Those same Federal Courts have also rejected any attempt to hold video game companies liable for stuff like the Columbine and Paducah school shootings.
Like I've said in past postings, if the Supreme Court has to get involved in this debate, I firmly believe that the Supreme Court would rule that the First Amendment protects video games from censorship laws and frivolous lawsuits, because the Court, when rejecting appeals of the decisions siding with the industry, silently agreed with the rulings saying that video games are protected speech.
As I've mentioned earlier, Joe Lieberman, the most prominent critic of the industry over the last 10 years, not only has toned down much of his criticisms, but has gone out of his way to praise the industry for having "the best rating system in all of entertainment". Now, if you can make your most frequent critic say that, it shows not only how far the industry has gone in the last 10 years, but also how much credibility the industry has received in that time frame. Not to mention that in all of entertainment, video games has become the biggest cash cow, even though it's the youngest entertainment medium.
That same comment by Lieberman will eventually be the anti-video game movement's downfall. If Lieberman does a full turn and completely sides with the video game industry, say by doing an ESRB commerical(talk about an unholy alliance that would have been unthinkable just 4 years ago, let alone two years ago), it will damage the credibility of groups like the Lion and Lamb Project and people like Joe Baca and Jack Thompson, because Lieberman started the debate over 10 years ago.
== BearDogg-X ==
I do think the escalation in violence in video games is a bad trend. If all that games are good for is simulated killing, then it becomes hard to defend it as artistic statement (and thus protected speech). Yes, there are a few exceptions to the rule, but I think most games released now are about killing stuff, with simulated violence. (If you don't believe this, just check out gamespot's front page at any given moment. Right now I see, Dead or Alive Ultimate, WH40K: Dawn of War, Disciple II: Elves, Ghosthunter, etc, etc. The only games I see there that *aren't* about killing stuff are sports games.)
I like games, and I indeed like many games involving killing stuff. But the current state of the industry should be at least a little embarrasing for any gamer, or game developer.
For kids to take public transportation. By your argument, the government should mandate that too.
It's not a bad analogy at all, what i think he was trying to say is that "M" rated video games are just as harmless to teens as Energy Drinks are. I happen to totally agree.