Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Decrease in M-Rated Sales to Kids

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the laudible dept.

hammersuit writes "GameDaily Biz reports on a new undercover FTC study. From the article: 'Forty-two percent of the secret shoppers - children between the ages of 13 and 16 - who attempted to buy an M-rated video game without a parent were able to purchase one. In the 2003 shop, 69 percent of the shoppers were able to buy one. National sellers were much more likely to restrict sales of M-rated games. Only 35 percent of the secret shoppers were able to purchase such games there. Regional or local sellers sold M-rated games to the shoppers more frequently - 63 percent of the time.'"

16 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What does this have to do with anything? by DreadPiratePizz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nobody is attempting to BAN violent video games. I'm sure some would like to, but now the issue is keeping them from being purchased by minors. Regardless of how YOU think a game should be rated, this in no way affects your ability as a parent to buy the game for your child, if you in fact think that it is appropriate. Nothing is being banned, and nobody is telling you what you can and cannot buy for you, or for your child.

    This study IS relevant, to see if the rating system, and the policies of retailers are in fact working.

  2. Um... by GundamFan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone else see it as a good thing that the kids can't get these games without parental permission?

    I could care less what people do to rase there own kids but it should be there choice. If a kid can only buy an M-rated game with a parent present then it is no ones responsability but the parent.

    Selective parental apathy is the biggest "ill of scociety" in my opinion... if you don't care to control your childs purchaseing you don't get to try to get "violent" video games ban for the sake of your children.

    --
    I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
    Mark Twain
    1. Re:Um... by RingDev · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I had my first job at 13. And I am guessing my child will also get a job over his youthful summers. So you are suggesting that I should instill responsibility in my child by making them get a job, then taking any money they earn from them to prevent them from ever having the posibility to make a mistake with that money? That is hardly a way to raise a child. Children need to be free enough to make mistakes and learn from them while parent stand ready to guide and catch their child when they make a poor decision. If my child takes his money to a store I would prefer to know that the store is not selling my child violent video games. If I feel that my son is mature enough to handle playing violent video games, then I will buy the game with or for him. If I do not feel my son is mature enough to play violent video games then I will not buy the game, and if I find it on a PC in the house, I will remove it.

      Using your logic we should do away with the drinking, smoking restrictions, and are requirements for drivers licenses and porno. Because hey, if your parent(s) taught you right, your age wouldn't matter. Now tell me, how many 13 year olds would you hand the keys to your car to? Especially if they had a cig hanging off their lip and a 1/5th of tequila in a brown paper bag?

      -Rick

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    2. Re:Um... by itscolduphere · · Score: 2, Insightful
      In my opinion, a child in possession of X dollars, where X dollars equals the price of a desired video game, constitutes parental permission. It's not a matter of saying that parents "should" be responsible, it is a matter of stating the *fact* that parents *are* responsible. If a child cannot be trusted to make a purchase, then it should not be given responsibility to handle money.


      And if the child only has X dollars in his hands because he managed to skim that money from several smaller amounts that were given to him for other purposes, which may or may not be difficult to track? (an obvious example being lunch money at school, though I can imagine others)

      No, the fact that junior has somehow managed to amass $20-$50 (because not all M-rated games cost 50 dollars...GTA3 and GTA:VC, for instance, both can be had new for less than $20) does not in any way imply parental consent. It doesn't even imply that the parents, as you put it, placed $20-$50 in his little hands...at least not at one time.

      And while you are correct that this system will not protect the values of all parents, it does provide a tool for the majority of parents whose values it does reflect a majority of the time. Yes, there are parents who don't want their kids watching or buying Disney cartoons. But a vast majority probably wouldn't want an 11-year-old watching Pulp Fiction. Those parents who do want their kid to watch PF just need to buy it for them. Those parents who don't want their kids to watch Disney just need to monitor their kids more closely than most, because their values are more restrictive than those of general society.

      This may not be the perfect solution; but you shouldn't, in general, pass up better to wait for perfect.
    3. Re:Um... by G)-(ostly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Soooo....

      It's society's responsibility to both employ your offspring as a responsible young adult... and restrict your same offspring as an irresponsible child when using his or her earned income to make entertainment decisions?

      That is the most absurd thing I have ever seen in my life.

      Using your logic we should do away with the drinking, smoking restrictions, and are requirements for drivers licenses and porno.

      Ah, yes. The ol' slashdot analogy. Despite the fact that drinking and smoking both cause chronic, potentially fatal diseases, and that driving before being fully equipped is a good way to get killed, or kill other people, go ahead and compare that to, for example, watching a cartoon zombie eat people which, to the best of my knowledge, can't cause any liver diseases or cancer, or run over the neighbor's dog.

      As far as porn, that's just puritan nonsense. I don't care if your kid buys porn. Like the rest of the responsibility you're trying to shirk, I shouldn't be the one that has to enforce that rule. Don't want your kid to buy porn or Stubbs? Tell him or her that. Don't trust them to listen to you? Then the kid's not responsible enough to hold a job anyway, so don't let them have one.

      --
      From now on, I buy only Intel.
    4. Re:Um... by Pxtl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The keyword is *regulated* - the ratings of movies, for example, is entirely voluntary.

      imho, any legislation that targets the games industry and ignores other forms of media is being made simply because the games industry is a convenient scapegoat. If this legislation were seriously aimed at fixing a problem, it would never specifically mention games, but instead of would focus on a general policy that could be applied across all media - novels, comics, games, movies, TV, etc.

    5. Re:Um... by hunterx11 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Although obscenity (and during the day, indecency) is banned from broadcast television, there are no laws which require ratings to be applied in such a manner that children may not view programs of a certain rating without parental consent. I don't know what magazine ratings you're speaking of, but I know of no laws which prohibit the sale of magazines to children based on any ratings. Furthermore, the rating system for movies is enforced voluntarily, not by law.

      You could argue that pornography cannot be sold to children, but this is not a matter of ratings. Besides, existing laws against pornography can be applied to games as well as other media. However, this case here is that there is an active movement to single out games for ratings-based regulation.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    6. Re:Um... by Starsmore · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Anyone else see it as a good thing that the kids can't get these games without parental permission?"

      Nope.

      Because the laws keeping GTA:San Andreas from the hands of children are one stepped removed from the laws keeping GTA:San Andreas out of the hands of adults, simply because the politicians disapprove of them.

      Every single law that they try to pass about keeping games 'away' from kids isn't about the kids. It's about the fact that the religious right (or is it left? All the same lately) disapproves of such things being bought and sold, and this is the way they can censure it.

      --
      "If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
  3. What about movies? by faloi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Have they done a similar study for movies? My contention has been that actors and actresses tend to put a lot of money in politicians pockets, so that branch of the entertainment industry gets a free ride. I'd like to know if underage people are able to get into R-rated movies and/or buy parental warning lyrics-labeled CD's with the same frequency. As far as I know, movie theaters tend to do some checking but buying CD's is a free-for all.

    --
    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
    1. Re:What about movies? by shotfeel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I do remember seeing something about that which stated movie theatres do a much better job. But then I often wonder if a big part of that is that there aren't very many separate companies showing movies. When its down to just a few chains, all you have to do is make it a well-entrenched company policy in those chains to make it work. So if you RTFA you find the big retail chains (equivalent to the big movie chains) do a much better job of "policing" themselves when it comes to selling M rated video games. Its when you get into the smaller chains and independent stores that you see a larger variation in company policies and enforcement.

      IOW it may be that the movie industry does better simply because its easier for them.

  4. Down But High? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Granted the results indicate that there's a downward trend, and I fully believe that's a good thing, but am I the only one concerned here that the results are still so high? 42% is great, it's much better than 69%, but why can't it be 20%? Or 10%?

    I'm glad to see that progress is being made, but it seems like there's still something else that needs to be done to bring the results more in line with other purchases such as movie theaters(anyone have numbers for those, BTW?).

  5. Re:What does this have to do with anything? by (A)*(B)!0_- · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "Nothing is being banned, and nobody is telling you what you can and cannot buy for you, or for your child."
    Nothing is currently banned and no one is currently telling me what I can and cannot buy. That is different from what could take shape if there is government involvement in the whole system. Dream with me for a moment:

    1. Selling alcohol to minors is illegal.
    2. Supplying alcohol to a minor is illegal, even if you're the parent.

    1. Selling violent games to minors is illegal.
    2. Supplying violent games to a minor is illegal, even if you're the parent.

    Government involvement in this arena is wrong and a bad step. Think about the people who are fighting for government involvement. They believe violent games destroy children and make them killing-machines. Why wouldn't they want a parent who facilitates the creation of that so-called that killing machine to be punished for that? Wouldn't that be a ban on what you can buy for your child?

    Don't side with these people. They'll keep pushing and pushing. Private organizations like the ESRB do a fine job of rating content. There's no need for government involvement.

  6. Re:Phew! by G)-(ostly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll bet your comment would be really relevant in a world where the goal of this behavior was to "cure all of society's ills" versus "study the effect at the retail level of game ratings".

    But don't let common sense get in the way of a good sound bite. It's much more important that you sound clever than actually say something smart.

    --
    From now on, I buy only Intel.
  7. Re:What does this have to do with anything? by mjm1231 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Well, no it doesn't tell if the policies are "working". It tells to what degree they are being enforced. In order to know if they are working, we would first need to know what the work is that they are supposed to be doing.

    If your 13 year old kid can make it to the mall, spend 50 bucks, and play an entire video game in your house without you ever knowing about it, chances are you have much worse things to worry about than whether they're running the hot coffee mod.

    --
    Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
  8. Re:What does this have to do with anything? by (A)*(B)!0_- · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "If the Video Game industry would actually do something about vendors who sold to minor there would be no reason for the Government to step in."
    Even if the ratings aren't enforced and retailers sell AO, M, or T games to children, I am not convinced the government has any place in legislating. You see, at the end of the day, the games are rated. Parents have the tools needed to determine what is appropriate content for their child. In expecting 100% of the stores to not sell to minors, you are furthering the expectation that many parents have that society is going to watch our for their kids. This expectation is part of the reason that so many parents do a rather poor job of raising their kids. The idea that their kids will be taken by the safeguards the government has put in place makes some parents believe they can just let their duties slide.

    Don't rely on the store to not sell games to your kids. Don't expect others to take care of raising and protecting your kids. Do it yourself.

  9. Ratings don't matter by Daggon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Personally I think the whole ratings concept is based in stupidity and missinformation. Children over the age of 6(possibly even younger) are able to discern reality from fantasy. Exposing them to violent material isn't going to magically change them into monsters. I watched R rated films when I was 10, played Doom when I was 13, played all kinds of violent games in my high school years, even saw a lot of porn on the internet. Now, I have a job, pay my taxes, and help the old lady down the hall carry in her groceries. Violent media did not make me into a monster. Why? Because my parents loved me and cared for me. Its that simple, neglect will screw a kid up a million times more than any piece of violent media ever will.

    The religious fundementalists in the world just want you to be afraid of things they don't approve of, thats why ratings exist. It has nothing to do with protecting anyone, just another way to control you.