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.'"

29 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. What does this have to do with anything? by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Funny

    What a useless study! Who cares about this M-Rated thing? How are the politicians supposed to use this information when they're trying to push their laws calling for bans of "violent" and "offensive" games to minors?

    We need a new study, counting the number of "violent" and "offensive" games sold to minors, where "violent" and "offensive" is properly defined... by taking the people selling the games to court over and over until the prosecution gets a jury that will agree that the game is violent or offensive!

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    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. Re:What does this have to do with anything? by faloi · · Score: 2, Funny

      If I had mod points, I'd mod you funny. It was meant to be funny, right?

      --
      "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
    3. Re:What does this have to do with anything? by hunterx11 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Nobody is attempting to BAN violent video games.

      I know Jack Thompson is a real nobody, but you don't always have to be so mean to him.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    4. 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.

    5. Re:What does this have to do with anything? by velocipenguin · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      In many states, it is actually legal to serve alcohol to your own children (or to an underage spouse.)

      --

      Move 'sig'. For great justice!
    6. Re:What does this have to do with anything? by RexRhino · · Score: 2, Informative

      In a FEW states, it is actually legal. And then it could still be illegal based on local ordinance. And it could still be considered to fall under something vauge like "child abuse".

      But just because something is legal, doesn't mean you can't be arrested, convicted, and go to jail for it!

    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 RexRhino · · Score: 2, Informative

      Woman's 'crime' was never illegal
      By Ellen Miller, Special to the News
      November 16, 2005

      GRAND JUNCTION - Allysan Isaac, 24, was held nearly a year in work release for something that a judge said Tuesday was not even illegal.

      "You were incarcerated for a case that was not a crime," said Mesa County District Judge Brian Flynn, who presided over the case.

      Flynn, the prosecutor and Isaac's defense attorney were unaware last year that the offense she was charged with was not a violation of the law.

      No one had noticed that a prescription drug found in Isaac's possession, an anti-anxiety medication called Buspirone, is not a controlled substance.

      A new defense attorney did.

      Isaac, 24, "is clearly a troubled young woman with mental and emotional problems requiring pharmaceutical intervention," said her second lawyer, Wiley Christopher, who checked on Buspirone and found it was not a controlled substance.

      But that was not the end of her legal troubles.

      Isaac pleaded guilty last year to possession of Buspirone, which she had obtained through a prescription. She was sentenced to 90 days in jail and one year in work release.

      In work release, she was receiving another prescription drug, Clonazepam, which is a controlled substance. Another inmate talked her into sharing a tablet.

      So Isaac pleaded guilty to distributing Clonazepam and appeared before Flynn Tuesday for sentencing.
      Christopher pleaded for probation and mental health treatment since her underlying offense, for which she was in work release, was not a crime.

      Flynn agreed, as did the probation officer and the current prosecutor.

      She was ordered to serve probation and receive intensive mental health treatment for passing her medication on to the fellow inmate.

      District Attorney Pete Hautzinger said he had "no idea" why Isaac had been charged with and convicted of something that wasn't a crime.

      The defense attorney who represented Isaac in the first case was also baffled. "I don't have an answer," assistant public defender John Burkey said. "Nobody caught it. The police were saying it was a controlled substance."
      Copyright 2005, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.

      http://www.5280.com/blog/?p=1377
      http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/11/check_the_ sched.shtml#comments

    9. 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.

  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 pla · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      No, and not for the obvious "Stick it to da man" reason...

      Parents have the responsibility of teaching their kids to do the right thing not just in a safe, isolated environment, but on their own and with temptation aplenty.

      It might make it easier to look like a good parent if Little Billy never even has the opportunity to drink, smoke, swear, or look at porn, but it doesn't teach Billy anything at all (or worse, teaches him to look forward to his Day of Freedom when he can finally overindulge in the forbidden fruit).

      Personally, I see a kid buying a video-game his parents wouldn't approve of as a WONDERFUL opportunity to teach him a hell of a lesson - When the parents catch him with it, they can make him take it and put it in the shredder page by page, disc by disc, destroying 50+ dollars of his own hard-earned money. You just don't get that same kind of lesson from a shopkeeper telling him to take a hike.

    2. 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
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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. what are these kids complaining about... by smaerd · · Score: 3, Funny

    ..why, when I was their age we didn't have no 'Hot Coffee' or Grand Theft Auto 3: San Andreas! All we had was pixelated blood and gore in Wolfenstein3D and we LIKED IT! They should stop hollerin' about wantin' M-Rated games and do what kids are supposed to do: Download pr0n off of the internet!

  5. Re:Sucks for the kids... by fistfullast33l · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was in a Best Buy yesterday looking at PSP games and I noticed a mother pushing a son in a stroller and another kid of about 9 and she had GTA: Liberty City Stories in her hand. She was going to buy it for the 9 year old. Personally, I think there's only so much legislators can expect these ratings to do, and then they just have to let it go because they've given parents the information and the rest belongs out of their hands.

  6. 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?).

  7. The funny thing is: by Kingrames · · Score: 3, Funny

    Children are not stupid.

    The word will get around as to what retailers will sell them what games. 42% just means that there's a hole. And anything short of pure dictatorshp won't stop it.

    Any legislation that prohibits sales of games to minors fails completely at its goal. Which is, of course, to prevent them from playing those games.

    Still, I'd expect political doublespeak out the wazoo for a while, saying that they've been "wonderfully successful" at getting mature games out of the hands of children, and that there's "work still to be done."

    I hereby copyright those phrases. Any politician using them must immediately resign and pay me an amount of money equal to all of the money they will ever earn (and have earned) in their entire lifetime, plus one Mexican peso.

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  8. I'm still waiting for this interview by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

    Actually it's the only reason I watch evening news on some of the lower-quality channels.

    When they're doing their "reports" about parents who don't know jack about their kids playing violent games...

    Reporter: Do you know where your son is?
    Mother: Yeah, in his room.
    Reporter: And what he's doing there?
    Mother: According to the noise, I'd say he's playing Splinter Cell?
    Reporter: And do you know what's going on in this game?
    Mother: Yeah, sure.
    Reporter: And you don't consider this bad?
    Mother: I consider it being better than him doing it for real so you got some hot topic for your evening news.

    Unfortunately, we'll never see this interview aired.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. 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.
  10. Re:Sucks for the kids... by sesshomaru · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It seems now-adays that the only ratings that are being given out are ether M or E...
    Yes, a very disturbing trend, visible in Kingdom Hearts II:
    Besides typical English localization, the English version of Kingdom Hearts II differs from the original Japanese version.

    * The Hydra has its green blood from the Japanese version changed into black and purple smoke in the English version.

    * Xigbar's telescopic sight view has been edited from the Japanese version to replace its crosshair with three circles and remove the black shading around the sides that implied a telescopic sight.

    * The guns of pirates found in the Pirates of the Carribean world in the Japanese version have been altered into crossbows. (Because, I guess, we want our kids shooting each other with crossbows rather than guns.)

    * Scenes in the Pirates of the Carribean world have been edited to remove some of the violence.

    * Undead pirates do not react adversely to Fire magic as they would in the Japanese version.

    --Wikipedia, Kindgom Hearts II

    Also in Sonic Gems Collection:
    According to GameSpot, who spoke to Sega regarding this topic, the Streets of Rage games will definitely not be in the US version of Sonic Gems Collection. Ready for the reason? Chances are it's going to piss you off.

    It's because Sega would have had to change the game's ESRB rating from an "E" to a "T" to accommodate the inclusion of the somewhat violent titles, and Sega opted to go for the "E" rating instead. -- News - Sonic Gems Collection US = no Streets of Rage

    Meanwhile, I recently gave The Typing of the Dead to a 10 year old (my girlfriends daughter), based on the following reasoning:

    1. All the violence in Typing of the Dead is ridiculous and not serious. I mean the characters are walking around with keyboards, Dreamcasts, and giant Coppertop batteries on their backs. The voice acting is the kind of thing that in a movie would be MST3K fodder. I consider this to be an "over-protective soccer mom" 'M' and not a realistic 'M.'

    2. It will be useful for this girl turn learn how to type when she is writing term papers, typing computer code, or writing her first novel. I'd like her to get started as early as possible. I learned to type playing Infocom games (I gave her those, too... but I worry they just can't hold the kids' attention these days, sadly.)

    --
    "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  11. Re:Phew! by Doomstalk · · Score: 2, Funny

    or Granny's Panties 7

    Remind me to stay the hell away from your DVD collection.

  12. 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.