FTC Says More Regulation Needed For Games

simoniker writes "The FTC has testified in detail to Congress that, though the game industry has 'made progress' in regulating the marketing of violent video games, 'more needs to be done.' It also revealed that it's conducted undercover surveys into whether underage gamers can buy M-rated games. It also commented: that '...the Commission will continue to monitor closely developments in the area and will initiate actions, such as the case challenging the marketing of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, when appropriate.' Will we see the FTC stepping in more often in controversial cases regarding violent video games?"

Comments

Make the parents responsible

[Sierpinski]

Do I Play GTA: San Andreas?
    Hell yes.
Would I let my child buy and play a game like GTA: San Andreas?
    Hell no.
Who should be responsible if my child is able to purchase and play GTA: San Andreas?
    Me (the parent).

Its too easy for parents to blame others for not raising or supervising their children properly. Let the school teach them Sex Education. Let the FTC to lobby to Congress to prevent the sales of violent video games to children. Too bad they don't do the same with religion, or else we might have a few more open-minded people running this place in the next few decades.

Tangent aside, the parents should ultimately be the ones responsible for what their child does. That's the way it is in other areas now. If my child goes out and buys a video game and plays it in my house without me knowing, there is a serious issue there. Maybe they can hide it for a day, but I care about my children to get involved with what they are doing. I care enough to want to protect them from violence until they are old enough to handle it. I play violent video games, but I never do it with or in front of my children. If they want to play something with me, I break out Sim City 4 or something like that.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a law against the sale of rated M games to minors. I think there should be restrictions on that the same way that a 15 year old cannot get into a rated R movie without a guardian, or into a NC-17 movie at all. What I am saying is that the parents need to stop relying on other people to decide what is best for their children. One day you might realize that all that stuff that they taught your child isn't the best for them, or you. Too late Mom and Dad, you already screwed it up by then.

Did you know you could buy stuff on the internet??

[bigbigbison]

I posted about this on my blog earlier today. The article from the Washington Times, "Lawmakers slam FTC for video game actions contains the following quote:

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Illinois Democrat and ranking member of the subcommittee, criticized Wal-Mart for the ease with which consumers under age 17 can buy explicit games on its Web site simply by checking a box certifying they are the proper age.

"That age verification is a joke," in an era when 13-year-olds can be issued credit cards and other children have access to their parents' cards, she said.

Wow, I know that if I were under 18 and had a credit card that the first thing I would buy online would be violent videogames. Because we all know that there isn't any pornography online or anything or even places where you could buy things you could use to commit real violent acts if you wanted to. Besides videogames the internet is all rainbows and puppies...

Such statements indicate that Rep Schakowsky is either totally clueless and incompetent or just fear mongering and will say anything to look "pro-family" and not at all concerned with real problems.