Slashdot Mirror


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?"

26 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. ESRB? by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What exactly was wrong with the ESRB ratings we had already? They gave an age category and described any potentially offensive content. It was perfect. What more could we need?

    --
    Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    1. Re:ESRB? by meridiangod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know if the problem is the ERSB so much as the ESRB's failure to let parents know that they exist and that they need their help enforcing their rating system. Why not run an ad campaign to let parents know about the issue?

    2. Re:ESRB? by DaSenator · · Score: 4, Informative

      They are. The ESRB contacted the great guys from Penny-Arcade to come up with a new ratings awareness campaign. Here are two links below. http://www.penny-arcade.com/esrb_andersons.jpg http://www.penny-arcade.com/esrb_sarah.jpg

      --
      Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    3. Re:ESRB? by ElleyKitten · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't know if the problem is the ERSB so much as the ESRB's failure to let parents know that they exist and that they need their help enforcing their rating system. Why not run an ad campaign to let parents know about the issue?
      Oh, like the "Ok to Play?" campaign they've been running for years? Or the new Penny Arcade campaign they're starting?

      Yeah, they're already on that. Anyways, I think it's the parents' responsibility to figure out that there's a rating system; the ESRB's job is not to find every single parent and explain. The MPAA doesn't advertise their rating system at all, and their ratings and content descripters are much less intuitive and detailed than the ESRB's, yet it's the ESRB that always gets bitched at. Fuck that shit. Parents just need to read the fucking label, it's not that hard.
      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    4. Re:ESRB? by jferris · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I would assume that what else is needed would be enforcement. Ratings are one thing, but what do they ultimately mean if they are nothing more than a label on a box.

      Today's society has changed. Teen and pre-teen children have larger amounts of finances than I did when I was a child. Television (and video games) and cash have become a steady replacement for babysitters, and often parents do not take an interest in what there child is doing.

      The problem is still, ultimately, a parenting issue. It is in everyone's best interest to protect a child and have their parents be the decision maker. Enforcement wouldn't be a big brother approach, like some believe, but more a safety net. If a person, as a parent, would allow their kid to play a game that has been deemed age inappropriate, so be it. The parent would be the one to make the purchase. I just don't get what is so wrong with that.

      Times change, and people tend to not accept it. When I was a kid, I remember going to the local store to pick up a pack of cigarettes for my mother. I was probably about nine, and the store was two hundred feet from the house. The act was innocent, and it was easy for the shopkeeper to know that (usually by a call-ahead from my mother). Of course, I am sure that there are a lot more nine year olds that would smoke the same pack of cigarettes in today's society, so enforcement of laws already on the book became more dominant.

      Without something to enforce, then, the ratings system is - ultimately - pointless. Not because they don't get it right (most of the time), but because there is no substantial motivation for a proprietor to enforce them. Parents seem to be disinterested, removing any chance for a general honesty system to work.

      --
      You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
    5. Re:ESRB? by onecheapgeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Disallowing children of certain ages to not access R-rated movies is voluntary. The same SHOULD be the case for video games.

    6. Re:ESRB? by sqlrob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What about the power to fine business that sell R rated movies to kids?

      Which, by the way, is a much larger problem than games.

  2. Finally by MrSquirrel · · Score: 4, Funny

    I mean, it's about time they did something about these horrible video games! I mean, they've already fixed all the other problems in the world like... the war in Iraq, FEMA handling the New Orleans relief, stopping Iran from producing nukes, world-hunger, huge corporate scandals, huge governmental scandals (that Rove guy was totally innocent, he was framed by the evil liberal media... even though the huge conservative corporations own almost all the media outlets). THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

    --
    A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
    1. Re:Finally by Yst · · Score: 2, Informative

      Quoth the article,

      Lydia Parnes, Director of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection, told the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection...

      Quoth the poster,

      they've already fixed all the other problems in the world like... the war in Iraq, FEMA handling the New Orleans relief, stopping Iran from producing nukes, world-hunger, huge corporate scandals, huge governmental scandals

      So are we to understand that the Congressional Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection should redefine its mandate as being focused on urban disaster relief, foreign intervention, corporate law and governmental oversight, while abandoning any prior objectives, merely because those stated objectives aren't as grand in scale of moral import as others we can point to if we try?

      I'm bloody sick of this sort of argument. The FTC may be despicable at times, but this is not an argument which serves in any way to illustrate that point. The existence of 'bigger fish to fry' in government policy does not imply that all branches, committees and appointees within the system should, ideally, cease to operate or perform their duties the moment an issue of the day completely irrelevant to their role but of greater general import arises.

      --
      Karma: Chameleon (comes and goes)
  3. In other words by the+computer+guy+nex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The ESRB is completely useless."

    Government involvement probably isn't the answer, and this hopefully is just one step towards another independant system.

  4. Regulation on videogames is only needed... by DaSenator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...because parents these days don't want to be responsible for their kids. We just need to off all of the stupid parents who let little 5 year old Timmy play GTA.*

    *Hyperbole alert.

    Seriously though, it is (and should) ultimately be up to the parent to decide what their kid (read: under 18 years old in the US) can play. Even thats a bit arbitrary, as I was sixteen when I was playing Counter Strike, a 'M' rated game. Its more of the fact that I knew it was a game, and knew that it was not real. Six year old Timmy is more than likely unable to properly make the distinction.

    --
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    1. Re:Regulation on videogames is only needed... by trix7117 · · Score: 5, Funny

      That post must have taken a while to write. Little Timmy had a birthday halfway through.

    2. Re:Regulation on videogames is only needed... by Mr.Surly · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know, when I was six, I loved watching Wile E. Coyote. Despite my age, I never had an urge to strap large springs on my feet and jump off a cliff. I knew it was ridiculous.

  5. More regulation by parents by hasbeard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would like to see more regulation by parents. I think it's good to have a rating system like this, but it only works if parents are involved. Parents need to monitor what their children are watching, playing, and doing on the Internet. Of course, this assumes that parents have an idea of what is appropriate.

  6. FTC asking for expansion of regulatory powers? by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Funny

    shock and awe, my friend, shock and awe.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  7. Prosser. by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    Government: "Come off it, Mr Slashdotter," he said, "you can't win you know. You can't keep the Constitution in front of that bulldozer indefinitely."

    Slashdotter: > What exactly was wrong with the ESRB ratings we had already? They gave an age category and described any potentially offensive content. It was perfect. What more could we need?

    Government: What do you mean "what more could we need"? These are regulations! You've got to legislate regulations!

    Some factual information for you. Have you any idea how much damage that bulldozer would suffer if I just let it roll straight over that Constitution of yours?"

    Slashdotter: "How much?"

    Government: "None at all."

  8. Bureaucracy.... by Jerf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Investigator speaking to bureaucrat: Does more need to be done?

    Bureuacrat: Yes, more needs to be done. And I need more resources with which to do it.

    The exact topic du jour matters not one bit.

    The primary motivation of any bureaucracy is to extend its dominion and claim more needs to be done.

    A surprising number of organizations, many of the quite large, are basically moving along with this motivation and nothing more. I don't care to get flamed so I won't name names, but there's a lot of 'em.

  9. So... I actually read the article by faloi · · Score: 5, Funny

    The FTC essentially says that game manufacturers need to actually tell the ESRB about the content in their games, and that retailers shouldn't sell "M" rated games to underage kids. Aside from this being Slashdot, is there anything truly unreasonable in those requests?

    Yeah, I know I'm also choosing to believe that the FTC wouldn't step in with some wide ranging rules allowing the ATF to become the ATGF. Although visions of moderately trained ATGF agents conducting a SWAT style raid on a LAN party do make me smirk. "Damn, those are good speakers! That really sounded like a flash-bang!"

    --
    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
  10. We definately need more regulation by Screwy1138 · · Score: 2

    Regulation is good, we need more. We certainly don't have enough. Without regulation, people learn responsibility, and the evil market forces have their way with the economy. Regulation helps us spend our excess tax money, and allows us to avoid tackling really hard issues that will make people all mad.

  11. BBFC by abigsmurf · · Score: 2, Informative

    The UK's BBFC system works well Independant from the government and from studios, non profit organisation that receives it's funding from review fees. It ratings for individual titles aren't influenced by media or public pressure but for its overal guidelines it surveys the public to see what they think is acceptable. Bascially if someone goes "who thought XXXX was a film suitable for 12 and unders?!?!" the BBFC can essentially say "you did".

    1. Re:BBFC by Indefinite,+Ephemera · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just to clarify the parent: the BBFC classifies games insofar as it's required to as the designated authority for the Video Recordings Act, and so only the 15+ and above ratings are required. (For games in general there's PEGI.) For films there's a wider set of classifications; the BBFC's role in the film industry predates its legislative functions. I don't know how much flexibility the Video Recordings Act offers to reflect public opinion in practice, but I suspect it's less than the Board enjoys in its non-statutory role.

  12. Or by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about actually play the games yourself and determine what is and isn't acceptable to you? That's what drives me up the wall is this assumption by some parents that they shouldn't have to investigate what their kids are doing. Ummm, yes you should, you are parents, that's part of the deal.

    One of my coworkers has twin boys age 12 and a younger one age 7. All play videogames. They all have their own computers, they all have their own gameboays etc. None play any games that he hasn't first. He tries them, and decides if he finds them acceptable. He uses the ratings as a guideline, but the ultimate decision is what he feels is ok for his kids. After all, he understands their maturity level.

    I don't see why that's such a big deal for some parents. Nobody is saying you need to be a gamer or spend all your time playing games, but you can spend 30-60 minutes playing a game to see if it's acceptable. Hell, for that matter you can start playing games, play them with your kids. No different than any other activity you might dow ith your kids. Never know, might even find it fun, games are actually designed with fun in mind.

    I just do not see this as a big problem. As a parent you need to be highly invloved in your kids' lives. Yes, that means your social life will suffer, but that's kinda the deal. I think there needs to be more emphasis on good parenting, less on how society can try to Nerf-pad itself to make sure kids never encounter anything harmful.

  13. Re:do we really need more 'morality police' ? by Rifter13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    #1) The ESRB notice is relatively large on the package.
    #2) The ESRB notice is FAR superior to the moving rating system... since it tells you why a movie got the rating it received.
    #3) It's the PARENT'S job to oversee what their kids do, not the government, not the gameshop.

    The government has been legislating for over 200 years... do we NEED any more freaking laws?!

  14. DVD by kalayq · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What is the difference between DVDs and Games in this respect? If you look at them, both mediums have a wide variety of genres, content and they both have Non mandated and self governed rating systems for parents. What is the difference here?

    Games have been around for a short while compared to movies. Movies in the beginning went through the whole "they are evil and will corrupt our children" phase already. Been there, done that. Games haven't finished with it and it looks like they still have a ways to go. In the public's (or maybe I should say politician's) eyes, games are still seen as primarily for children. This has made it easier to let children buy any game they want. People still think child+game=ok. The last point I want to make is that the people who work at stores that sell games are not told (usually) to match the ESRB rating to the customer. If they aren't somehow motivated to do this, then they probably don't give a shit. I know people who got in trouble when they had summer jobs at a BestBuy and sold R moves to 11 year olds. I doubt they would have had the same thing happen if it was a M rated game. These are my opinions. I am not an expert, so please don't treat it as if I were.

    I do agree with the assertion that it is ultimately up to the parent in these matters. If they choose to not pay attention to their children's game playing habits, they shouldn't have the right to complain. Also how do kids get the money to buy games these days. I don't remember having $50 laying around when I was 9.

  15. Make the parents responsible by Sierpinski · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  16. Did you know you could buy stuff on the internet?? by bigbigbison · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.
    --
    http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players