Truth in Ratings Act Reintroduced

dropgoal writes "Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas (and GOP presidential candidate) has reintroduced the Truth in Ratings Act. Like the previous version that failed to pass last year, Sen. Brownback's bill would make the FTC responsible for overseeing the video game ratings system and possibly result in a unified ratings system for games, movies, and TV. The ESRB would also have to review all game footage before issuing a rating. Currently, the ESRB hands out ratings after viewing a reel with representative content prepared by the developers. Sen. Brownback thinks that's not enough. 'Video game reviewers should be required to review the entire content of a game to ensure the accuracy of the rating. The current video game ratings system is not as accurate as it could be because reviewers do not see the full content of games and do not even play the games they rate', he said."

Comments

won't survive

[Lehk228]

won't survive court if by some unholy miracle it get passed at all

Re:won't survive

[Aglassis]

won't survive court if by some unholy miracle it get passed at all

I agree that it wouldn't survive in court, but it is useful to remember that the original Communications Decency Act (a much stricter form of censorship) was passed by 84-16 in the Senate and the recent Family Entertainment Protection Act was introduced by Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Tim Johnson and Evan Bayh. If you think that there will be any road bumps by Democratic or Republican Senators (or Representatives) you are being very naïve. The only protection citizens currently have from government censorship is our courts as neither the Executive nor the Legislative Branches seem to think that it is an important issue. Apparently our legislators think that an alternative reading to "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" is that Congress can make *any* law on the same.

Re:won't survive

[Babbster]

No, our legislators are well aware that most of this junk can't survive judicial review. They just don't care. The whole idea - particularly when a presidential hopeful is involved (hi Hill!) - is to get publicity and attract the "Won't someone please think of the children?" vote. The next 20 months will be filled with lots of this garbage, and it's up to the electorate to get enough edumication so that they don't buy into it. Unfortunately, the chances of said edumication happening on any large scale are slim and voters will be swayed when someone like Senator Clinton says "I sponsored a bill intended to protect our children from exposure to videogame violence, and I will continue to fight to protect our children as President."

Re:won't survive

[aussie_a]

Sounds like a good reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton. Shame the only other choice is the Republicans if she runs for president.

Re:won't survive

[Fred_A]

You mean you actually get to vote for someone in the US ? Here we mostly vote against the other guy...

I've yet to see a candidate I would actually consider voting for instead of just seeing it like a lesser evil. :(

Re:won't survive

[jac89]

Or you could vote for Barak Obama in the Primaries...

Re:won't survive

[b.burl]

Why not? The MPAA has been rating films for yonks limiting access to children. And the people sitting in judgement are totally anonymous, low paid, and very inconsistent. The guidelines they use are murky and different standards are regularly used for independent vs studio output. And trying to appeal a rating...well don't even bother. For some reason they felt the need to include a catholic and a protestant priest on the appellate panel.

if a system like that can survive, why not a governmental one run by professionals with clearly visible criteria and an appeals process that is fair and doesn't have a religious component? BTW, kids don't have free speech.

Re:won't survive

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, kids don't have free speech.
Bullshit. Find me some LEGAL proof a kid truly has NO FREE SPEECH. You might find some contradictory information, but I think you will find that saying kids don't have free speech is total BS. And it isn't the kids free speech being infringed, it is the free speech of the game makers and any ADULTS who purchase games. Check out a lot of the stats and you will find that the average "gamer" age is well about 18. I personally know several people in their 40s and 50s with consoles.

Re:won't survive

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote 3rd party! I swear if more people did this the two party system would break. It only works because everyone thinks that they are just wasting their vote, but if people started voting what they believe and not the lesser of two evils, then I think some of this shit would stop.

Re:won't survive

[MightyYar]

In the last election I voted for the guy running against Bush. In the next election I suspect that I'll be voting for the man/woman running against Hillary. She's the consummate politician - I've never seen her answer a question, and yet you come away feeling like she answered it very well.

Re:won't survive

[jank1887]

maybe a better statement would have been: kids have no constitutionally protected freedom from government suppression of their speech. That, at least, can be intelligently debated on its constitutional merits and whether or not people under the age of majority can claim constitutional protections...

Re:won't survive

[Anonymous Coward]

Trouble is, for most of the electorate, the existing third parties are simply not what they believe.

It seems as if third parties figure that the two main parties pretty much have the moderate, middle ground covered, as they've been fighting over it for years. It's really hard to compete with that, so they tend to appeal instead to those most unhappy with the two parties -- which is those who have more or less extreme political ideas. The electorate as a whole doesn't hold those ideas and doesn't like extremism, which is a problem when the extremists are right. But we really will never get anywhere different insisting that people "vote what they believe", as this is what they are doing now. You'll find a Libertarian here and there who votes Republican, but by far most people who vote Republican just don't agree with the Libertarian platform.

Re:won't survive

[Carthag]

I find it appalling that you select who you want to vote for negatively. How about selecting based on the candidate's good qualities, not the bad qualities of the other candidates?

Re:won't survive

[j_snare]

Well, then your candidate review tends to go something like this:

Good qualities about Republican party candidate: N/A
Good qualities about Democrat party candidate: N/A

I tend to think that this was the problem at the last two US elections.

Re:won't survive

[endianx]

No no, I think it is mostly the same here. I bet less than half of all voters in the USA are pleased with who they choose to vote for. I voted for Bush in 2004. Felt damn dirty. But I was voting against the other guy.

Re:won't survive

[MightyMartian]

Hey, I'm all for truth in ratings, just as soon as politicans also advocate strict and onerous bills on truth in politics.

Re:won't survive

[LocalH]

No, it can't. The First says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Says nothing about "unless the speaker is of minority age".

Re:won't survive

[jenkin sear]

We have this pesky thing in the US called "the constitution". It prevents the government from engaging in massive censorship, which is what a rating system translates to. There are exceptions- commercial speech isn't protected, nor are some kinds of classified information, as is work that is patently obscene.

Censorship and rating systems in the US are implemented through voluntary trade associations in order to get around this problem. There is no law that mandates that the idiots in the MPAA must rate all movies- you can release a movie without their ratings perfectly legally. However, it will be difficult to get distribution.

The point is that a replacement for the MPAA can be created if they screw up badly enough that everyone is unsatisfied with their work. You don't get to just drop government censorship if they mess it up.

if a system like that can survive, why not a governmental one run by professionals with clearly visible criteria and an appeals process that is fair and doesn't have a religious component?

Was this part a joke? Have you ever been to visit the professionals at the DMV? You really want Sen. Brownback picking who sits on the panel?

The system may suck now, but involving the government isn't the answer...

Re:won't survive

[Anonymous Coward]

Because then he'd have to vote for a third party, or independent.

Most people aren't capable of considering more than two choices.

Re:won't survive

[twifosp]

. How about selecting based on the candidate's good qualities, not the bad qualities of the other candidates?

Bravo, well said. I agree with you 100%. The above is a large contributor to what is wrong with the election system in this country. The problem is, as of late, we American's have been having a bit of trouble with the good qualities part. The only politicians worth voting for aren't even on the party tickets. And even if they were, if you don't live in a swing vote state, your vote is basically wasted. I live in Texas, Austin, the capitol of Texas to be exact. We voted overwhemingly blue the last few elections. But Texas votes overwhemingly red because, let's face it, Texans aren't the most educated batch of voters (my opinion, if it's not a fact, I don't care...). So my vote did not truly count.

Re:won't survive

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a bad idea, but first we need candidates that have the qualities we really want. You're not going to find that in the major parties. You'll find it in spades in a third party candidate. But those with power have every interest in not acknowledging these candidates exist.

So what will it be. Do you vote for the candidate with the qualities you like, which will almost certainly be a third party candidate that won't win? Or do you go with the least objectionable of the viable candidates?

Re:won't survive

[Lehk228]

the MPAA isn't a government body and it's ratings aren't enforced by the government

Re:won't survive

[jZnat]

Well, then make sure to vote in the primaries! Hardly anyone does, so your vote has an enormous effect, especially if you can get others to do the same. Don't want Hillary to be the Democratic candidate? Vote in the Democratic Primary in 2008 (state-specific details on the wiki). Don't want a lousy candidate running on the Republican side? Vote in the Republican Primary in 2008. Sure, third parties aren't at a level where we can hope for a president being elected from one of them, but they are at a well-known level where they can run for plenty of other political positions and win (e.g. local government, state government).

Also, if you know of a politician whom you think would be a great presidential candidate, why don't you contact him or her? The primaries aren't until early next year, so you've got plenty of time to scope out and convince more potential candidates.

Re:won't survive

[MightyYar]

That is of course my primary objective. But let me ask you: who in the 2004 presidential elections had good qualities? Even the third party guys were clowns. I'm pretty sure that you have to be such an egomaniac to seek the presidency that it almost precludes a truly decent candidate from running.

I might "positively" vote for this Obama fellow because he seems better than most, but I disagree with him on quite a few issues.

Re:won't survive

[Your Pal Dave]

That's good advice for those folks living in New Hampshire and Iowa. A year from today the nominations will be a done deal before many states will even have had their primaries.

Re:won't survive

[pedrop357]

Amen.

Where all these addendums that say people under 18 are ineligible and/or should be denied protection under any given section of the constitution. I see nothing in amendments 1-25 or 27 nor the body of the constitution that would allow the government to deny people under 18 their rights. Yes, the constitution is a limit on government, not the people.

The 26th prohibits the government from infringing upon the rights of people over 18 in regards to voting, but makes no such prohibition regarding people under 18. I might argue that because the government is granted no such power, they have no right to deny people under 18 the right to vote, but that's for another time.

In fact, aside from the 26th amendment, the only places I see age mentioned is in the establishment of minimum age to hold office for president (35) and senator (25).

Basically, that's the true limits of the government's special ability to deny young people rights-they can be denied the ability to hold two offices, and they may be able to be denied the right to vote. Nothing else is permitted.

Re:won't survive

[trianglman]

The thing is, and I haven't read the bill in question so I am not 100%, but as described, if it only requires a common rating system on all (insert media here) then it isn't actually censorship as it doesn't prevent the media from being created, published, or sold.

The method of the rating system (such as making all games be fully played by the rating board) may, depending on the judge hearing the court case, constitute an undue burden on free speech, but that depends on a judge agreeing with that view. Its hard to say exactly how many of the current federal judges would decide on such a case as most of them have been appointed under Republican leadership which on one hand favors nanny state (or as they call it "values" issues), but on the other hand they favor big business...

Re:won't survive

[aussie_a]

Don't want Hillary to be the Democratic candidate? Vote in the Democratic Primary in 2008 [wikipedia.org] (state-specific details on the wiki). I would but I couldn't find New South Wales details in there ;)

Re:won't survive

[MightyYar]

I regularly vote for 3rd parties, though they tend to be nuts. I give them a vote just so it is easier for them to stay on the ballot in the next election.

Re:won't survive

[Dun Malg]

I might "positively" vote for this Obama fellow because he seems better than most, but I disagree with him on quite a few issues. Hell, I'm something of a small-L libertarian/"political atheist" and I think I'd vote for him, even if only to give all those cracker bastards out there apoplexy at the notion of a "nigra prez-det". He's no worse than any of the myriad losers we've had run up till now.

Re:won't survive

[Carthag]

I'm from Denmark so I'm not eligible to vote in the US elections, but I would most likely have gone with a 3rd party candidate. Seeing as I can't vote there, I didn't bother looking 100% into all the candidates, so I can't say which one.

I'll tell you what I voted in the 2005 Danish election though: The Minority Party which had some qualities I like (legalized cannabis, relaxation of immigration laws) some that I don't (anti-EU) but overall I find it refreshing if a government is comprised of a coalition, to prevent the true nutbags from fucking everything up and insure that everybody gets heard. They didn't get into the DK parliament though, but that's beside the point. I don't feel that it's a wasted vote. A truly wasted vote is one that is not cast at all.

Re:won't survive

[Carthag]

Do you vote to be on the winning team? I personally wouldn't do that. If you vote the candidate that is likely to win because he is going to win, that's a shitty reason. Stop voting for the major parties and try to get some political diversity into your government, damnit! One vote DOES count.

Re:won't survive

[MightyYar]

Unfortunately we currently have a de-facto 2-party system here in the US. While you can vote for a third party, it is very much a "wasted" vote in a close election. Nader and the Greens, for instance, siphoned off just enough votes from the Democratic party to hand Bush the election in 2000. Ultimately it was probably good for the Democratic party, however, because they began to realize that they, like the Republicans, could not take their wing nuts for granted. I tend to vote for third parties quite a bit, if only because they automatically appear on the ballot in the next election if they get enough votes. Usually the third party candidates are complete wackos, though. Almost every third-party candidate in the New York State elections last year was promising to "investigate the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center". They are kooks playing to conspiracy theorists.

Re:won't survive

[MightyYar]

I have to admit that a large part of his appeal is his color and what that would mean to ignorant racists. On the other hand, they ultimately have an out: I'm sure that they can somehow placate themselves with the fact that he was raised by the white side of his family. I'm still for anything that makes them squirm and confront their own bigotry.

Speaking of rating...

[js92647]

I'd like to see more fair ratings on game review sites. Sites like gamespot are long biased and comment well on games if the developer/publisher provides them with everything they want.

A bit off topic :\

Re:Speaking of rating...

[msobkow]

Isn't the bill talking about ratings like "PG" or "PG-13" as opposed to rating whether a game is worth playing?

I don't see how one could actually enforce accurate reviews of games, short of suing the pants off anyone who is obviously "selling out" good reviews in some fashion.

Re:Speaking of rating...

[BForrester]

This is starting to veer off topic, but...

If you go to http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/sites.asp , you can see what the average review grade is for each game review site.

Sure; the occasional review may be biased or paid off, but you'll know to stay away from the sites that continually give unrealistically high ratings. (For the record -- and I was a bit surprised about this -- most of the major sites seem to sit in the middle).

Re:Speaking of rating...

[jZnat]

GameSpot reviews games in a favourable manner? Puh-leez! I have yet to see a "fair" review on GameSpot where a game actually got a score they deserved (pretty much all games are reviewed extremely harshly on GameSpot; I don't know of any games that have received a perfect 10/10 there). Besides, you can just look at the "You Say" (GameSpot and GameFAQs users' reviews) and "They Say" (GameRankings.com scores, aggregate of a lot of gaming sites' scores) scores to get a better idea on what people actually think of the game.

Re:Speaking of rating...

[Maltheus]

If someone went through the trouble and cost of purchasing a game, then they were most likely sold on the game before they even played it. In fact, many of the Gamespot user reviews are by reviewers who admit they haven't even played the game. The site reviewers may not give out many (if any) 10/10s, but pretty much every game is in the 7-9 range, regardless of quality. And they do seem to give the highest scores to the games with the biggest publishers behind them, even the community agreed upon bombs. I think that average games should receive a 5 and that bad and good games should proceed from there. Since most games are not that great, then I'd say they're artificially pumping the scores, leading the readers to revisit the site to get the cheats to just get through the stupid game they bought on Gamespot's recommendation.

Re:Speaking of rating...

[JPribe]

I'm just wondering how cost effective something like this is, given that many games involve what amounts to a number of days, if not weeks of gameplay. Another example of people legislating that which they do not understand.

Date based or procedural content?

[tepples]

Video game reviewers should be required to review the entire content of a game to ensure the accuracy of the rating. How would this work in cases of games that literally take 365 days to complete, such as Animal Crossing, or procedural content that has well over 4.2 billion combinations, such as Spore?

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[yincrash]

It wouldn't work. The senator either knows this and does it to boost his popularity among game haters, or has no idea what he's doing.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[Bob54321]

What about games such as Age of Empires - I assume the rating for that has to be reasonably low. But I could place my houses in a way that spells FUCK OFF or something equally childish. Now the game contains inappropriate language for its rating...

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[NonSequor]

Well unless the wording of the bill explicitly says that they have to play through all conceivable states of the game I wouldn't worry about that. If you put 100 hours into a game like Spore or Animal Crossing you can more or less safely assume that any additional game play will be more or less the same.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[omeomi]

He's just doing it so when the presidential race gets more momentum, he can say that he introduced legislation to "protect the children"...The degree to which his legislation is stupid is completely irrelevant.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you missed out on the final, graphic sex scene in Animal Crossing. Now, I'm no furry, but that stuff was awesome!

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[fishbowl]

"The senator either knows this and does it to boost his popularity among game haters, or has no idea what he's doing."

All he needs to know is, if the Democrats go through with the plan to nominate Clinton and/or Obama, he can rely on the bigotry of Americans to elect, by default, any moron the Republicans care to run.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[Vengeance_au]

Although that logically makes sense, I'm not sure how 100 hours of gameplay is any different to a video of gameplay - as long as all functional areas of the game are shown. This bill is calling to play through the games - not just a representative section. The real issue is that no matter how much gameplay occurs (1, 100 or n-1 hours) issues such as the "hot coffee mod" where the player had to download a patch to get access to the content, and there was absolutely NO way of accessing the content without the patch. And MMORPGs etc where content is both added or generated by the users - absolutely impossible, as the landscape is continuously changing. Classic example of that is second life (although many would argue it's not a game) - there is some seriously nasty stuff in there, but its all user generated, and none of it was in the initial build deployed by linden labs.

I see this as a way of adding complexity to the process and address the WSTOTC angle (Won't Somebody Think Of The Children!) without actually adressing any of the (already quite well addressed and managed IMHO) problems - classic politicking.

<offtopic> I love this quote from Sen. Brownback "I encourage everyone to visit our nation's capital, and please stop by my office on Thursdays for a visit and some hot coffee.". Why Senator, I didn't know you had the patch installed! </offtopic>

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[triffid_98]

+5 Insightful?

Parent is of course, completely correct. Last time the christ brigade rolled out in record numbers over gay marriage, sealing the 2004 election, and now the democrats are gearing up to do it all over again. Good f*ing job guys.

and for the record, I agree that this won't stand up in court, and the author probably knows this. It's politics, as they say. (ie. politics as in a ruse to get this idiot's name in the papers, proclaiming that he 'thought of the children', in hopes of winning some votes come election time.)

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't even need to go into the more exotic games with procedural content- plenty of conventional games have branching storylines, tremendously time consuming side quests, and mutually exclusive material that would require a very large number of 50+ hour playthroughs to fully explore. And what about games that add content after release? Games like World of Warcraft and Eve are constantly adding official content after release, it would be impossible to fully review them until after it stops being possible to play them.
This isn't even touching on user created material. The ESRB seems to have no problem with retroactively changing its rating based on users modifications of the game if it gets enough press (hot coffee and to a lesser degree Oblivions nude textures), if you include everything your game could possibly be, you might as well just give up and rate every game as M, because someone, somewhere will eventually figure out how to replace one of your textures with some porn.
This is what happens when people try to legislate things they don't understand. The ESRB may not be great, but at least it's done inside the industry by people who have some idea what they're dealing with. If the FTC gets involved, things will get much, much worse.
I am reminded of a penny arcade strip:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2001/02/14

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[cheater512]

He's a politician so I'd be leaning towards the latter.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[Squalish]

Which is why "this rating may change at play time" used on multiplayer games is ridiculous.

May as well rate your Crayons the same way.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[toejam316]

Look, They may as well slap a R18 Sexual Content and Violence on it, because lets face it, someone, somewhere, is going to work out how to make a walking penis with testicle feet. They may as well just get around to that fact now. Saves time, ya see?

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[KDR_11k]

Dunno but Animal Crossing got rated in Germany which does require going through all content in a game. I think they just demand a testing build that allows easier access to such content. If the test build and final build differ in content the rating is revoked (see e.g. Far Cry).

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[Jekler]

I agree. In the current generation of games, it's seldom possible to "review the entire content of a game". There's hardcore gamers who go through games multiple times and don't even see all the content for years because of subplots they didn't know how to activate, or some obscure combination of factors that unlocks other content. And what about patches that dramatically alter the game's content? Do we need a ratings panel to review every patch for every game?

Games like GTA, The Elder Scrolls series, and other dynamic world games would be virtually impossible to review without there being hundreds of ratings reviewers who collaborate to systematically make different choices than each other. And then there are player mods to consider. Games like Half-Life become an entirely different beast once a few mods start getting popular.

I think the biggest problem for the idea will be the games we see that become completely dynamic, where all game world content is generated differently every single time. It's like asking someone to play through entire content of Dungeons and Dragons (the tabletop game). Make sure you visit every city, plane, run every adventure module, etc. That shouldn't take any more than 6000 years.

I can imagine the good ol' senator shitting a brick after hearing how it's done. "What do you mean they can just make this crap up as they go along? It's not fair! I want it rated!"

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[jonwil]

Mods are not a problem in the general case, mods become a problem when they expose otherwise hidden content (see Hot Coffee) that was put there by the games developers and that is inappropriate for the rating given to the game.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[Dragonslicer]

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Good thing to remember when talking about politicians.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[VJ42]

Here in the UK\Europe Spore and Animal crossing would get a rating from PEGI (The Pan-European Game Information) which is the game industries self regulatory body, and not legally binding.

Most computer games are exempt from BBFCBritish Board of Film Classification, which regulates Cinema and Films here in the UK. According to their FAQ:

Under the Video Recordings Act, most video games are exempt from BBFC classification. However, they may lose this exemption - and therefore require a formal BBFC classification - if they depict, to any significant extent, gross violence against humans or animals, human sexual activity, human urinary or excretory functions or genital organs, or techniques likely to be useful in the commission of offences. In the early days of video games, the quality of graphics was so low that, even when 'human' or 'animal' characters were depicted, they were unlikely to be realistic enough to be covered by the Act. However, the increasing sophistication of computer graphics means that nowadays a number of games require classification, usually because they contain violence against realistic human figures. In some cases, games may also need to be submitted to the BBFC because they contain non-interactive video elements (eg trailers or film clips) that do not enjoy the same exemption as interactive games. So the latest GTA game will get an 18 rating and as with films cannot be legally sold to under 18s. Their statistics page shows that last year (2006) they rated 298 works (the most ever) and it seems that game companies are doing the same as film ones, and cutting material to get lower ratings (last year there were 2, one in the PG category and one in the 15 one, it doesn't list the titles).

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[robbiethefett]

i think the more appropriate question is why would someone take the time to review every scene in a game like Spore, just to give it a rating that no one will pay attention to? isnt the problem with the current esrb rating system that no one pays any attention to it whatsoever? as far as i can tell, games are rated quite appropriately.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[Anonymous Coward]

use 365 reviewers!!

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[SScorpio]

Because we all know the very pixelated sex scene of hot coffee where no one was actually naked was completely over the M(ature) rating of the original game where you steal cars, lead a gang in turf fights, and just generally screw around and blow things up causing as much carnage as possible. [sarcasm]Ya, that sounds completely correct to me[/sarcasm].

You might want to thing of a better example. Oblivion was interesting because the original texture used to make topless female models was for a male chest. Which would lead us back to the male nibble debate from the Batman movies where people complained about them. This caused Oblivion to be pulled and rerated as M rather than T(een). The developers didn't fight though because they were amazed that the game was only given a T rating in the first place.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[idobi]

You know, of course, that if they start playing the games to determine the ratings, the next step is that some congressman or senator is going to complain that a federal agency is wasting taxpayer's money paying people to play video games.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[ivan256]

As opposed to electing Clinton, who's introduced practically the same type of legislation in the past?

Face it, they're two asses of the same horse. Except that Hillary might get her party's nomination, and Brownback doesn't have a chance in hell.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[Deathlizard]

better yet, How would playing the game in it's entirity or even having full access to the RTM Disk Code/images/audio/ETC find something like "Hot Coffee"? Especially considering that it was impossible to trigger Hot Coffee without a gameshark or equivelent cheat device and nothing in the "Hot coffee" scandal audio or in game text would hint to sex outside of the act being rendered in real time.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[Suriyel]

If they do pass this, we need to pass the hat around and buy some congresscritters to get a bill passed that requires all of any beverages that could be imbibed by congressmen be throughly and entirely tested by a certified lab to be sure the ingredients are correct and that there are no illegal substances in it. Think of the congresscritters!

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[tepples]

By how much would using 365 reviewers increase the price of the product? How much would that reduce sales?

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[Anonymous Coward]

He definitely understands this. Kansas has a notoriously conservative evangelical base that he appeases every once in a while by doing some crazy thing that he knows has no legitimate chance to actually be passed. It's sad too, because as a sometimes resident of Kansas City I actually have a lot of respect for some of the things Sen. Brownback does. Things like this and his deranged form of conservativism overshadow all the good things he has accomplished.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[tkinnun0]

The threat of governmental cencorship which leads to self-censorship is much better than actual cencorship; you get almost the same "benefits" without any negative backlash. Just look at the Production Code and Comics Code. Are those what you want? I'd rather get my uncencored games now.

And instead of a useless one letter rating, give me the entertainment facts that are useful: how many hours until you've seen all the gameplay and how much of that time is spent traveling, problem-solving, killing in cold blood and self-defence, sexual acts and themes.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[C0rinthian]

If it's a government agency, nothing to the developer. But we will all pay for it...

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think people are missing the point here if they believe the intention is to "play the whole game to see all the content". While yes the sequence and what is depicted in any given playing of the game depends on the gamer's choices, the basic plot and sub-plots could be shown. Additionally, the images that are produced don't magically appear-- a designer had to put together the basic images. For example, an explicit image does not just happen by the system all by itself nor does an extremely gory scene magically appear-- the basics of those scenes can be shown even if the exact on screen position, etc changes arbitrarily.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[Jekler]

As we move more towards open-ended games, the idea of plot/sub-plot becomes completely arbitrary. If you think in terms of scenes, you load up a game and you're in 1941 Manhattan. What's the plot? The plot is whatever the player wants to get involved in. It could be a love story, a gangster simulation, a crime drama, a psychological thriller. or the story of a rookie baseball player trying to make it in the Yankees. The boundaries that constrain our games right now are quickly disappearing. It won't be very long before games are completely dynamic with no linear story or tree-like subplot systems. The problem is, if regulations like this are applied, our games are going to change faster than the law will keep up with them. Regulations like this set the stage for an atmosphere where games can't even be released because it takes years to review them for rating.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[ultranova]

Which is why "this rating may change at play time" used on multiplayer games is ridiculous.

May as well rate your Crayons the same way.

On the contrary, it is 100% truthful. The Crayon box doesn't contain obscene pictures, but you can draw them with Crayons. The MMORPG game does not ship with obscene language, but nothing stops the other players from typing nasty words. The rating is accurate. It might be redundant, but then again, this is the USA we are talking about - the Home of Hysterics, the Land of Lawsuits - so better cover all your bases.

I'm leaving the definition of "obscene" open; fill in whatever your religion, conscience, or whatever tells you to.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[ShadowsHawk]

Last I heard, FF12 was taking upwards of 150-170 hours to complete. That's just the game itself, not including optional bosses.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[fishbowl]

>As opposed to electing Clinton, who's introduced practically the same type of legislation in the past?

Americans are not going to elect a woman or a black person to the office of president, period.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[Pxtl]

I feel sorry for the poor bugger who has to get all the way through Ikaruga, or anythign else in the "too freakishly hard" category.

Of course, legislators being silly, have no idea of these issues. Probably the ideal requirement would be "view a video showing a complete playthrough of the game that displays an example of every-single-piece of developer-created content within all relevantly distinct gameplay contexts"... so in other words, if a game was procedurally generated, video showing scenese that include every developer-made model, animation, sound, and texture need to be included.... since I'd be damned impressed with any procedurally-generated content that is scandallous that wouldn't have to be shown by that metric.

Of course, for most games that would be a helluvalot of video to go through... but in some cases it would be easier than trying to play the whole damned thing through.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[pedrop357]

I really love the reaction from many people about the hot coffee hack/hidden content reveal.

The game was rated "M" which was the movie equivalent of "R", yet people got twisted in pretzels because of a hokey 'sex' scene.
This is like complaining about and threatening lawsuits because the Pulp Fiction DVD has an 'easter egg' in it where you see Fabian's breasts and/or ass. As far I know there is no such scene, it's just an example.

I guess it's OK to have rampant fake violence but not OK to have 30 seconds of hard to find fake sort-of-sex.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[PhoenixOne]

I spent well over 100 hours in GTA:SA and I never saw the "Hot Coffee" content. I'm guessing I probably missed a ton of little "Easter Eggs" in that game.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[Some_Llama]

"but nothing stops the other players from typing nasty words."

Actually that's not true, the multiplayer chat in C&C generals and LOTR BFME both have language filters, if you try and type a dirty word it just shows as **** (I think this is true for EA PC games in general.

As for spelling out dirty words with tiles or buildings in mutiplayer maps or user generated content (like WC3 custom maps) there is nothing preventing it, although they could just not allow user created content, or make building placement static (like, once again, Lord of the rings, battle for middle earth).

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[SEAL]

Mods can call the parent a troll, but he's a correct troll. To reword in a more PC-fashion:

In order to get elected President in the U.S., you almost always need to carry the Midwest and the South. Those regions tend to have few liberal voters, and most are very traditional and even prejudiced. They like their Presidents to be white male Christians, preferably married (to a woman of course).

For a woman or a minority to succeed, they'd need to be unbelievably popular across traditional party divisions, and the opposition would have to be unbelievably incompetent. I do think we'll elect a minority president someday, but I don't think it will happen in the next election. The Republicans have some popular figures such as Giuliani and McCain, and the Democrats will need a strong traditional candidate like Edwards to compete in the South. Hillary and Obama will have problems.

Of course all this speculation doesn't matter if one of those candidates pulls a foot-in-mouth move like the Dean Scream or Kerry's "don't study: go to Iraq" soundbite. Then all bets are off.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[Vengeance_au]

... and even with 1000 hours, you never would have - in an unmodified version of the game. The "hot coffee" content is not accessable from the game without a patch to enable access to it. So although the code was in the game, it was not available - effectively a private function() with no calls to it. Thus, the "hot coffee mod" was born to re-enable the links into the game to make the content available. A great writeup of the hot coffee mod and contoversy surrounding it can be found at the wikipedia.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we need a more self-regulatory rating system then.

It seems only the game developers will know exactly what kind of content their game contains. So we get them to be honest and come clean, and show the rating comittee how graphic it gets. A rating is then awarded.

If it later transpires that a game developer has not been honest and that the content they failed to reveal would alter the rating they pay heavy fines, people go to jail (make it fraud of some kind), enforce withdrawal of product etc. at the developers expense.

A co-operative, honest, responsible approach seems most likely to actually achieve what the senator has in mind.

Re:Date based or procedural content?

[Anonymous Coward]

As we move more towards open-ended games, the idea of plot/sub-plot becomes completely arbitrary. If you think in terms of scenes, you load up a game and you're in 1941 Manhattan. What's the plot? The plot is whatever the player wants to get involved in. It could be a love story, a gangster simulation, a crime drama, a psychological thriller. or the story of a rookie baseball player trying to make it in the Yankees.

At that point, however, you have shown yourself to be more clueless than the senator when it comes to what video games actually are like at the moment. The time when a game can completely randomly generate an engaging plot in any of these genres is as far off as the time when I can simply tell my computer to generate, say, a season's worth of a (3D-rendered) TV series or a movie on the theme of my choice, a thought-provoking novel, some useful software, a pop song (and I'm not just talking about weird-sounding electronica here). Legislation doesn't have to concern itself with this concept because it is a science fiction fantasy at the moment.

That said, this legislation is obviously unwise, for reasons mentioned by others. You can never be sure that you have seen all the content in a game simply by playing it, and video gamers should not be required to sift through the raw data - some specialized ratings board would have to be more suitable for that job, if it really needs to be done.

We can all relax now

[Soporific]

Good old Sam has solved all the other problems we are having today and ratings are last remaining vestiges of a cruel world...

~S

Re:We can all relax now

[The_Wilschon]

"We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
but we tried to fight it"

Thanks, Billy.

Disclaimer: I am not a Republican, although in some ways I am rather conservative.

Re:We can all relax now

[Heian-794]

Good old Sam has solved all the other problems we are having today and ratings are last remaining vestiges of a cruel world...

Sam? Is that Sam Walton and his low-price superstore empire, or Uncle Sam and his benevolent nanny state?

The full content?

[dotslashdot]

If the FTC or whomever must review the ENTIRE content of a video game, does that mean every possible combination of levels/characters/interactions? How long would that take? How would the FTC even know if they've covered all the levels? They would have to rely on the gamemakers. Yet that is exactly what Brownback claims is the problem with the current system: the gamemakers providing a sampling of the content. This is an unworkable and self-defeating proposal. But if they need a game screener...

Re:The full content?

[rm999]

"If the FTC or whomever must review the ENTIRE content of a video game, does that mean every possible combination of levels/characters/interactions?"

Funny, that was my first thought too. Then I remembered they aren't testing the game for bugs, they are just looking for anything offensive. Generally, a cursory run through a game will give a pretty good indication of the rating. In the very rare cases where a developer is stupid enough to put something *hidden* into the game that will ruin its rating, a simple but direct question to the developers making them disclose it should cover the rest. I am not claiming this is airtight, but it's still "better" than the current system.

Re:The full content?

[omeomi]

I am not claiming this is airtight, but it's still "better" than the current system.

I don't see how...the outcry over "hidden" adult content in a game is based mostly around that Hot Coffee thing, which required players to actually download a patch from the internet to see it. Since the internet is already full of plenty of adult content, I don't see how this is a problem. Not to mention that the game (GTA) was already rated M...

The current system works just fine. It's just a victim of politicians who want to look like they're saving the chilluns.

Re:The full content?

[ArcherB]

If the FTC or whomever must review the ENTIRE content of a video game, does that mean every possible combination of levels/characters/interactions?

I doubt it. What I expect to see is the product manager and maybe a programmer or QA tech go to their ratings meeting with the FTC. These two sit in a room with a few FTC reps and they ask questions about the game. Then they say, "OK, show me everything". The QA tester or programmer runs through each of the levels and shows all the cut scenes. Of course, they should be smart enough to show any easter eggs (ala Hot Coffee) to the FTC as well. When they are done, they get their ratings.

What I don't see is the following for Starcraft:
Here is Zerg vs. Human
Here is Zerg vs. Protoss
Here is Zerg and Human against Protoss
Here is Zerg, another Zerg and a Human against a Protoss
Here is Zerg, teamed up with a Human against another Zerg, but the Zerg will turn on the human after the other Zerg is wiped out.
Here is Protoss vs. Human
Here is Protoss vs. Human and another Protoss...
OK, that's map one. Now lets look at Map two.
Here's Zerg vs. Human....

You get the idea.
I'm sure the Product Manger will merely have to point out the different combinations and maybe show the layout of each map. Every single possible combination would be asinine. Trust me, the FTC guys have lives too, even if it is TV Dinners and Lucy re-runs.

Re:The full content?

[mauthbaux]

Easiest way to review the content: ignore context.

Just hand the guys a giant text file of all the game dialog so they can scan it for profanity and racy phrases. Then do a long and tedious slideshow of all the wireframe models and their associated skins. Seeing as they only seem to care about nudity and gross obscenities, this should work just fine.

Re:The full content?

[ArcherB]

I don't see how this is a problem. Not to mention that the game (GTA) was already rated M...

Rated M, what does that mean? Does it mean that you have to 18 yrs or older to buy the game? Nope. Does it mean you have to have your parents with you to buy the game? Nope. It means nothing at all. It's voluntarily rated M as a warning to parents who may be buying the game for their preacher's kid, nothing more. There is no legal binding behind it. All this guy wants to do is to place a standardized rating system on video games so that the technically illiterate can understand it.

And it's not just the outcry over the Hot Coffee thing, but GTA in general. The object of the game is to carjack as many people as possible. Bonus points for beating up whores and ripping them off!??! It's not just the Hot Coffee that is the problem, it's the whole damn game and games like it. Ever play Postal 2? You piss on people, cut their heads off with shovels, douse them with gasoline and throw lit matches on them... and so on. How about Duke Nukem 3D ("Shake it, Baby!")? These games need a rating so that any 5 year-old off the street can't just walk into any GameStop and pick up GTA New Orleans-Mardis Gras.

It's not that I think all games should be Disney approved, but a rating system can actually free programmers to make whatever game they want. The can make "Sam and Max go the Red Light District" because the second a parent complains, all they have to say is, "Hey lady, you have to be 18 or over to buy this game. You saw the rating, why did you buy it for your kid? Do you buy them Playboy too? Then why did you buy them a game that says in plain letters that it is an X-rated game, right there on the label?" Right now, Sam and Max--Red Light will not be made because they'd get too much heat. Allow an X rating and it's on!

Re:The full content?

[omeomi]

Rated M, what does that mean? Does it mean that you have to 18 yrs or older to buy the game? Nope.

Who cares...Most places do enforce ratings, and anybody old enough to get themselves to a game store and buy a game for $50 or so is probably old enough to play an M rated game. If they're not, then their parents should be paying more attention to them. It's not my problem if their parents don't care enough to filter what gets into their hands.

It's voluntarily rated M as a warning to parents who may be buying the game for their preacher's kid, nothing more. There is no legal binding behind it.

Sounds fine to me. We don't need laws about *everything*...society can regulate certain matters all by itself.

The object of the game is to carjack as many people as possible. Bonus points for beating up whores and ripping them off!??! It's not just the Hot Coffee that is the problem, it's the whole damn game and games like it.

Myself, I don't particularly like GTA. But that's not because of the content. It's because, to me, it's not really that fun of a game. If you don't like the game (for whatever reason), don't play it. Nobody's forcing you to play GTA. Let those who like it play it, and stop bitching about it.

Re:The full content?

[Sneftel]

Rated M, what does that mean? Does it mean that you have to 18 yrs or older to buy the game? Nope. Does it mean you have to have your parents with you to buy the game? Nope. It means nothing at all. It's voluntarily rated M as a warning to parents who may be buying the game for their preacher's kid, nothing more. There is no legal binding behind it.
Perhaps you should review the legal status of movie ratings in the US.

Re:The full content?

[mark-t]

While the Hot Coffee content did require a patch to the software to view, it is still a fact that the content was actually included with the game the whole time. The patch did not add any content to the game, it merely enabled something that was already there, but masked away by the programmers. If the HC patch had itself provided actual additional content added to the game by installing it that was not present beforehand, it would be a very different issue indeed.

Re:The full content?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Hot Coffee wasn't an easter egg (I'm defining an easter egg as something intentionally put in by the designers for players to find). It was something they were thinking of adding to the game but decided not to and it was accidentally left on the disk. It is impossible to access it without altering the actual code of the game.

Re:The full content?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Rated M, what does that mean? Does it mean that you have to 18 yrs or older to buy the game?

I'll just point out that movies are handled the exact same way. It's voluntary, with the exception of X rated stuff.

Re:The full content?

[Simon Garlick]

I look forward to the demonstrations of all monsters, all raids, and all quests, conducted by all classes and races and permutations of classes and races, in World of Warcraft.

Re:The full content?

[aussie_a]

I see absolutely no difference.

Re:The full content?

[KDR_11k]

The constitution of the United States of America does not support any form of rating and the restrictions on porn were only possible through very creative loopholes which can't be applied to games. If you want legally binding ratings you have to change the constitution to allow them. Without such a change it's not possible to introduce legally binding ratings on videogames or any other media, no matter how much everyone wants them.

Re:The full content?

[KDR_11k]

And, if you want to consider Hot Coffee, all forms of out-of-spec system states including memory corruption, overflow exploits and any form of code injection with all possible sets of data injected.

Re:The full content?

[joystickgenie]

Well I guess that depends on what you consider the hot coffee scene.

If you are talking about two naked characters having sex on screen then yes it did require additional content. If you are talking about dry humping between a full clothed man and a partially modeled woman (they didn't even finish texturing her) then yeah that was on the disk and could be accessed with a running memory hacking program

Re:The full content?

[king-manic]

Everything you just outlined already is part of the rating system. The new (and never to be approved) legislation wants to meddle with it and assign the responsibilities to the FTC. Adding nothing and simply adding more bureaucracy. These types of games tend to be infantile teenager fodder. Getting up in arms about it gives them more credit then they are due. GTA and it's ilk serve a niche, teens who thing "adult" means swearing and violence and further FTC interferance merely backs that up. Just as every teenage today tries to drink themselves to death (including el presidente) and sleep with anything that moves in order to be "adult". It's partly because people like the senators involved that put a "adult" tag on those activities and the fact we lack any modern initiation ritual that the kids do it. They have no other way to be adult. It all loses it's luster for most people by 24 and we settle down into real adult life. Responsibilities, debt, inane rantings on forums, and marriage. As for adult games, right now the major players dont' want to touch that. It's suicide to be labels a porn machine. The company i work for put out cell phone porn and now the crazies have come of the woodwork to protest it. It's more then ratings keepign the porno games from coming. The US is more comfrotable with murder then with sex.

Re:The full content?

[Dragonslicer]

Personally, I'd like to see some kind of legal authority behind the rating systems for games, movies, etc. In my admittedly limited experience, the ratings boards seem to do a pretty good job with it. I'm sure there have been mistakes, but you can't reasonably expect perfection in everything. The major problem I see with putting legal authority behind the ratings is that the federal government would insist on either doing the ratings themselves (such as the FTC, as in the bill being discussed) or interfering with the ratings board so much that the government might as well be making the decisions themselves. I think a law that says "Those people know what they're doing, so listen to them" would work pretty well. Maybe it'll happen in some parallel universe or something.

Re:The full content?

[koyangi]

But if they need a game screener... Congratulations, you have been selected to review Freddie the Frog's Unbelivable Adventure Platnium Edition fetauring all 12 expasion packs!!! The publisher claims over 350 hours of gameplay, but with all the added content we think that figure is a little conservative. We were also tipped off that there may be some offensive content if you manage to unlock all of his 1600 friends and their acessories in addtion to completing the main campaign and all 12,000 mini-games and side quests. Because this title has been rated for ages 5-8 we need you to pay extra close attention to any content that may be misconstured as off-color. To help you in your evaluation of the game we have arranged weekly focus groups with 6-12 middle aged soccer moms who spend upwards of 3 hours a week communicating with anyone above the age of 12.

Thank you so much for volunteering for this! We thought that we would have a hard time finding someone for this particular project.

Re:The full content?

[Anonymous Coward]

Without such a change it's not possible to introduce legally binding ratings on videogames or any other media, no matter how much everyone wants them. Tell that to gun control lobbyists.

Re:The full content?

[SScorpio]

The difference is that little Timmy who shouldn't be able to play the game anyways can use his Gameshark and access the content on this PS2, where a normal mod that adds content would be limited to the PC version.

Re:The full content?

[psychokitten]

Rated M, what does that mean? Does it mean that you have to 18 yrs or older to buy the game? Nope. Does it mean you have to have your parents with you to buy the game? Nope. It means nothing at all. It's voluntarily rated M as a warning to parents who may be buying the game for their preacher's kid, nothing more. There is no legal binding behind it You mean like the movie rating system from the MPAA? You're right - the ESRB's rating system has no legal binding behind it - as it shouldn't. It's a guide-line for parents because, you know, they foolishly thought that parents might actually give a damn enough to take a part in the upbringing of their children. But as anyone with half a clue knows, this isn't the American way. It's government's job to step in and tell the parents what their kids can or can't play. The alternative would just take too much effort from good ol' Mom and Dad.

Re:The full content?

[ucblockhead]

Did you know that in the United States there is no law that says a movie theater has to keep a kid out of an R rated movie? Did you know that in the United States, there's no law that says a movie studio must have their movie rated, or that theaters can only show rated movies? There's no legal binding behind the movie rating system at all.

Can your five year old walk into "Saw III"?

Probably not...just because the government isn't involved doesn't mean that anarchy reigns.

Re:The full content?

[ESRB]

Some places do, actually, have policies that require that one be 18+ and have ID to purchase M-rated games. Of course, it's really about as effective as DRM...

Re:The full content?

[jhfry]

"Allow an X rating and it's on!"

AMEN BROTHER!

Too many of us /. readers see only "government control" when issues of regulation and such arise. They fail to realize that some of these laws serve our interests better than not having them at all.

Now if the purpose of this bill was to eliminate all sexually explicit material, gore, and GTA like violence from gaming I would take issue. However to be able to create and market ANY game that a developer wanted to create, so long as it was properly rated, would be a great boon to the industry.

Just look at the porn industry. Without the X and XXX ratings, I would bet that you would need to look underground to find material that fits in either category. But because of a clear rating system for movies, the market allows these movies to be produced... and even broadcast.

GTA was released and it has come under significant legal assault due to it's content. Had a mandatory, legal, and accepted rating system been in place, and the game was properly labeled and had the proper sales restrictions in place, then there would be no grounds for a suit.

I am actually surprised that the game studios don't lobby for a similar bill (this one is a little unrealistic), it would allow them absolute freedom in their design and would result in the retailer and parents taking the blame when children were exposed to "unsavory" content. Not to mention, the more severe the rating, the more "desirable" the product is for kids... slap an XXX rating on a game, and kids will come out of the woodwork to get their sticky little hands on it.

Ratings work... they work for the studio, and for the consumer. This has been proven with TV, movies, and virtually any other media that is rated for proper consumption. Let us ensure that the government avoids dictating what content CAN NOT be put in a game, and instead let the consumer make an educated decision about what they buy, while letting studios continue to push the envelope with unsavory content.

On a side note... it would also be kinda nice to have a system where the OS or console was aware of the rating and parents would be able to restrict the system (or user account) to games under a certain rating. This would result in games with multiple levels of content... if the user were restricted to PG, then all of the sex and gore would be reduced to PG levels... while most of us would run the game unrestricted and see all of the pixelated nudity our nether regions desire. Concerned parents would be happy, and the rest of us would as well.

Re:The full content?

[ArcherB]

It has been dubbed the "Necessary and Proper Clause". Look it up.

Article I, Section 8, "Clause" 18: The Congress shall have power ...To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Re:The full content?

[ArcherB]

It's government's job to step in and tell the parents what their kids can or can't play.

No one is saying what kids can and can't play. What is being said is what kids can and can't buy. If parents want to purchase this game for their kids, great! But if a child wants to ride his bike to Walmart and spend the Christmas money he got from Grandma on this game without his parent's knowledge, that's a problem.

Please understand that I have nothing against violent or sex based video games. I think there should be more of them! Unfortunately, it's too risky for a game company to produce a game that shows "inappropriate" material when that game can legally be purchased by a 10-year-old. Putting restrictions on who can purchase these games liberates game makers to make whatever game their perverted little minds can dream up and allows perverts like me to purchase them... even for my kids if I so desire! At least then it's my choice what games my kids buy and not the manager of the toy department at Walmart.

Re:The full content?

[ShadowsHawk]

Perhaps the FCC? Lord knows they never screwed over any media format. The problem is, everything gets screwed up any time a governmental agency gets involved. We don't need more laws, we need parents to keep an eye on their own kids.

Re:The full content?

[cje]

And it's not just the outcry over the Hot Coffee thing, but GTA in general. The object of the game is to carjack as many people as possible. Bonus points for beating up whores and ripping them off!??! It's not just the Hot Coffee that is the problem, it's the whole damn game and games like it.

If this is what you believe the gameplay in GTA to be, then I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you've never played a GTA game before.

Re:The full content?

[Hatta]

The object of the game is to carjack as many people as possible. Bonus points for beating up whores and ripping them off!??! It's not just the Hot Coffee that is the problem, it's the whole damn game and games like it.

How is that a problem?

Re:The full content?

[gauauu]

Which wouldn't necessarily make anyone happy. Look at the hot cofee thing...they had the normal, fully clothed skins on. It was the position of those wireframe models that had everyone up in arms....

Re:The full content?

[KDR_11k]

The Supreme Court doesn't see that as a justification for ratings.

Re:The full content?

[Some_Llama]

"You piss on people, cut their heads off with shovels, douse them with gasoline and throw lit matches on them"

That might be what you did but it sure as hell wasn't what I did in the game, see this is the whole point, games are subjective, you get just as much out of them as what you actively put into them. Just like life.

Just because you CAN do these things in the game (way to bitch about free will btw) doesn't mean you have to.. You know what my kid did in GTA? Drove around arresting criminals and driving sick people to the hospital, she is 10 btw.

OR maybe I just missed the "must piss on dismembered head mission" in postal?

Re:The full content?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like your sig. It shows when we needed the troops in 2005--when they could make a difference--Bush ignored everyone. Now that sending more troops is pointless because they will just be targets, Bush sends more. What a moreon! Of course, there are those Republican moreons who believe that there is no such thing as time, so what was true in 2005 must always be true forever. That means we should be prepared for an attack from Japan at any moment, since they were our enemies in WWII.

Re:The full content?

[ultranova]

Now if the purpose of this bill was to eliminate all sexually explicit material, gore, and GTA like violence from gaming I would take issue. However to be able to create and market ANY game that a developer wanted to create, so long as it was properly rated, would be a great boon to the industry.

As long as you can voluntarily rate your game "adults only" rating without having to go through any kind of review board or paying anyone anything, yes. If not, then it will push independent small game makers out of the market.

Re:The full content?

[jhfry]

As long as you can voluntarily rate your game "adults only" rating without having to go through any kind of review board or paying anyone anything, yes. If not, then it will push independent small game makers out of the market.

I agree whole heartedly. I think that instead of requiring a 3rd party review, you set up a set of stiff penalties for those who miss-label their product. For example:

An independent review jury is created, from a pool of interested parties, including publishers, government officials, and censorship promoters. This jury's goal is to include individuals who will give it credibility, the ratings will mean nothing if they are overseen by a corrupt or one sided group of jurors.

This jury sets clear guidelines about what is and is not allowed in the the different ratings levels. These guidelines are revised yearly, when a product is released, it must be labeled according to that year's guidelines and clearly marked with the version by which it was rated.

This jury will also hear pleas (with evidence) from individuals that believe a product is rated too low.

If their plea is deemed valid according to the guidelines, the publisher covers the costs of the jury, recalls their mislabeled product, issues refunds to any one who demands one, and pays a stiff penalty in the form of funding after school physical activity programs (kids who game need more exercise)

If the plea is deemed frivolous or doesn't generate a simple majority in the jury, the individual pays the jury for it's time. Enough to be a deterrent for frivolous cases.

This system is entirely self regulating. If the jury is out of whack, the system breaks, and publishers stop using it. Labeling your software is free, however by using the label you agree to be bound by contract that you will label your product within the guidelines or accept the consequences. Labeling is at will, there is no law requiring it... however, retailers would be free to require it on products that it inventories. Besides, with a free and simple system like this, why wouldn't game makers want to label their product... it's far better than a government regulated plan, which is the alternative.

OK... I gave that way too much thought!

The third encounter...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Sam brownback the inspiration of serious sam games?

Speaking of rating..."/.".

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'd like to see more fair ratings on game review sites. Sites like gamespot are long biased and comment well on games if the developer/publisher provides them with everything they want."

Slashdot is absolutely wonderful! And no I'm not getting a lifetime subscription, and a free car.

Re:Speaking of rating..."/.".

[serialdogma]

Well not anymore, you were required to a be logged in.

--CmdrTaco

How?

[Bob54321]

How are they going to see footage of everything that can happen in a game? I assume that they are not just talking about cut scenes.

I think the main problem is that the company supplies the footage to be reviewed. How many marketing/PR guys do you think that goes through before it reaches the censors. Perhaps it would be better for a group of independent game players to generate a representative reel of footage. I will be the first volunteer to take that job. On second though - imagine all the crap you would need to play!

Re:How?

[proxy318]

I don't think game companies are supplying inadequate footage - that would be a stupid business decision. They want the games rated properly so they can reach their target market - they're not trying to sell offensive games to children, they're trying to sell them to 17+ year olds. The last thing a game company needs is some parent coming after them because a game they bought for their 10 year old was rated Everyone, but is full of obscenities and violence. Lawsuits probably cost more in the long run that the profits they'd make by tricking dumb parents into buying inappropriate games.

patches

[timmarhy]

what about content patches, are they going to view those as well? this idea is stupid, as is the man proposing it.

ESRB doesn't ask for a random sample

[Warbringer87]

The developer sends footage of the worst/extreme content in the game, and fills out some paperwork. They are assigned a rating (developer can resubmit or appeal). Then...when the game is 100% complete ready to go to the shelves, ESRB gets another copy, and plays a bit... and if there is anything more extreme in that final game than there was in the footage (ie, topless chicks, more gore) the developer has some penalties slapped in their face. Its a good process, and it works pretty damn well, and it is certainly better than this pos "Truth in Ratings" act. Whether you agree with the whole GTA/Oblivion issues is besides the point. Nothing is foolproof, but if the worst we've gotten is anatomically correct nipples and disabled content, I think they're doing a damn good job.

Re:ESRB doesn't ask for a random sample

[Anonymous Coward]

ohh shit, what happened with oblivion?

Re:ESRB doesn't ask for a random sample

[The Warlock]

It got retroactively re-rated from T to M because apparently it was more violent than the original video showed.

Aaaargh!

[Captain Sarcastic]

This is yet another stupid idea from someone who is trying to impress potential voters in an upcoming presidential campaign.

I'll bet that if you asked him after injecting him with Sodium Pentothal, the illustrious senator would admit that he doesn't expect that the bill will have a snowball's chance in hell of passing.

Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[Infonaut]

What ever happened to the party of "less government interference?"

That's right, I remember now. It was the Unholy Alliance that did in the fiscally-conservative, small-government Republicans. Now the Republicans seem to be the party of fiscally-unrestrained big government. I find it rather humorous that during the Bush Years the FCC has steadfastly held to its notion that the free market will provide us all with speedy, cheap broadband and all kinds of broadcast diversity, yet one tit shows up on the Super Bowl and suddenly the FCC stirs into action. The FTC is an entity often decried for its meddlesome consumer protection activities, but throw up the hue and cry of "think of the children!" and suddenly the FTC is a useful government agency.

It seems the party now stands for individual freedom to make money, government money to spend money, and meddlesome interference into matters of so-called morality. Perhaps the theory is that if you can't make government work more efficiently, you may as well try to make it an extension of the church.

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[koreth]

Nah, you just missed the footnote. It's the party of "less government interference*" (* unless people are doing something we don't like).

Oddly, so is the Democratic Party.

At the end of the day, strident "liberals" and "conservatives" have exactly the same political philosophy: the government should get its nose out of the business of people who are doing things I approve of, but spare no expense stopping people from doing things that make me feel uneasy.

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[Brandybuck]

What ever happened to the party of "less government interference?"
Fiscal conservatives and small government types have always been the black sheep in the Republican party. Reagan was not typical of the party.

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[bendodge]

Republicans are just go-slow Democrats.

Statements: Morals will deteriorate if left alone. The free market won't.
Conclusions: Therefore, morals need intervention. The free market doesn't.

(The church has a remarkable way of supporting law and order; therefore you think anything non-anarchist is some kind of religious monster.)

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[Scudsucker]

Fiscal conservatives and small government types have always been the black sheep in the Republican party. Reagan was not typical of the party.

What is "small government" doing in the same paragraph as Reagan? This was the man that invented trillion dollar deficits!

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[RexRhino]

Once government started consuming more than 50% of the GDP, government has more money to spend than all other economic entities in the United States, and then some. The government spends more than every man, women, child, illegal alien, tourist, buisness, corporation, church, charity, etc, combined. For every dollar anyone spends for any reason, the government spends a dollar and some change.

Big government *IS* big buisness. Government is the only consumer worth a damn anymore. Call it socialism, or state capitalism, or whatever (they are all the same thing anyway), but the U.S. has crossed that threshold. The government is so big, so all encompassing, that free-markets or consumer capitalism are no longer relevant.

The only way to make money in the U.S. is to sell to the government... and so now big buisness supports big government, because those are the people with money to spend. Hence, Republicans have essentially adopted National Socialism as opposed to Laisse Faire Capitalism.

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[Scudsucker]

At the end of the day, strident "liberals" and "conservatives" have exactly the same political philosophy: the government should get its nose out of the business of people who are doing things I approve of, but spare no expense stopping people from doing things that make me feel uneasy.

Yup. But at least liberals aren't two-faced hypocrites about it.

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[Brandybuck]

Trillion dollar deficit? Whatever are you talking about?

You are correct, however, that Reagan did a lousy job of getting spending under control. But I only place half the blame at Reagan's feet. The other half I place at the feet of congress, you kept sending him massive appropriations bills to sign.

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[randomaxe]

yet one tit shows up on the Super Bowl

That's "Mr. Timberlake" to you, buddy.

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[AK Marc]

The other half I place at the feet of congress, you kept sending him massive appropriations bills to sign.

And the spineless (and aparently mindless) Chief Executive signed. Clinton balanced the budget. He had to shut down the government multiple times to do it by not signing the first budget placed in front of him. Congress will always spend way too much if they know they can get away with it. Reagan signed it. He is responsible. If he didn't want responsibility, he shouldn't have signed. Well, at least that's better than signing everything and attaching signing statements saying "I didn't really mean it."

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reagan sent the budgets to Congress. That's the way it's worked in the US for a while. The President's team fashions the budget and sends it to Congress, who sends it back after adding pork for their districts. Furthermore, it was Reagan's ideas to drastically cut taxes and increase military spending on stuff we did not need, the two greatest pieces of the budget crisis. Congress went ahead with it because these were popular with the voters. The guy who called for raising taxes won one state and DC...

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[Anonymous Coward]

What ever happened to the party of "less government interference?"

That died when the party went with Ronald Reagan, a supporter of Joe McCarthy's witch-hunt HUAC trials who had, as governor of California, sent troops into Berkeley to beat up free-speech proponents. As president, he shut down investigations into the government's misuse of the FBI and CIA to subvert liberal opponents of the Republican Party and manipulate the media, and he had Attorney General Meese form a commission to look into banning pornography and indecent materials. Ronald Reagan was an authoritarian big-government thug and the sort of thing Brownback is proposing is right up Reagan's alley. The only areas where Reagan reduced "government interference" are in investigations of fraud, environmental destruction, hazardous working conditions, market-damaging trusts, and other criminal misbehaviour that it is the government's job to protect us from.

Now for an unfortunately necessary disclaimer to that brain-dead drooling moron about to bring up the Venona papers to claim "Joe McCarthy was right": No he was not, the papers do not show anything of the sort, and you are an idiot for thinking they do. Read a history book and learn some logic. I hate to have to say that, but there's one on every forum.

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[Anonymous Coward]

Once government started consuming more than 50% of the GDP. . .

What? It's not even close to that. It's about 17%. It's like the people who say we give too much foreign aide, then you ask them how much they think we should be giving and they say a number over ten times higher. I don't know how democracy can work with such ignorance.

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[RexRhino]

First of all, the statistics you are throwing around are FEDERAL TAX REVENUE!!!

It does not include state and local taxes, sales taxes, fines, fees, confiscated property, etc. It also does not include Social Security contributions, which aren't considered taxes even though SS surpluses go directly into the general budget.

It also does not tell anything about government SPENDING!!! The Federal government, as well as many state and local governments, run huge budget deficits. Government spends far more than its revenues!

I mean, do some simple math: The Federal Budget is approx 3 trillion, GDP is approx 12 trillion... 3/12 is 0.25... or about 25% of GDP being spent by the Federal government, not including Social Security, not including local government, not including state government, etc. And it also assumes that the U.S. government is properly reporting expenditures - The GAO thinks real government expenditures are significantly higher than reported.

And, of course, we aren't including expenses incured by private citizens in complying with government regulation - which is essentially money that the government decides how to spend for you. At that point you are probably talking closer to 80% or 90% of GDP being allocated, either directly (government spending), or indirectly (required spending enforced by the government on private entities), by the government.

I don't know how democracy can work with such ignorance.

Totally... when people get the stupid idea that somehow the government only consumes 17% of GDP, I don't think there is any way they could possibly make rational decisions about government.

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[SonicSpike]

Which is EXACTLY why I'm either going to vote Libertarian, or for Ron Paul (a former Libertarian running under the GOP, but still a libertarian at heart).

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[Scudsucker]

I see I ruffled some feathers. But I don't see how true small government, fiscal conservatives can disagree with the fact that many Republicans in Congress that have claimed to be for small government were rolling in pork, and who claimed to be for small government were constantly pushing crap like this "Truth in Ratings Act".

Case in point: Phil Gramm. He constantly harped on cutting social spending to reduce the deficit, yet bragged that

"I'm carrying so much pork [home to Texas] I'm beginning to get trichinosis."

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[Brandybuck]

Selective amnesia is oh so convenient! A lot of fiscal conservatives were terribly pissed at Reagan for signing those appropriations bills. But spending is only part of the fiscal picture. Reagan also got some tax cuts through, which increased revenues in the long run, which meant there was more money to spend.

On the other hand, Clinton had to settle for the bills he did sign, because Congress wouldn't pass the ones he really wanted.

Of course, in the end, gridlock is good for everyone. The more the Congress and President fight each other, the less time they have to muck about with our lives. We've seen the damage that can happen when either the Democrats or Republicans control both sides of the street. It's far better when the power is split.

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[AK Marc]

Reagan also got some tax cuts through, which increased revenues in the long run, which meant there was more money to spend.

Ah yes, Voodoo Economics, as coined by HW. No one has ever quantified other than just "we think that it helped." I think that someone claiming that less income equates to greater income has the burden of proof rest on them, and I've never seen it proven or even well supported.

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[Brandybuck]

It's simple economics!

If you personally have to play fewer taxes, then you will have more money to spend. Unless you bury that money in your backyard, it will be spent in the economy. Aggregate yourself with several million more people, and you suddenly start seeing measurable results in the national economy. That extra economic kick can create more tax revenues than the cut eliminated.

All economists agree on this. Where they disagree is wether the increase in economic activity is sufficient to offset a particular level of tax reduction.

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[AK Marc]

All economists agree on this. Where they disagree is wether the increase in economic activity is sufficient to offset a particular level of tax reduction.

Uh, no. They argue that the government spending $5 vs a private citizen spending $5 is, and this is confusing, so I'll say it slowly: It is still $5. So, the $5 doesn't "multiply" through the economy. It is in the economy, and makes its way around whether it is confiscated by the government and spent by the government, or whether it makes its way to me and I spend it. Well, unless the government starts collecting and burning money. But for every dollar they burn, they print two more, right?

Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican?

[Scudsucker]

Trillion dollar deficit? Whatever are you talking about?

I should have said "Reagan invented the trillion dollar national debt", sorry.

But I only place half the blame at Reagan's feet. The other half I place at the feet of congress, you kept sending him massive appropriations bills to sign.

You mean the ones Reagan asked for? There was only about a 4% difference between the budgets he asked for and the budgets he signed. Lets see - Reagan asked for it, Reagan signed it. Yup, that makes it his. Doesn't mean Congress was blameless, anymore than Congress is blameless in the Iraq clusterfuck - but in both cases more than the lions share of the blame lies with the Executive.

A lot of fiscal conservatives were terribly pissed at Reagan for signing those appropriations bills.

Like who. And were they pissed at Reagan's piss poor fiscal management, or pissed that he didn't eliminate social spending?

On the other hand, Clinton had to settle for the bills he did sign, because Congress wouldn't pass the ones he really wanted.

Yes, and we would have been so much better off with nationalized health care. No, I'm not being sarcastic. What made Clinton great for the budget was his refusal to let Republicans in Congress slash social spending in order to make big tax cuts.

Reagan also got some tax cuts through, which increased revenues in the long run, which meant there was more money to spend.

Voodoo economics indeed. Yes, tax and interest rate cuts do indeed stimulate the economy - if they primarily benefit the middle class. But that's not what Voodoo economics was about: it was putting money in the hands of the wealthy with the idea that they would take the cash and create more jobs with it. Which as we all know turned out to be hogwash.

If a business owner will make more money from expanding his business, then he will go ahead and expand it, and write off the costs as a business expense. The size of his tax return is completely irrelevant to this equation, because if he over-expands his business will become less efficient and can even lose money - as anyone who has taken an economics class in high school can tell you.

A) Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

[Anonymous Coward]

B) Who is the idiot that came up with this system? This game is rated M for mature? Who decides what content is too risque for a 16 year old? They should never have based any rating system on a person's age. The rating system should rate games 1 thru 5 for three categories based on how how much violence, sex, and profanity are in them. To make it easier they could name the rating levels, so a game might have "Extreme Violence, Mild Profanity, and Mild Sexual Situations".

Is this so hard? Why did they think it was a good idea to choose what levels of content were appropriate for certain age levels? It should be up to the parents to decide which sorts of content they want to keep out of the hands of their kids.

Date based or peanut content?

[Anonymous Coward]

"How would this work in cases of games that literally take 365 days to complete, such as Animal Crossing, or procedural content that has well over 4.2 billion combinations, such as Spore?"

Somehow game testers manage.

Presidental Candidates

[adamanthaea]

Wouldn't it just be faster these days to indicate who isn't running for President?

Re:Presidental Candidates

[Harmonious Botch]

Wouldn't it just be faster these days to indicate who isn't running for President? Nice idea, but sorry to say, it won't work, because almost all of them are running for re-election if they are not running for president. So almost all of them will be doing something stupid like this.

Doesn't matter if it is not workable

[khchung]

To all posts that ask how this law is going to work, about generated content, etc, etc.

I have learned that nowadays, the main reason that law-makers introduces new laws is to boost their own popularity. It doesn't matter if the law cannot work, is impractical, will be struck down in courts, etc. It only matters that the (1) it grabs the headline thus putting his name on the news and (2) it showed people that he has "taken a stance" against something.

Just think about it, is it a surprise that people who are elected based on a popularity contest do things to boost their own popularity?

If you want to stop this law from passing, don't waste your time telling people it is not workable. Stuck at the heart of the matter and go tell games companies how much money it will wastes them, and tell people how many jobs such money could have created instead, or how much dividends would it costs the stock holders of those game companies.

Turn the law into an unpopular proposition and it will be dead.

Re:Doesn't matter if it is not workable

[Kaenneth]

I think that falls under, the "The behavior that is rewarded, is the behavior that occurs" rule.

Rate video cards under a specific benchmark? result: the video cards are made to perform better under that benchmark, to the detriment of regular performance.
Give money to poor people with kids? result: poor people have more kids, even though it just makes them poorer.

Re:Doesn't matter if it is not workable

[aussie_a]

So obviously poor people with kids shouldn't be given anything to they can starve and die and we can do something about the earth's overpopulation problem.

Re:Doesn't matter if it is not workable

[Vr6dub]

No but there was/is large scale abuse of our welfare system in the United States. On 20/20a while back they documented several mothers who admitted to having babies to increase their monthly welfare checks. It was sickening in a way...imagine the kids finding out later in life that the only reason their mother had them was for a higher monthly income.

I have not kept up with the issue but I believe welfare reform was a big topic in the last several years.

Re:Doesn't matter if it is not workable

[kaffiene]

Ah! One person has abused the system, so they're all bludgers who we shouldn't help?

Re:Doesn't matter if it is not workable

[Vr6dub]

No, not really. However, it seems that the system is highly susceptibale to abuse. I don't have a solution myself but the answer is not to keep giving these people money who can't seem to comprehend the proper use of birth control. The problem they were trying to point out was this is more widespread than you would think in some of the inner cities and in real terms some of these welfare families make more net income than an equal size middle class family. That is NOT right. This type of socialism causes a downward spiral in the inner cities due to the lack of drive required to raise a family. I am not willing to pay for other peoples fucking laziness and inability to keep their legs closed. Please excuse the language.

Re:Doesn't matter if it is not workable

[kaffiene]

No economic system solves the problem of stupid people. Ultimately, you have to choose to dump these people and let their own stupidity kill them off, or suck up the cost of supporting them. If you think the problem is being "socialist" then you've let dogma take you for a walk down the garden path. This is an issue of human nature, my friend, not economics.

I'm reminded that Adam Smith himself said that you judge a society by how it treats its weakest.

Re:Doesn't matter if it is not workable

[Vr6dub]

I agree with your comment by Adam Smith and I realize not all systems are perfect. I guess my point is...there is a huge culture of laziness in the inner cities. We have drug addicts who refuse to get clean because they make more money from selling their government funded methadone than they would by getting a job and staying clean. I do not place all the blame on the people however. I blame a system that hands out more money to women having babies but hires outside contractors to build new housing projects when there are thousands of capable, unemployed workers who would be happy to build their own new homes. The same thing is happening in Iraq. Rather than employ the people of the country to rebuild their OWN country, we're handing out jobs to American contractors. Calling the welfare system socialist may have been a little extreme I just think we need more checks and balances within our current system.

Re:Doesn't matter if it is not workable

[kaffiene]

fair enough - when there are obvious steps that would improve the situation as you cite re: contractors, then that's fair to criticise.

Re:Doesn't matter if it is not workable

[Vr6dub]

Actually, thanks for your original rebuttal. It happened to reminded me of the documentary I saw in the early 90's sometime about a New York City housing project. The city came in to tear down all the old "projects" and build everything new but neglected to ask the community (who were primarily out of jobs) if they would like to help rebuild their own neighborhood...and at the same time these people would be learning a trade. Long story short...

Because it was a public works project it had to be bid. Ends up the new buildings cost WAY too much and almost all of the old residents couldn't afford their home anymore and still primarily have no job skills. I see the same thing happening in Iraq. However in Iraq the US (and other countries to a lesser degree) taxpayers are footing the bill. It is stupid.

Re:Doesn't matter if it is not workable

[Vr6dub]

Ohh...and thanks for the level headed responses and reminding me of Adam Smith's insight into...welfare I suppose.

Simple

[mfh]

By reviewing the games for as long as possible, this lengthens the time it takes for new games to make it to market. Therefore, everyone gets so bored with video games, we just give up and join the Republican party, and a church group -- instead. Or at least that's the plan.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Therefore, everyone gets so bored with video games, we just give up and join the Republican party, and a church group -- instead. Or at least that's the plan."
 
...or go outside, re-introduce yourself to the Sun, read a book, interact will real humans, do some volunteer work in the community.

An Immutable Fact of Politics

[shadowbearer]

Once someone thinks up an idea that produces another source of tax money, it'll be reintroduced over and over ad infinitum. It may fall out of favor once in a while, but you can bet that it's distant descendants will reappear to haunt us until the extinction of our civilization.

  Then, it will get reborn again. ;)

SB

Months of footage

[tepples]

Somehow game testers manage. Game testers also produce months of footage even on the release candidates. How long would it take for the ESRB to review all footage of every possible scenario or combination of scenarios in the game? And how much would it add to the price of a game?

Re:Months of footage

[KDR_11k]

Hand the testers ESRB membership badges?

Hmm

[Psychotria]

Well, if they need employees to review the entire contents of games, I will volunteer for only $100 an hour

That was RSAC

[tepples]

The rating system should rate games 1 thru 5 for three categories based on how how much violence, sex, and profanity are in them. To make it easier they could name the rating levels, so a game might have "Extreme Violence, Mild Profanity, and Mild Sexual Situations". I remember when what you suggest was called RSAC. ESRB beat RSAC because its simplicity was easier to market.

Re:That was RSAC

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, RASC was overly complex with at least 5 categories. Also, easier to market to WHOM? Who do we need to market a ratings system to? Nobody. The republicans wanted a ratings system, we game them one to shut them up. Why did we feel the need to "improve" upon it? It provided more information than the current system does.

The full footage? Right...

[IBitOBear]

First off, while the "cut scenes" of a game could be said to have "footage", the whole rest of the game (typically) have no such thing. Even if you checked every single character skin and setting, there would be no way to _know_ there wasn't an easter-egg or something.

The fact of the matter is that "objectionable content" is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

And what of "patches" and "mods"?

Heck take some of the "dance moves" from WOW and line them up and you have simulated sex, at least within the limits within the minds of people who think that some of these other things were "objectionable".

The Nanny State cannot hope to get closure over this, and trying to is just more waste of my taxpayer dollar.

Note to you regulation-happy people out there: Your "precious bundle" is neither as fragile as you imagine, nor as important as you dream. Neither are you. If janet jackson's saggy boobie and the gyrations of a pair of 100 polygon figures are enough to undermine your sense of moral turpitude, then you are a mindless chode; and might I suggest that the world is much safer if you put an opaque polyethylene bag over your head. (But it only _really_ works if you cinch it snuggly. Assist your child before yourself.)

Now if you can get truth in ratings for suckage, then we can talk.

The best-case scenario is the worst-case scenario

[luckbat]

I believe this pretty much covers how the bill is expected to work.

Duke Nukem Forever?

[Anonymous Coward]

So finally, Duke Nukem Forever, really will be "forever."

Re:All "footage" in a game? impossible

[rfunches]

the dippy senator doesn't know that games cannot show all their "footage" - ever heard of an MMORPG senator dipshit?

MMOs have a baseline rating (I've usually seen T) and carry the "Game experience may change during online play" disclaimer to cover anything that wasn't part of the game when it was reviewed. The disclaimer is part of the ESRB ratings system to accomodate online games with "user-generated content," including chatting or permitted modifications. TFA seems to imply that only the ratings process (not the actual ratings) would change, so criticizing Brownback on the grounds that his proposals can't be applied to MMOs is inaccurate (and correctly modded as trolling).

Why is this an issue?

[GoldTeamRules]

Why does the Slashdot crowd care if games are assigned ratings? People always say that parents should be the ones to monitor their children not the government, or the games company, etc. But, parents need tools to be able to make these decisions.

No, it won't be perfect. But, it will be accurate enough to allow people to make a purchasing decision.

This isn't a censorship issue. To me, there is nothing wrong with assigning a rating to content so that you can make an informed purchase.

Re:Why is this an issue?

[Sacrelicious2]

The point is that the requirements of this bill are impossible, and will destroy the entire game industry if put into effect since no company will be able to comply with the new regulations. We have a rating system, and, as Rockstar and Bethesda learned the hard way, it is in the companies best interest to ensure that the ESRB gets detailed, reliable, detailed, complete, and detailed information about the game being released. The rating system we have works, and this legislation is an attempt by politicians to destroy the game industry for a few votes, which I definately have an issue with.

Re:Why is this an issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a censorship issue. To me, there is nothing wrong with assigning a rating to content so that you can make an informed purchase.

It becomes a censorship issue when retail distribution is controlled by a handful of oligopolies, chief among them a company (Wal-Mart) run by howling Bible-thumpers.

The government should not be in the business of reviewing games until you can demonstrate that those games are doing any harm to society.

If I demanded that tomato sauce be rated for chunkiness, people would look at me funny. If I demand that video games be rated for violence, people like you applaud. That makes no sense.

Re:Why is this an issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

the point is that the ratings system already in place is better than what is being proposed, also that the methods proposed to asses the appropriate rating are impossible to execute on certain types of games. if all games must undergo this process, then it would effectively outlaw MMORPG's or games that generate new content as you play.

Re:Why is this an issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not an issue of games being rated. There's already a fairly efficient ratings system in place. What the bill is asking will have people spending months reviewing a single game. Games will take even longer to get to the market than they do, and it wouldn't really work much better than the ESRB does now.

Re:Why is this an issue?

[skoaldipper]

> But, parents need tools to be able to make these decisions.

I wholeheartedly agree. At worst, even an R movie is slapped with an NC-17. Producers (like software developers) can cut or edit material based on their target audience.

I think it's a non issue quite frankly; kind of like pissing on some dead coals at a campfire just to see some smoke.

Re:Why is this an issue?

[Sacrelicious2]

What you seem to be forgetting is that a system for rating games is already in place, and for the most part that system works. The cases where it 'failed' involved users finding ways outside of the game itself to view 'objectionable' content, such as hacks and mods, which shouldn't count in the first place. It would be like blaming disney for the fact that Tyler Durden spliced in some frames from some porn films into their movies at a particular theater.

Re:Why is this an issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is, in fact, a censorship issue.

Any ratings system enforced by the government amounts to prior restraint. It gives the government the ability to force someone not to publish. Prior restraint is very, very, very unconstitutional. So unconstitutional, in fact, that we don't even apply it in regulating unprotected speech products - to wit, porn.

Re:Why is this an issue?

[Dragonslicer]

I don't think any of us (okay, there's always a few) have a problem with a ratings system for games. Personally, I wouldn't mind if the existing ratings system had a bit of legal authority behind it. I think most people's problem with this bill is that it gets the FTC involved in the process, which can very easily result in whoever is in power at the time, through their ability to appoint the bosses at the FTC, determining what is considered appropriate material for games. If the law somehow made the ratings system work independently from the government, so that the system is consistent and reasonable instead of subject to the moral whim of the party in power, you'd probably see less objection.

Re:The best-case scenario is the worst-case scenar

[Anonymous Coward]

and I believe I could fly...

too bad..

[Anonymous Coward]

just too bad the internet doesn't exists.. otherwise the senator probably wouldn't be elected again because of his stupid ideas.. thank you parents that are too-stupid-to-watch-your-own-children.. ya fuck up everything! i want my damn internets fresh and i want my porn all night long!

Beautiful

[Infonaut]

the government should get its nose out of the business of people who are doing things I approve of, but spare no expense stopping people from doing things that make me feel uneasy.

Nicely put.

Political parties are the problem. Hamilton was adamantly opposed to them, even when one was forming around him in opposition to the Jeffersonians. Perhaps he was on to something. Line up behind a party, and you have to do a lot less thinking for yourself. But of course, how are you going to stop people from organizing into political parties? It is human nature to form into groups, for better and for worse.

Re:Beautiful

[Garse Janacek]

Political parties are the problem.

Actually, (approximate) majority voting is the problem. Giving all power to the individual with the most votes is a fundamentally flawed system with all kinds of pathologies. In the context of this system, the two-party system is actually the best compromise for the voters, that is, the electoral system we have now will always converge to behavior similar to two political parties, because that is the optimal strategy for actually electing people who share at least some of the voters' opinions.

Now, obviously this is broken in more ways than we could count. But we're pretty much stuck with political parties (and two of them, at that) until we do major election reform... let's get some proportionate representation and approval voting!

Hah. Of course, the system also works against the institution of those kinds of changes, because it is in the interests of the typical voter but counter to the interests of the typical politician -- so as soon as someone is elected, if they want to maintain / increase their power it is in their best interest to preserve the current system. *Sigh*...

You also mention the difficulties in getting people to think for themselves. Well, yeah, we're kind of stuck with that forever, I think... though the recent sharp increase in the polarization of US politics leads me to hope that it is at least theoretically possible to have a sharp decrease as well, even if partisanship can't be eliminated. I'm not sure how one would produce such a change, though...

Re:Beautiful

[Slashboo]

It wasn't just Hamilton. Washington also warned against the formation of parties, adamantly stressed in his Farewell Address.

[The Spirit of Party], unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. While parties are not a good thing, they don't have to be an absolutely evil thing. Parties are going to be formed, of course, but it's up to the individual to not lose his identity to the party. Of course, most people just find it easier to have others think for them. And, of course, it's those same people who mindlessly vote for those who put forth laws claiming to be saving the children or protecting us from terrorism.

Democracy has its tradeoffs.

Re:All "footage" in a game? impossible

[skoaldipper]

Actually, they have heard of an MMORPG, and is addressed in the original TVGRA (Truth in Video Game Recording Act):

The Comptroller General will conduct a study determining the "(1) the effectiveness of the ESRB video and computer game content ratings system, including content ratings for on-line or Internet-based games;" [...] and his report shall "contain recommendations regarding effective approaches to video and computer game content ratings that address the unique ratings challenges of on-line and Internet-based video games." And as far as I know, the ESRB in it's current form does not have such an online review process.

My cynicism tells me it's just another election year. My moderation tells me that this same legislation has been supported or introduced by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC), and Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT); the latter two representatives with the initial framework under FEPA (Family Entertainment Protection Act). So, before anyone starts casting stones at the other, I think most would agree it's a bipartisan effort.

I do agree that reviewing all game content would be impractical, but not impossible. The TVGRA defines all "content" as "all of the visual images and sounds that are included as part of the recorded data of the video or computer game". Which could be as simple as parsing through all the texture and wav files; no need to play the game through it's countless variations. Currently, the ESRB just accepts something like a movie trailer from a game developer for it's review process.

I find the GAO study in the TVGRA (section 3) interesting, "(3) whether an independent ratings system would offer better accuracy and effectiveness in content ratings for video and computer games;" I thought the ESRB was an independent non profit entity (established by the Video Game industry) in partnership with retailers. I think the current system works, as shown by the ESRB fines levied against Rockstar Entertainment for GTA (and any reasonable attempt at non disclosure). This bill will cycle around every two to four years (as expected), but like most here, I doubt it will ever materialize. For the most part, commercial enterprises police their own better than any bureaucrat, as the GTA case and precedent proved.

candidate

[Brandybuck]

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas (and GOP presidential candidate)...

The senator is not a GOP presidential candidate. He is a candidate for the GOP nomination. Big difference. Thank goodness he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting it. None of the current nomination seekers thrill me, but Brownback is near the bottom of the list.

MIB Playstation... The video tape...

[__aaclcg7560]

I was the lead tester on Men In Black for the Playstation at Atari. There's a level just before the last level where I had a hell of a time trying to get through. Told the developer but they didn't give a damn. I had to do the tape for the ESRB. Sent 16 hours on two tapes. It took me eight hours to get past that one level. I hope the ESRB enjoyed every minute of it. I didn't.

Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[twigles]

I read about this topic a lot on /., and I'm not quite sure why everyone is so emotionally charged about it. Ok, after R'ingTFA I agree that this bill may not be the right one due to the unfeasible requirement of the ESRB playing every minute of the game. Any remotely open-ended game would baffle these poor people and hold up releases for months. Also, the FTC makes me nervous after the Howard Stern treatment.

But it seems like every attempt at improving the accuracy or consistency of ESRB ratings is met with derision and anger. Any attempt at *enforcing* those ratings is clubbed down as fascism. Why? The ratings exist because kids shouldn't beat a virtual hookers' brains out with a bat. I'm ok with that. I know they'll see the violence elsewhere, but so what? Do you permit anything through your firewall the moment your manager makes you toss up a stupid rule?

I'm a social liberal, I live in West Hollywood, frequent the clubs, fall to the left on almost every issue, etc.. But this all or nothing approach is silly and stinks of NRA tactics. Yes, the NRA is effective, but I don't want to be like them. Reasonable adults compromise.

I would like to compromise some and get these politicos off our backs before they do something truly draconian, like ban red blood, or any blood for that matter.

- Allow ESRB raters to choose the spots of the game they will examine. No auditor comes in and says, "show me what you think I should see." That's just dumb.
- Fine stores whose clerks don't card for MA+ games. This isn't fascist, it's simply obeying the law.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[John Miles]

Why do you believe these ratings should be enforced for games, and not for other forms of media (music, movies, books, magazines...)?

There is just as much evidence of harm to children caused by exposure to these other forms. What's special about games?

Finally, what part of "Congress shall make no law" is unclear to you and Sen. Brownback? The government is not supposed to be in the business of rating video games, any more than it's supposed to be in the business of reviewing Sunday sermons.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[Grail]

Neither of the options that you describe would have addressed the "Hot Coffee" mini-game in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. It's content that a play-reviewer wouldn't have seen without knowledge of how to get to the content.

The rating of computer games for content maturity must rely on the honesty of the publishers (which can be encouraged by imposing heavy fines for breaches, but you're still relying on honesty).

The only way to be sure that your children don't see computer generated porn is to ensure your children don't see a computer.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[Sacrelicious2]

"- Allow ESRB raters to choose the spots of the game they will examine. No auditor comes in and says, "show me what you think I should see." That's just dumb." No, it really is not dumb. A) it saves loads of time, and B) it is in the developers best interest to be upfront with the ESRB about any objectionable content, or else they will be heavily fined and have their rating retracted post-release, causing all boxes on the shelves to be pulled, and prevent many retailers from carrying the game, since most retailers don't carry games with an Adults Only rating.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[twigles]

Why do you believe these ratings should be enforced for games, and not for other forms of media (music, movies, books, magazines...)?
Huh? Since when can a kid get into a porno? Can a 12 year old buy Hustler? If the less extreme forms of these mediums are not enforced then that's a different issue. Actually, this entire point is a different issue, we're discussing games ratings here.

There is just as much evidence of harm to children caused by exposure to these other forms. What's special about games?
From my initial post: "Do you permit anything through your firewall the moment your manager makes you toss up a stupid rule?" You appear to have glossed entirely over that. This is not a binary solution.

Finally, what part of "Congress shall make no law" is unclear to you and Sen. Brownback?
If you're going to make a point about free speech then make it. Don't allude to it and try to force me to make it for you as well as counter it. That's just lazy.

The government is not supposed to be in the business of rating video games, any more than it's supposed to be in the business of reviewing Sunday sermons.
This is a strange comparison, one you didn't bother to flesh out yet again, and a bold, opinionated statement. The government is supposed to be in the business of whatever the people tell it to be in the business of. That's a democracy. Keep pushing the all-or-nothing standpoint on this issue and we'll see a backlash that will gain sufficient political power to mop the floor with the /. types. You are on the side of censorship in the way that Pat Robertson is on the side of liberals.

Neither of the options that you describe would have addressed the "Hot Coffee" mini-game in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. It's content that a play-reviewer wouldn't have seen without knowledge of how to get to the content.
Again, this is not a binary solution. Just because your defense is not impenetrable you don't give up and do nothing. Or I don't know, maybe you guys do, but I still play the game. You compromise and reach a middle ground somewhere, or eventually the other side gains the sympathy of the independents and trounces you. We just watched this happen in our recent elections, were people not awake for that?

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[Chandon Seldon]

The government is supposed to be in the business of whatever the people tell it to be in the business of.

The federal government of the United States is *supposed* to be in the business of a limited set of things that it was granted power over by the constitution. I guess that video games are relevant to "interstate commerce", in the same way that medical marijuana in California and growing wheat for personal use are, but...

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[Dracil]

Um, the equivalent for M-rated games is not Hustler or porno. That's the AO-rating. The equivalent would be something like the Alien series.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[twigles]

Um, the equivalent for M-rated games is not Hustler or porno. That's the AO-rating. The equivalent would be something like the Alien series.
Are people skimming or something? This is not a debate about artistic mediums in general, this is about video games. No scope creep.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[twigles]

If the developer is just going to tell the truth then who cares if someone spot checks them? They presumably have nothing to hide. Oh to save time? How hard is it to jump into god mode and cruise around, or jump levels, or have the development company supply the ESRB with 50 pre-saves for them to choose from so they can start at different places?

What's with you guys? Is stopping a 17 year old from buying a stupid game that bad of a thing? He'll just get his 18 year old friend to buy it anyway. But the fact that he was stopped will stop senators from proposing far-reaching legislation.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm...

Government-enforced ratings are inherently grossly unconstitutional. They are counter to everything free speech stands for in the United States. We don't even have a ratings system in place for pornography, which is classified as non-protected speech. If politicians sneak this law by now, when most people think of video games as non-speech, when the kids of today are adults, they WILL be able to broaden the law to pre-screen books, movies, and television - you DID know that there's no law enforcing ratings on those things, didn't you? The constitutional issue alone is enough reason to oppose it.

For the record, I support everything the ESRB, retailers, game makers, the PTA, your church, or your family does to improve on and enforce the games rating system. But when the government starts doing it, you can count me out. I like my free speech rights unsullied, thanks. Personally, I think the ESRB is doing a damn good job right now. Even the government wouldn't be able to avoid future Hot Coffees, unless they plan to employ hundreds of game code auditors.

But the truth is, no court in the nation would uphold one of these laws. You barely need a year of law school to be aware of how grossly illegal these things are. So mainly I want my representatives in Congress to stop wasting my tax money jockeying for illegal legislation, and wasting my courts' time overturning them.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[joystickgenie]

No he just made a very valid point. The M rating that you seem to have such a problem with is not to designate pornography. There is a separate rating built into the system to specify things that are too sexual. It is the AO rating.

There is no need to add extra laws to the system over video games because the issue of pornography in games would already be held by the normal laws that cover all pornography.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[joystickgenie]

But this all or nothing approach is silly and stinks of NRA tactics. Yes, the NRA is effective, but I don't want to be like them. Reasonable adults compromise. I would like to compromise some and get these politicos off our backs before they do something truly draconian, like ban red blood, or any blood for that matter.

The ESRB was the compromise. It was created the first time the government came after video games. This was meeting them half way. If you keep moving back the line in the sand eventually you won't have any ground to stand on.

- Allow ESRB raters to choose the spots of the game they will examine.

They already do that. They have a system in place that requites developers to provide a tape of every thing that falls under their categories. Leaving it to them to disclose the information voluntarily. After the game is released the ESRB is given a full copy of the game that they can review however they like.

This type of system should sound familiar. The tax system works like this. You Don't have tax auditors coming to everyone's house before they submit asking the tax payer to show them though their taxes and financial records. The taxes get submitted and the tax office decides after the fact weather or not more detail is needed (an audit)

- Fine stores whose clerks don't card for MA+ games. This isn't fascist, it's simply obeying the law.

This creates an issue of prior restraint and chilling effect.

If the stores are under legal obligation to have extra scrutiny over M rated games then stores that carry these games are put under pressure to not carry them at all (why risk it). There are plenty of stores that do not carry the majority of M rated game at this point already (I'll give you a hint is starts with a W ands ends will almart), how do you think they will react when there is now the threat of financial reproductions in case an accident happens. That pressure inhibits the freedom of speech that dame developers have because now if they make an M rated game it is very possible that they can not release it to a substantial portion of the market.

Also if there is this extra importance put on the high ratings then games that are rated M or even high level T games would take longer to get their rating then games that are E and low T since they will have to go through games with a fine tooth comb due to the difference in legal status. How do you think publishers will react when it takes an extra few weeks to get their product on the market if it has a high rating?

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that you CANNOT get to the hot coffee minigame without modifying the game (which is rather hard for a consumer on a PS2 without external help, but admittedly easier on a PC), that is accurate.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[SQL Error]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[IL-CSIXTY4]

I would like to compromise some and get these politicos off our backs before they do something truly draconian

That's what the ESRB was...a compromise. Ok, say we compromise on this current issue. What happens when another politician gets a bee in their bonnet? Do we compromise again? If we keep that up, we'll end up in the same spot as if we gave in at the start, but we'll be able to pat ourselves on the back for being so willing to make compromises along the way. We'll probably come out of it feeling like victors.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[bigbigbison]

In the USA no other medium has government enforced ratings. Laws against distributing pornography to minors are in regards to a genre not a medium and even in that situation there is no government enforced ratings for pornography (there are cases where things like comic books are said to be pornographic and often the case will revolve around whether or not the comic book actually is pornographic). To single out videogames would require an enormous amount of evidence that they were harmful to minors -- evidence which does not exist.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[Jtheletter]

Although many of the other people who responded to your post made excellent points, none of them addressed the following, so I will.

Fine stores whose clerks don't card for MA+ games. This isn't fascist, it's simply obeying the law.

What law?

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[poot_rootbeer]

But it seems like every attempt at improving the accuracy or consistency of ESRB ratings is met with derision and anger.

This is in part due to disagreement of whether there's anything currently WRONG with the accuracy or consistency of the ESRB ratings system. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" -- and no, the Hot Coffee Mod incident does not show anything is broken beyond some developers' processes for keeping unused code out of a production codebase.

- Allow ESRB raters to choose the spots of the game they will examine. No auditor comes in and says, "show me what you think I should see."

It's a nice idea, but I don't think it's very feasible. Publishers already have a strong motivator to show the raters the actual "worst" parts of the game when requested to, in the form of big fines if they try to keep the naughty parts a secret until the game is out the door.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[ucblockhead]

The problem isn't the ESRB. The ESRB works perfectly fine. I play lots of games, and I don't think I've ever run into one that was rated incorrectly. There is absolutely no evidence at all that game designers are trying to cheat somehow to get "better" ratings.

The problem is that many parents ignore the ESRB and buy their children any ol' crap. (Just like many parents let their kids watch any ol' movie.) For every clerk who sells a kid an "M" game, there's a hundred parents who buy their kid an "M" game.

Attempts to "improve" the ESRB are met with derision and anger because the ESRB is just fine, and these attempts are almost invariably either pandering to social conservatives or blatant attempts to force game designers to make no adult games at all.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[realisticradical]

Neither of the options that you describe would have addressed the "Hot Coffee" mini-game in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. It's content that a play-reviewer wouldn't have seen without knowledge of how to get to the content.

I don't see what's wrong with the fact that it's clearly impossible to properly screen a game for every possibility. Prior to the "Hot Coffee" incident reviewers didn't realize that they should ask about removed content, now they do. There will always be things that get through the reviewer net, hopefully we'll learn from them.

I really don't see what's wrong with a system where game companies are asked to provide representative content and some questions about their games. As long as very strict penalties are enforced for misrepresenting their games it's a very good system.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[Garse Janacek]

But it seems like every attempt at improving the accuracy or consistency of ESRB ratings is met with derision and anger.

Not at all. Attempts by the Federal Government at improving ESRB ratings via legislation are met with derision and anger. As they should be. The fact that the particular methods proposed by the legislation are often (1) literally impossible to carry out with many games, and (2) wouldn't have prevented prior "incidents" like hot coffee anyway, only makes the problem worse, since it's not even clear that these changes would be improvements if they were taken up totally voluntarily.

Now, if there are realistic ways to improve the ESRB process, and consumer awareness of the ratings, great. But it should be done by people who have some idea what they're doing, and shouldn't be mandated by the federal government (it would be rather odd for the federal government to finally decide that this one form of media, after all of our country's history, is the only one threatening our children seriously enough to warrant this sort of response).

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing less believable than the absurdity of your arguments (where to begin: no, it is not against the law for kids to buy Hustler. No, the US is not a "democracy." No, the government is not in the business of "whatever the people want." We still have a Constitution in this country) is the Insightful moderation you're receiving.

Who is modding this idiot "Insightful," and why? Virtually every word he has written is either misguided or wrong.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[kmweber]

I would like to compromise some and get these politicos off our backs before they do something truly draconian, like ban red blood,

That's precisely what the NRA does, which is why I support GOA.

If you let the state know you'll compromise once, it gives it incentive to do it again. If we followed your advice--which is the same as the NRA's--then pretty soon we'll all be disarmed and have no means of carrying out a revolt.

"Reasonable adults" do NOT compromise on matters of principle. To do so is despicable and absurd. I am not willing to accept ANY infringement on my fundamental individual rights, whose source is not some invisible man in the sky or some government fiat, but simply the mere fact of my existence.

Help stop socialism: vote Libertarian!

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[kmweber]

Is stopping a 17 year old from buying a stupid game that bad of a thing?

When government does it, yes!

That is none of government's business.

If I own a business and want to refuse to deal with you, that is my prerogative--it is a logical consequence of my freedom of association and rights of property. But for government to come in and pre-empt any such decision is slavery.

The end does not justify the means.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[ShadowsHawk]

"How hard is it to jump into god mode and cruise around, or jump levels"

FF12 is running about 150-170 hours on average. Even if you were to enable god mode, you'll still be required to play through a good amount of battles and ALL of the storyline. You're probably looking at a minimum of 80-100 hours.

"But the fact that he was stopped will stop senators from proposing far-reaching legislation."

No, I'm afraid you're completely 100% wrong on this. It may be an incentive to leave games alone, but there's nothing preventing them from passing another law. They've already "proved" that games are dangerous to children. Why not ban them entirely? It's important to leave rating to an independent organization that is free from governmental interference. It's important to keep in mind the members of congress are not representing what is best for the people, they're trying to stay in office.

Personally, I believe that any 'think of the children' law should be held in extreme suspect.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[pedrop357]

That is their prerogative as well.

Why is it considered the mark of a bad parent that they ignored and/or rejected the opinions and/or advice of a group of strangers that know neither them nor their kids and base their advice solely on the kid's birthday?

A parent can ignore all ratings if they choose, this doesn't make them a bad parent anymore then rigidly following the ratings makes them a good parent. I love this idea that parents who choose to allow their kids to buy whatever media they want rather then following the age based standards of some third party are "not being parents" ie., they're being "bad" parents. Using this line of logic, the only way parent can avoid scorn and ridicule is to turn over decision power to some third party, effectively abdicating their power as parents to a group of people who don't even know their kid's name(s).

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[pedrop357]

The government is supposed to be in the business of whatever the people tell it to be in the business of. That's a democracy. Keep pushing the all-or-nothing standpoint on this issue and we'll see a backlash that will gain sufficient political power to mop the floor with the /. types. You are on the side of censorship in the way that Pat Robertson is on the side of liberals.

No, it's not. The government is supposed to be in the business of what the constitution says it can be in-NOTHING more. We're not a democracy ruled by mob, we're supposed to be a constitutional republic with strict limits on the government that cannot be superseded because 50.1% of the people think it ought to be.

The all or nothing stand is a valid and principled one and can survive if those making it are not willing to give into the tricks of the other side. Every compromise "for the children" opens a hole in with from which the other side can exploit.

I feel the need point out that the other side rarely compromises and shows no shame in such a position.

Everytime some group dislikes something they start with pushing for bans on sale to children. Not wanting to be seen as rigid or stubborn, the other side compromises and agrees on bans on sale to those under 18/21.

Then it grows-see, you said you were against selling to people under 18 yet,
(pick one or more):
you advertise in magazines that kids read
you have billboards where kids might see them
you show commericials when kids might see them
you're clerks don't check IDs thoroughly enough
you sell your product near schools,daycares,churches,arcades,swimming pools and/or teen dancehalls.
ETC
ETC

They use this "in" to slowly grind away the rights of everyone teen and adult to enjoy some activity. They have no problem with scope creep and they have no problem with rigidity and lack of compromise.

The ESRB was originally a voluntary solution to ADVISE parents about what their kids brought home and/or wanted them to buy. Now it's turned into mandates on clerks, prohibitions on kids, and a form of scarlet letter on parents who dare not to follow the proclamations of strangers when it comes to their kids entertainment choices.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[pedrop357]

I'm not skimming, but I have to wonder, are you blind?

Just because they're being narrow about this now doesn't mean this entire plan of attack can't be replicated with other forms of artistic mediums.

I suppose we should all wait until the full out attack on artistic mediums in general, that is, whichever mediums are left after they've gone after them one by one paying careful attention to scope creep each and every time.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

The problem is that this sequence of events has happened before:
1. Parent buys kid game without checking rating--let's say it's "M."
2. Parent discovers that game is far messier than she thought.
3. Parent or advocacy group starts campaign to make retail distribution, or even manufacturing, of messy or "M"-rated games difficult, without mentioning that originally the parent gave the kid the game.
It's okay for parents to ignore ratings if they don't think the ratings necc. or accurate. It's not okay for parents to ignore ratings and then try to legally punish the game designer or retailer for rating games accurately.

Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this?

[Grail]

I agree.

We just have to realise that some nasty stuff will slip through, and those penalties will have to be exercised.

In the meantime though we have the politicians who realise that every opportunity to puff their chests and make meaningless noise boosts their chances of reelection. If only it wasn't for the politicians ...

Sounds like I need to educate myself

[Infonaut]

Fiscal conservatives and small government types have always been the black sheep in the Republican party.

I always thought Reagan was essentially a "return to the roots" of Republicanism, a sort of clearing the decks after decades of Democrats leading the show with the continuation of New Deal policies under other names. To me Reagan's cleverest stroke was to turn the Republicans into the party of strong military defense, but I assumed his harangues against big government were just a more skillfully delivered version of the Republican mainstream agenda.

Would you say that in the 20th Century (to keep the scope of discussion manageable) the Republicans were primarily motivated by social conservatism, rather than fiscal conservatism and desire to limit the role of government?

Re:Sounds like I need to educate myself

[Scudsucker]

To me Reagan's cleverest stroke was to turn the Republicans into the party of strong military defense

Let me make a slight modification: "To me Reagan's cleverest stroke was to turn the Republicans into the party that talks about strong military defense"

Re:Sounds like I need to educate myself

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

The Republicans were not the party of strong military defense before Reagan because Nixon had to promise to get our troops out of Vietnam to get elected, at least the first time. (The troops left Vietnam approx. when he left office, or maybe a lil' later.)
Before WWII, Republicans were both socially and fiscally conservative for the most part, and more the latter. Teddy Roosevelt was actually a social radical, but he left the Republican party around 1912 or so. Coolidge and Hoover left the invisible hand alone for the most part. (What party was Smoot and Hawley in, and are protectionist tariffs fiscally conservative or fiscally radical?)
After 1960, Kennedy effectively made the Democratic Party the party of civil rights. Southerners started switching parties from Democrat to Republican around then, and they made the Republican Party socially conservative. I'm not sure who was the first Republican to be fiscally radical: maybe Reagan, but it could've been as early as Nixon. I mean, foreign military quagmires and wiretapping weren't much cheaper then than they are now.

Re:Sounds like I need to educate myself

[Brandybuck]

There is the pre-FDR Republican party, and the post-FDR Republican party. They're almost two different parties. The Republicans of the early 20th century were small government advocates, but the latter half of the century gave way to establishmentarian "country club" Republicans. You occasionally saw a throwback like Goldwater or Reagan, but for the most part recent Republican leadership has been unashamedly in favor of large powerful government.

Unfortunately, I don't see any small government types in the current crop of nomination seekers.

Re:Sounds like I need to educate myself

[ucblockhead]

That's not true. In 1900, the Republicans were socially *liberal* and fiscally conservative. (According to the standards of the day, of course.) In 1900, nearly all African-Americans were Republicans because in 1900, it was the Republicans who were the civil rights party. Roosevelt wasn't by any means a "radical". He was right in line with his party on social issues, and a moderate on fiscal issues. (i.e. willing to negotiate with unions and pass worker-protection legislation, unlike his party cohorts but still quite anti-socialist.)

(Otherwise you are correct.)

Re:Sounds like I need to educate myself

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Thanks for the correction. 8-)

If this guy wins in the primaries

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not voting

phalic spore

[Sacrelicious2]

oh no, what if someone makes a creature in spore that looks like a giant penis!!! Obviously, since Will Wright didn't submit this footage to the Rating Overlords, he will be thrown in jail, and maxis will exist no more. He is already suspect after the naked mods for the sims...

Relation to the airwaves?

[noidentity]

And how does this relate to managing allocation of the electromagnetic spectrum?

You can't be...

[uhlume]

...Serious, Sam.

Truth. Ha.

[dank zappingly]

How about a truth in government bill?

not a bad law (again)

[MEForeman]

frankly, they need to standardize Movies, Music & Video games. Movies and video games are exceedingly arbitrary.

I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

...will feel much safer once the government is paying dozens of people to sit in cubicles and watch 100+ hour videos of orcs battling dinosaurs in middle earth.

Does the senator know what he's suggesting?

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

I think that Senator Brownback doesn't know what he's really suggesting here but is still trying to boost his popularity among people who dislike most modern videogames. I mean, his hometown (outside DC) is about ten to fifteen miles from the nearest real grocery store--and I do mean the entire town.

Re:Does the senator know what he's suggesting?

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record, I live in the middle of the mountains, about 25-20 miles from the nearest red light, and I can clearly tell what this is and realize how impractical such a restriction would be, and so do most of the people I know around here. Also, he has a staff which is in charge of researching these things, and you'll never be able to convince me he didn't know that going in. The question is not whether he was ignorant, but whether he just didn't care about the logical arguments on the other side of the issue, or whether he knew it would fail and was just trying to score political points.

whaaaa

[Anonymous Coward]

The current video game ratings system is not as accurate as it could be because reviewers do not see the full content of games and do not even play the games they rate

While true, who the fuck cares?
If little Johnny is really seeing something he shouldn't be seeing (read: enjoying something your morals object to) isn't that a problem with bad parental supervision? OTOH, Zelda: Twighlight Princess has a M15+ rating - but who the fuck is going to stop their kids playing it because of the violence in the game? Come on people, get a grip on reality.

Participatory Interactive Rating system

[sankyuu]

I would recommend that the regulatory boards allow a community-driven system for the assessment of the materials.
It would require widespread participation of would-be consumers, and would be called the "Participatory Interactive RATING System."
/ducks

Open Letter to Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas

[Alari]

I'd like you to attempt, on just one game, what you're suggesting the ESRB do. Here's a copy of Nethack. =)

Sincerely,

Someone who's pretending to be a constituent.

Suggestion

[justinlee37]

I'm all for a standardized system of rating games, but the problem is that games are just TOO LONG to view entirely. Lawmakers from older generations must not understand this. A movie can easily be viewed in entirety because it is only about 2 hours long -- a game can be upwards of 80 hours and beyond! A potential solution is to retain the system of viewing a developer-prepared reel, but to make this reel publicly available at the time it is sent to the ESRB. Also establish laws that hold the developers financially liable if a game is found to have more graphic content than represented by the original reel -- if lying to the ESRB can sink your company into debt, then it simply won't happen. As it is right now, most people don't have a clue about what sort of arcane methodology the ESRB employs, and there's basically no culpability for error; legally establishing who is liable and making the methodology transparent to the public will fix the ratings issue without requiring the significant expenditure of time and money required to view all games in entirety, a hoop that could potentially damage the industry. Additionally, lawmakers need to understand that the nature of most PC games is that they are "editable" -- through modifications, mods. You all know that, but honestly, sometimes I think that some people don't, and this is for them. If I mod The Sims 2 to show all of the women topless, that's not a feature that was included with the game that the developer should be liable for -- the equivalent of this is to buy a movie, take it home, and use video-editing software to make it appear as though all of the actresses are topless. Should the producers of the movie be liable if I do that to a PG-13 film? Holding developers liable for the explicit content contained in mods will sink the industry -- and it's an industry a lot of voters care about!

those Republicans generally don't exist

[Scudsucker]

Fiscally conservative, small government Republicans I mean. Those who like call themselves "fiscally conservative" typically like to make big tax cuts, regaurdless of what it does to the national debt. Small government conservatives generally like to cut spending on social issues but increase it on everything else. Oh, and cut industry oversight, which frequently leads to nasty consequences.

i dont know, its pretty accurate

[SQLz]

What is not accurate about it. Blood, death, beheadings, dismemberment ok for teens and above. A gold game with a possible 15% of a nipple sighting if you pause at just the right time with a high def TV, rated XXX adult.

Awesome Government Jobs?

[Babbster]

First off, I'm against any government-imposed rating system on the arts, be they paintings, movies, videogames or whatever.

With that disclaimer out of the way, wouldn't it be sweet to be able to get a federal government job playing games and then rating them? I'd climb aboard that gravy train!

E is for "Drinking Game"

[loftling]

I work at Three Rings Design, makers of Puzzle Pirates.

The game is free to download, but we had a publisher and put out a box version with some extra goodies. The game was sent off to be rated and they came back with an "E" rating, to which we replied "Really? Even though there's a drinking game in there?" It's not a central part of Puzzle Pirates, but is easily found and playable at any Inn: pass out and miss a turn.

They hadn't even noticed, but after our helpful idiocy they bumped us to "T".

Re:E is for "Drinking Game"

[xtracto]

Drinking? War? Drugs?

Do you have a problem with that...?

Oh but watch out for Tits... OMG I said it!!!!!!!!!one!1

Who should run our country?

[architimmy]

I think it's about time we revise the way that congressional representatives are elected. I think that congress could really benefit from a touch of reality.

At least one seat from each state should be occupied for a period of 2-4 weeks by someone chosen at random from the state. During that time they would receive a prorated portion of a congresscritter's salary and be provided with housing and a stipend to cover various expenses related to their congressional responsibilities. While in congress they would have the same power as any other congressmember to vote or introduce legislature. However at the end of their term they would be replaced by a new person chosen at random. Think of it as Jury duty... just more of a situation where you get to actually sit in congress and vote. Sure, we'd have nutjobs introducing crazy legislation all the time but we'd have a constant flow of new people and new ideas going through congress such that the whole entrenched culture of corruption could be replaced by a body that might have a little bit more integrity and a culture of openness and responsibility to it's constituents. Of course your elected 12 term congressperson would still be around to add a bit of reason, experience, corrupt corporate influence, etc... to the mix. If you can't get people to vote drag them out of their homes and throw them on the congress floor. At least it would serve better to represent the people of these united states rather than the corporations and special interest groups.

Re:All "footage" in a game? impossible

[kfg]

. . .bipartisan. . .

slang; the Fascistic Asshat Party.

KFG

Funny you should mention 'gore'

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think about it, this is all really an outgrowth of Tipper Gore's crusade against profanity in music. The arguments are exactly the same, but applied to software. For example, here's then-Senator Al Gore interrogating Dee Snider (of Twisted Sister).

SENATOR GORE: Now, you said that you can look at the titles of albums and look at the covers and tell what kind of material is inside. Does the title "Purple Rain" give you an indication that the material is about masturbation?

MR. SNIDER: You mean the album title "Purple Rain"? No, it does not. I did not say in all cases. I believe I covered that there are occasional albums that are a bit misleading. I said I do not think a store would refuse a parent who came in and said, "I do not like what is on this record. I would like my money back."

SENATOR GORE: So the choice the parent has, then, is to sit down and listen to every song on the album; right?

MR. SNIDER Or read the lyrics if they are on the record.

SENATOR GORE: I think that is pretty general agreement that if the lyrics are printed that is one possible solution for this. Let us suppose the lyrics are not printed. Then what choice does a parent have? To sit down and listen to every song on the album?

MR. SNIDER: Well, if they are really concerned about it I think that they have to.

SENATOR GORE: Do you think it is reasonable to expect parents to do that?

MR. SNIDER: Being a parent is not a reasonable thing. It is a very hard thing. I am a parent and I know. OK. I am a new parent. I only have one child, maybe. But I am learning that there is a lot to being a parent that you did not expect. It is not just always a cute baby. There is a lot of labor, a lot of time, and a lot of effort that goes into it. It is not totally pleasurable.

SENATOR GORE: And you will find when they get a little bit older that when they are exposed to the kinds of themes that we were presented with earlier, if you love your child you are going to be concerned about that.

Re:Funny you should mention 'gore'

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that you can look at a game rating and know what the content is. The only issue is if the game company lies to the ESRB about the content, which is a lot, lot, lot less likely than a 'misleading' title and album cover.

Re:Funny you should mention 'gore'

[NayDizz]

Here's the transcript in its entirety. Zappa's testimony is classic.

Re:Funny you should mention 'gore'

[Anonymous Coward]

It is almost the same as the Album Ratings except we already have the ESRB and a system that works reasonably well. I would bet the ESRB's ratings are more accurate and consistent than the MPAA's movie ratings. This is just the case of Congress being scared of a new entertainment medium. It's like the comics code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code of the 1950's it'll eventually blow over after all you don't hear to many people worrying that Frank Miller is destroying the country, at least not the same extent the they are afraid of Rock Star.

Re:Funny you should mention 'gore'

[StikyPad]

Classic like Chicken Little. The truth is that it doesn't much matter one way or the other whether or not ratings are standardized, mandatory, or enforced. Life will go on pretty much the same, and nobody will pay much attention to them except the people who care.

What's in a name?

[eganloo]

Isn't it about time we had a Truth-in-Act-Names Act?

How to get moderated flamebait - wider issues

[Flying pig]

I know I'm going to be ignored or down moderated, but can you lot think for one microsecond beyond your obsession with being allowed to watch anything at all that you want on your computers? There *is* a wider society out there and, no, I am not necessarily "thinking of the children".

An issue that the US needs to address is that it has created a huge rod for its own back by providing vast outpourings of violent content. "24" is a good example. It is quite amazingly good propaganda for Islamic fundamentalists, because it portrays extreme violence as being appropriate in dealing with any perceived threat. How can you tell fundamentalists that beheading hostages is wrong when it is clearly behaviour approved of so long as it is by Americans? How can you persuade Iraqis that the US army doesn't spend its time torturing them when they can pass around professionally made videos showing that this is exactly how Americans behave when they want something? I am quite sure that Al-Queda recruiting and training camps spend more time showing their gullible trainees mainstream American material than their own videos because they can use it to "prove" that the US will go to any lengths at all to get what it wants.

I think there is a case to be made that game producers should be required to document their content. It should not be necessary for reviewers to sit through games. Somewhere there are surely storyboards, scripts, and a system map. It should be possible to identify content against an agreed set of criteria and to identify risk areas ("Players can create anatomically detailed avatars."

Please note this is not censorship. It merely applies the same level of disclosure to a game as applies to a book. Hiding extremely violent content in difficult to access levels of a game is not an excuse for not documenting content, even if that documentation is necessarily restricted in circulation

The producers of a film and the publishers of a book make the entire content readily available for assessment. This has not prevented the circulation of either. I cannot see why the same standard of disclosure should not apply to games. I suspect that an issue in the response here is that some of the younger /. readers get kicks out of doing something which they think is a closed book to the adult world. I have news for them. Games are produced by corporations: you are not doing something counter-cultural, you are doing something that is ultimately for the benefit of midle aged suits. In the same way there is nothing rebellious about teenagers drinking whisky; you are just doing what the drink marketing people are trying to persuade you to do through carefully judged advertising.

Re:How to get moderated flamebait - wider issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Damnit man! You're a genius! the game publishers could talk to the developers, who could provide documentation outlining all the "worst" content in the game (where worst should obviously be a fairly broad definition), then the documentation could be handed to the ratings body who can judge it against an agreed set of standards, and give the game a rating.

Hey! some of the developers might try and cheat, so, just as an extra measure of protection, they could also have someone play through the game and make a video of their playthrough so that at least they have a sample of the general tone of the game to make sure it looks like it matches!

Incredible! we could call it...say..ESRB. That's a cool acronym, and we can have a set of ratings, like T for teen, and M for mature..

such a brilliant idea. I think you should run for president!

Re:How to get moderated flamebait - wider issues

[Firefly1]

"24" is a good example. It is quite amazingly good propaganda for Islamic fundamentalists, because it portrays extreme violence as being appropriate in dealing with any perceived threat...

You raise a very good point; see also the saying about fighting monsters. Interestingly, according to this iteration of Olbermann's 'Worst Person in the World' Brigadier-General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of West Point, has very similar concerns. As he told New Yorker magazine, "I would like them to stop. They should do a show where torture backfires. The kids see it and say if torture is wrong, what about '24'?" Apparently the show's executive producer does not consider such concerns important; he blew off the meeting on grounds that he couldn't sit still for that long, and had a conference call at the time...

What about....

[C4st13v4n14]

What about games like Oblivion? This one takes somewhere in the area of 200 hours to complete, plus anyone can create their own content and modifications for it, i.e. nude patches, extra blood, etc. I think this bill will fail, just like the others. It's just not that simple.

...why does this remind me of...

[msauve]

the Far Side cartoon, where the 'rents are looking at the help wanted ads, with a kid playing games in the background, and all the ads are looking for experienced gamers? Seems that's what will be needed to implement this, if he wants the raters to play the games and see the entire game.

Re:...why does this remind me of...

[NayDizz]

The first thing I thought when I read the summary was "Mental note: pursue employment at the FTC." I mean come on, they have to view the entire game, and it probably pays more than my crap job now...

Re:...why does this remind me of...

[Anonymous Coward]

People who say "'rents" will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes, right next to the people who do air-quotes.

Sweet

[Xichekolas]

If this bill somehow passes, I'm totally getting a job with the FTC to 'rate games' ... Can you imagine getting paid to play through entire games just to give the same rating they already get? It'll be an awesome job!

Re:Sweet

[C0rinthian]

Here is your copy of "Barbie: Pink Pony Adventures"

Please make sure to check all content, including mini-games, and all 200 unlockables.

Re:Sweet

[Xichekolas]

That is what my army of chinese gamers that I pay $2/day are for!

Is this even constitutional?

[bug]

The courts have generally ruled that obscenity is determined at the local community level via the Miller Test. The FCC only has the authority to regulate TV and radio by virtue of its control over airwaves. No federal body has the authority to define national obscenity regulations, because we are a nation of individual communities, and there can be no national standard defining what is obscene. Given this, would it even be constitutionally permitted for the federal government to mandate an obscenity ratings system, through the FTC or any other body?

Uniform Rating System is not a Bad Idea

[Secret Agent Man]

While I disagree with the statement regarding the ESRB having to play through the entire game, I do like the idea of having a single rating system across all mediums. Many parents know, for example, the movie rating system well, yet don't have a clue when it comes to the ESRB's ratings (although if they took the time to read what the rating says it shouldn't be a problem, but that's another story). If there were but a single rating system to learn, things would be less confusing.

Re:Uniform Rating System is not a Bad Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

How stupid do you have to be not to understand the rating system ESRB uses?

ya kno...

[DuroSoft]

I don't really like what he is proposing. But I think he IS right... Needless to say however, it will never get passed.

Market to whom?

[tepples]

Also, easier to market to WHOM? Who do we need to market a ratings system to? Parents who vote.

All the content?

[seebs]

Boy, so much for my game, "Combanitorics!"

New Job Openings

[aplusjimages]

Does this mean the government will have some jobs open for people to "review and rate" video games? I imagine if this does pass that Halo 3 will be delayed even further.

Yay!

[Guppy06]

You mean it would only apply to video games, not movies or television?

We had the famous "wardrobe malfunction" not too long ago, and yet we still don't have legislation enforcing "truth in ratings" in television shows (everybody knows the Super Bowl is supposed to be about violence, not sex!).

I'm beginning to suspect that politicians don't yet realize just how many gamers are of voting age now.

Truth?

[d_54321]

I'm nervous about any legislation containing the word "Truth" seeing as how it'll be the government enforcing it.

video game reviewer gov job

[Floritard]

So you're say it's a governmant job that involves playing video games. Where do i sign up?

As usual, politicians rely on ignorance

[Opportunist]

I'm actually quite convinced that he knows his idea is bullcrap. At the very least he'll have advisors who would have told him so. If not, he's not really a fit presidental candidate.

Also, the game industry is one you shouldn't piss off too much, it is a money maker. And I know at least one key company that does sponsor political campaigns. For both parties, just to cover the bases.

I'm quite sure this whole ploy is just the usual political play with people's ignorance. He knows 2 things well:

1. It's impossible to implement.
2. Even if by some feat of luck it gets possible, court will shoot it down.
3. Even if the courts don't care, neither will the gamers and still buy whatever they want.

So, essentially, from a purely practical point of view, the whole idea is as useful as many other political ideas that are, if you take a step back and look at it from afar (after doing a little research), quite blatantly pointless.

What sticks, though, is that he did "something" for our children. It's a bit like the war on terror or other problems without a solution that doesn't hurt. It doesn't matter if what you do works, as long as you do "something" you can't be held responsible for not addressing the problem. It might not work out, but hey, at least he tried!

And for some reason in our political climate, a man is already a hero for trying. Talk 'bout apathy.

Control the People...

[Dareth]

Sam knows people are never going to "evolve" into better creatures, so they have to be controlled!

Re:The best-case scenario is the worst-case scenar

[teh_chrizzle]

ahhh, my life much easier now that i let tycho and gabe do all of my thinking for me.

Not feasible

[loafing_oaf]

Ugh, I wish there was someone, anyone, in Congress who was younger than 40. Reviewing all content is just not feasible. How would you show all content of a non-linear game such as Zelda? Could any human sit through hours of random, meaningless footage of the game world?

The alternative is to have reviewers play the games, and that's just not going to happen. That requires too much skill. Worthless skill, but skill nonetheless. The only problem I might see with the current system is that the review footage is edited by the developers.

Easy: send a speed demo

[upside]

HalfLife in 45 minutes

TBCS.com

[Anonymous Coward]

The best-case scenario is the worst-case scenario

No no no...
HERE is The Best Case Scenario
http://www.thebestcasescenario.com/forum/index.php

Make them play

[felidus]

If sen. brownback wants to get this through, I think we should encourage him to do so. Plunk him down with oblivian, and tell him "Play this through and get back to us on a rating" That way, not only does he get some hands on time with why his bill is dumb, but we get a reactionist senator out of the picture for a couple months. They should make all politicians spend time on the recieving end of their bills, that way maybe we would ge less junk like this.

Start with movies

[orgelspieler]

If they're going to pass laws about ratings, why not start by opening up the motion picture rating system so it is easier to understand what got rated by whom and why. This would be a major step in the right direction. As it stands now we have films like M:I:3 and 007 Casino Royale with fairly intense violence and torture scenes being rated PG-13, while a film with a homosexual theme can get rated R even without nudity. Better yet, if you make a documentary about the rating process, you can get rated NC-17.

Oxymoron?

[BobPaul]

How about selecting based on the candidate's good qualities, not the bad qualities of the other candidates?

<cynicism>That must be what most of the American public does, and as such they don't show up for the poles. At least selecting negatively like that allows one to actually cast a ballet.</cynicism>

Re:Oxymoron?

[Dun Malg]

<cynicism>That must be what most of the American public does, and as such they don't show up for the poles. Bah! Why bother showing up for the Poles. Those pollacks never show up for us!

At least selecting negatively like that allows one to actually cast a ballet.</cynicism>
Personally, I think one should select positively when casting a ballet. You know, like, "that dancer can stay on her toes a long time, we should pick him", or "wow, they really nailed that pas de deux, we should get them both".

Re:Oxymoron?

[BobPaul]

LMFAO! You sir, are a god among men! It's too bad the mods missed this post!

Why should we care?

[DimGeo]

I mean, we're not 21 anymore... At least most of us (Mwahahahaa).

This is fundamentally unconstitutional!

[SonicSpike]

Not only does it dance on the idea of free expression/speech, but it would absolutely be outside of the area of Congress. The US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, does NOT permit Congress to regulate the video game market.

Re:This is fundamentally unconstitutional!

[SonicSpike]

Here is the relevant link:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti on.articlei.html#section8

Re:This is fundamentally unconstitutional!

[jamyskis]

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" Needs updating.

Re:This is fundamentally unconstitutional!

[jamyskis]

Seriously though, I don't see how that (or any) legislation has anything to bear in this case. The MPAA regulates films, the ESRB regulates games. Age ratings are something that video game retailers and movie theaters have always taken seriously, despite the fact that this might now become law.

Re:This is fundamentally unconstitutional!

[SonicSpike]

When that was written "regulate" meant 'to make regular' as in no trade wars, quotas, etc...

Re:This is fundamentally unconstitutional!

[SonicSpike]

But all of those are optional. Mandatory regulations by the government, are just that - mandatory. They are NOT optional besides the fact that the Fed has no authority to act in this manner anyway.

Re:This is fundamentally unconstitutional!

[jamyskis]

"And with the Indian tribes?"

Re:This is fundamentally unconstitutional!

[jamyskis]

Optional is relative in this case. A games publisher can indeed decide to pass on getting an ESRB certificate, but then they kiss goodbye to any chance of commercial success as most retailers won't stock it. Like movies - you don't have to get a MPAA certificate, but theaters won't show it if you don't have one.

Sen. Brokeback

[evansvillelinux]

It's been a long day. I swear I thought (upon first browsing the topic) it said Sen. Brokeback. :)

Interesting concept

[Infonaut]

the polarization of US politics leads me to hope that it is at least theoretically possible to have a sharp decrease as well, even if partisanship can't be eliminated.

I'd never thought of it that way, but perhaps you're on to something. Maybe there is a way to see the glass as half full.