Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
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.
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...
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!
:(){
what about content patches, are they going to view those as well? this idea is stupid, as is the man proposing it.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
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.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
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.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
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.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
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.
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
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.
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.
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.
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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.
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
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.
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>
+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.)
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.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
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."
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."
Learn to love Alaska
Isn't it about time we had a Truth-in-Act-Names Act?
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.
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?