M-Rated Game Sales to Kids Down, Shows FTC Report

Kotaku examines a report drawn up the the Federal Trade Commission on 'inappropriate content' sales to children. The study (pdf) examined sales of M-Rated games, R-rated movie tickets, and explicit music to underage persons in the most extensive look at the topic since 2000. While it appears the games industry still has a way to go, the study shows that it's much harder than it was four years ago for a young person to buy an M-Rated game. "Video games showed the greatest improvement, dropping from 69 percent being able to make the purchase in 2003 to 42 percent in 2006. That's just three percent more than the number of underage children able to get into R-rated movies."

Comments

I wonder...

[Pojut]

...how much Gamestop's new policy of "we will fire the employee and the manager if an M-rated game is sold to a minor" has affected this...

Re:I wonder...

[Jeremy Erwin]

It's just a game. It's just a movie. Back when I was a kid, Tipper Gore's campaign against "explicit" lyrics in music was regarded as somewhat bizarre. Getting into or renting 'R' movies was easy. Our money was as good as anyone's.

Thank God

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that we have the two topics within 3% of each other we can be safe in the knowledge that children are able to get a suitable amount of violent video games to satiate their blood thirsty attitude encouraged in violent movies. That's how it works isnt it?

An interesting correlation...

[Pyrrhic Diarrhea]

The study shows that as underage customers are less likely to purchase M rated games, they are more likely to visit the titty bar. I'm *sure* I read that in there somewhere.

A cop in every titty bar!

[Anonymous Coward]

as underage customers are less likely to purchase M rated games, they are more likely to visit the titty bar

and if you watch the titty bars, will they go to gay bars instead?

Eh, it won't make a difference

[Coopjust]

Personally, I don't think the fact that the sales of M-rated games to minors dropping. Why? Well, many times it goes like this:

Child: Mom, I want Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
Mom: Oh, what do you do in that game?
Child: You drive cars.
Mom: Oh, OK then.
Clerk: Ma'm, you realize this is an Mature Game, intended for ages 18 and up?
Mom: Yeah, sure, whatever.
*Kid plays game full of violence*

Forget the fact that it's on the back of the box (inappropriate content warnings), parents will blithely ignore them. All of the sales restrictions to minors don't prevent bad parents from buying them.

Re:Eh, it won't make a difference

[ZakuSage]

And it's really going to make a difference if a kid plays GTA? I know when I was growing up I watched a whole bunch of violet movies and it didn't "corrupt my moral fiber" or anything of the sort.

Re:Eh, it won't make a difference

[Coopjust]

I never said that the kid will become a murderer, or attracted to guns, booze, and prostitutes. Kids see all sorts of objectionable stuff on network TV (24, Standoff, CSI, etc.) and in movies.

But, it's in video games, some parents ask, ?!?!?!, Johnnies on a murder simulator, get a psychologist, etc.. It is really ridiculous.

I personally believe there is more objectionable content during the news than in GTA. In GTA it's not even REAL. And about "not being able to tell the difference", that's a load of crap.

Re:Eh, it won't make a difference

[ResidntGeek]

But science has shown us that it's one thing to watch the Merch fuck someone's dad, and another thing entirely to fuck that dad yourself while the controller shudders with each unwelcome thrust.

Re:Eh, it won't make a difference

[drinkypoo]

And it's really going to make a difference if a kid plays GTA? I know when I was growing up I watched a whole bunch of violet movies and it didn't "corrupt my moral fiber" or anything of the sort.

You are hardly an unbiased source on your moral fiber, and the plural of anecdote is not data.

Anyone who has watched kids get fired up by watching Power Rangers and run around kicking shit knows that media has an effect on children. Actually, anyone who has gone to see The Rice and the Ridiculous knows that it affects so-called adults, too, because people tend to be peelin' out like a mufucka after seeing that movie, or a film like it.

Finally, I think most of us accept that a video game (or other virtual reality experience) is valid training for real-life events. The 9/11 highjackers, for example, learned to fly through the use of a simulator. So referring to Grand Theft Auto as a thug-life simulator is not as unreasonable as a lot of us make it out to be.

So, by that line of reasoning, I entirely support the restriction of sales of violent games, movies, music, or what have you to persons over the age of 18. Why? Because parents are [ostensibly] responsible for what children do. Note that I do NOT support EVER treating a minor as an adult. You can't give someone responsibilities without rights. Respect works both ways, but fear only works in one.

Thus, it should fall to parents to decide if their children can handle that kind of media - because I truly believe that some can, and some can not. And because parents are supposed to be responsible for their children. I know responsibility is kind of an alien concept these days, but it's true.

Re:Eh, it won't make a difference

[rhombic]

Finally, I think most of us accept that a video game (or other virtual reality experience) is valid training for real-life events.

So you're gonna be allright with your oncological surgeon having learned via "Trauma Center: Under the knife", right?

Anyone who has watched kids get fired up by watching Power Rangers and run around kicking shit knows that media has an effect on children.

As you so cleverly pointed out, the plural of anecdote is not data. Kindly point us to a statistical study showing a causative relationship between watching violent TV or playing violent videogames results in real-life violence (actions resulting in serious bodily injury, not kids wrestling). TIA.

Re:Eh, it won't make a difference

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

It corrupted mine. I use Linux AND Bittorrent. That makes me a commie-pirate-thief. I don't think there WERE M-rated games when I grew up I was out of high school in '94 when the ESRB was formed. So it MUST have been the violent movies.

Re:Eh, it won't make a difference

[Darth]

Anyone who has watched kids get fired up by watching Power Rangers and run around kicking shit knows that media has an effect on children.

The kids also know they are playing make-believe. If you stopped the kid and asked him what he was doing, he knows it isnt real and he knows the Power Rangers arent real.
The kid is having fun pretending. That doesnt tell us anything about long term effects of watching power rangers on real life incidents of violence.
It is really no different than when kids used to play cowboys and indians. That didn't lead to mass shootings by children.

Finally, I think most of us accept that a video game (or other virtual reality experience) is valid training for real-life events.

Sure. Video games can be, and have been, used to train leadership skills, tactics, pattern recognition, etc. video games do not teach you how to shoot a weapon because the interface you use for the game has to relationship to firing an actual weapon. You can maybe learn academic information through simulation of causes and effects (like firing a mortar in a simulation), but you aren't going to get better at firing a gun without experience firing an actual gun.

The 9/11 highjackers, for example, learned to fly through the use of a simulator. So referring to Grand Theft Auto as a thug-life simulator is not as unreasonable as a lot of us make it out to be.

The 9/11 hijackers learned to fly at a flight schools in the U.S. Some of them trained on flight simulators in flight schools. That isnt the same thing as playing microsoft's flight simulator. (though, to be honest, i found microsoft's flight simulator boring enough that i started crashing my plane into buildings)

Calling Grand Theft Auto a thug life simulator is as reasonable as calling the Rainbow Six series anti-terrorist training simulators. (which, personally, i find absurd)

So, by that line of reasoning, I entirely support the restriction of sales of violent games, movies, music, or what have you to persons over the age of 18.

Considering that i disagree with that line of reasoning, you probably won't be surprised to hear that i do not support the restriction of sales of violent games for those reasons.

Why? Because parents are [ostensibly] responsible for what children do. Note that I do NOT support EVER treating a minor as an adult. You can't give someone responsibilities without rights. Respect works both ways, but fear only works in one.

Yes, parents should be responsible for their children. And for that reason i support voluntary enforcement of the rating system that exists, just like the system used for movies. It isnt that i think the material is harmful to the child, it's that the parent has a right to restrict the child's access to material the parent thinks the child isnt ready for, or disapproves of. That's the responsibility of the parent and i'm ok with a voluntary rating system that requires the parent to approve the child's purchase of the material. If the parent doesn't do that job, or the child finds an alternate way to get it (getting an adult friend to buy it for him or something), that's the parent's problem to deal with and has nothing to do with the stores or the content producers.

With respect to your issue of never treating a minor as an adult...even as kids, they have inalienable rights. They also do have some responsibilities inherent in those inalienable rights. I dont think being a kid mitigates your responsibility to respect other peoples' right to live, for example.

I agree that it is the parents' responsibility, but we shouldn't be passing laws to do it for them, even if they aren't doing it. Maybe, instead, we should pass laws requiring the parents' to be involved in raising their kids. (note, i'm not seriously suggesting that. a law like that would be even more ridiculously abused than our current child protective care laws)

Re:Eh, it won't make a difference

[revengebomber]

Calling Grand Theft Auto a thug life simulator is as reasonable as calling the Rainbow Six series anti-terrorist training simulators. (which, personally, i find absurd) I take it you've only played R6: Vegas? The old games were actually... you know... "as real as it gets".

Re:Eh, it won't make a difference

[Darth]

I've played a little bit of R6:Vegas. I've also played Rogue Spear and Raven Shield.
I guess i'm qualified as an anti-terrorist expert.

Re:Eh, it won't make a difference

[StikyPad]

when I was growing up I watched a whole bunch of violet movies and it didn't "corrupt my moral fiber"

Like this? Or like this?

Re:Eh, it won't make a difference

[Paranoia Agent]

Being a surgeon is easy, just shoot patients up with the green stuff to get their stats up, right?

Re:Eh, it won't make a difference

[cookieinc]

Its true.

I've been using GTA: San Andreas as a murder simulator.

Went outside to kill some random fuckers yesterday but I kept missing because I couldn't find the R1 button.

Re:Eh, it won't make a difference

[grumbel]

### Kindly point us to a statistical study showing a causative relationship between watching violent TV or playing violent videogames results in real-life violence

Thats the wrong question to ask and the wrong study to do. If you only look for real-world violence caused by games with a direct link, you of course won't find it. Life is complex, there isn't a "play video game" -> "kill people" cause and effect relation ship, especially not when you also have violent movies, a violent real world neighborhood and dozens of other factors. Neither of this however means that games or media in general doesn't have an effect on you, actually it would be stupid to assume that just because you didn't find a direct link between games violence -> real world one.

To give a little drastic example: Why do you think the Americans are currently fighting in Irak? Why did they vote again for Bush after he started all that mess in the first place? Do you think media, propaganda and such had anything to do with that?

Re:Eh, it won't make a difference

[Chazmyrr]

It's not a matter of whether pretending to be a Power Ranger leads to increased acts of violence. The issue is that this kind of role-playing helps form the basis of the child's values. If you disagree, ask yourself if you'd want your kids playing Slaveowners and Abolitionists instead of Cowboys and Indians.

The point of this type of play is to reinforce societies values. Children want to be the Hero so they emulate the qualities of the Hero. In many modern video games the protagonist is an Anti-Hero. GTA is a perfect example. I won't buy it for my kids because I don't think that a game that rewards players for theft, blackmail, racketeering, murder and selling drugs is appropriate.

Now I recognize that the current rating system places far more emphasis on sex and violence than the actual subject matter, but fortunately most developers that think anti-social behavior is cool also think graphic violence is cool. This means that most of the games I would object to get rated as Mature. There are some that get rated as Mature that I don't object to, but then I can buy them for my kids if I choose to do so.

The line that gets parroted a lot is that it's the parent's responsibility to keep their kids from buying these games. That's a bunch of crap. It's not unreasonable for a 13 year old to spend a Saturday afternoon with his friends playing stickball in the abandoned lot or watching a matinee at the cinema. You know what else isn't unreasonable? It isn't unreasonable to expect salespeople not to sell an M rated game to a bunch of kids that decided to pool their money and buy Grand Theft Auto 27 instead of going to the theatre.

I find the idea that allowing children to play amongst themselves for a few hours without parents hovering over their every move or sending them to convenience store for some milk is somehow shirking parental responsibilities to be ludicrous. Part of rearing a child is teaching them independence. That requires doing things on their own without a parent present. It is the responsibility of other adults to step in and moderate unsafe behavior when children are out of the immediate supervision of their parents.

We shouldn't need a law to make it clear that it might be a bad idea to sell a product that is clearly marked "Mature 17+" to children that are obviously under 17. The mere fact that it even has such a label might indicate that there may be a substantial number of parents that may object to the sale of said product to their child. Unfortunately since many people either can't grasp such a simple concept or just don't care, legislation may be the only answer.

If self-enforcement actually works, then we don't need legislation. I don't call children being able to purchase age inappropriate material 42% of the time working.

Re:Eh, it won't make a difference

[Darth]

It's not a matter of whether pretending to be a Power Ranger leads to increased acts of violence. The issue is that this kind of role-playing helps form the basis of the child's values. If you disagree, ask yourself if you'd want your kids playing Slaveowners and Abolitionists instead of Cowboys and Indians.

depending on the context of how they are playing the game, i wouldnt mind them playing Slaveowners and Abolitionists. It has the opportunity for them to understand why slavery and racism are bad things.

By that token, what values are they learning from Power Rangers and Cowboys and Indians? That problems should be solved with violence and people who arent white are out to scalp them? (this is a bit inflammatory, i know, but i really am curious why you think Slaveowners and Abolitionists wouldn't teach them anything and the other two would teach them something good.)

The point of this type of play is to reinforce societies values. Children want to be the Hero so they emulate the qualities of the Hero.

Someone has to be the villain, or there isnt a game to play. The villain is also played by a child.

In many modern video games the protagonist is an Anti-Hero. GTA is a perfect example. I won't buy it for my kids because I don't think that a game that rewards players for theft, blackmail, racketeering, murder and selling drugs is appropriate.

Great. You are being a parent. I commend you on that.


Now I recognize that the current rating system places far more emphasis on sex and violence than the actual subject matter, but fortunately most developers that think anti-social behavior is cool also think graphic violence is cool. This means that most of the games I would object to get rated as Mature. There are some that get rated as Mature that I don't object to, but then I can buy them for my kids if I choose to do so.


That's pretty much what i advocated that parents should be doing.

The line that gets parroted a lot is that it's the parent's responsibility to keep their kids from buying these games. That's a bunch of crap. It's not unreasonable for a 13 year old to spend a Saturday afternoon with his friends playing stickball in the abandoned lot or watching a matinee at the cinema. You know what else isn't unreasonable? It isn't unreasonable to expect salespeople not to sell an M rated game to a bunch of kids that decided to pool their money and buy Grand Theft Auto 27 instead of going to the theatre.

I guess you missed the part where i said stores should enforce the industry promoted rating system, just like the movie industry does.

I find the idea that allowing children to play amongst themselves for a few hours without parents hovering over their every move or sending them to convenience store for some milk is somehow shirking parental responsibilities to be ludicrous.

It's also a non-sequitor since i never promoted that idea.

Part of rearing a child is teaching them independence. That requires doing things on their own without a parent present. It is the responsibility of other adults to step in and moderate unsafe behavior when children are out of the immediate supervision of their parents.

I disagree with this. I have no responsibility to moderate the behaviour of anyone else. I do have a responsibility to inform the proper authorities about illegal behaviour, but that isn't really what we're talking about here.

Independence also requires kids to be able to make their own mistakes and be exposed to ideas that you dont necessarily approve of. It isnt the rest of the world's responsibility to protect your kid from that either.

The first thing the kid is going to do to assert his independence is start doing things you don't approve of (usually for the sole reason that you disapprove of it). It's a phase kids go through.

We shouldn't need a law to make it clear that it might be a bad idea to sell a product that is clearly marked "Mature 17+" to

Numbers... Pure GTA ?

[stratjakt]

GTA3 came out for PS2 in 2002, for XBox in 2003.

San Andreas hit PS2 in 2004..

So is the lack of a GTA game perhaps responsible for this?

Most "M" games suck. My kids never bugged me to play "50 cents bulletproof".

Re:Numbers... Pure GTA ?

[shoptroll]

GTA Liberty City Stories and Vice City Stories have both been released for PSP and PS2 in the last 2 years.

Even zero percent is not good enough

[biocute]

Since they have been thinking of children so much, I would recommend a -1% target, so there are absolutely no kids allowed to get their hands on a M-Rated game, additionally 1% of eligible gamers will also be turned away because they couldn't produce a ID, this includes senior citizens too.

Re:Even zero percent is not good enough

[bigstrat2003]

Please don't give them ideas. The "think of the children" crowd has probably already come up with this, but we can't be too safe.

Sales to minors down, sales to adults up.

[Mockylock]

Parent's pay for them anyway. Most aren't going to care about the violence or content as long as it babysits enough to keep the kid out of their hair. The other half who don't buy them for their children, just complain about it while letting lighter games occupy their children..

Re:What about Halo 2?

[Jeremy Erwin]

It's just one organization's opinion. One of favorite games, as of late has been "Ghost Recon 1"-- a wargame that at least pretends to be realistic. I'm not sure why it's rated 'M', but it is. It's really little different than watching military footage on TV.

Re:What about Halo 2?

[LiquidCoooled]

I believe since its sci-fi related set on an alien world it is easier to differentiate than with a real world scenario (gta/postal being examples against)

I have let my son play unreal type games for a long time but have no qualms about steering him from playing GTA.

BitTorrent

[rustalot42684]

Purchases are down, but that does not mean there are less kids out playing M-rated games. When I go to futureshop, and they refuse to sell me the game, I download it. Do I feel guilty for stealing* it? No, because they wouldn't sell it to me.

* Yes, I know it isn't actually stealing, it's infringing copyright, but that's not the topic today.

Re:BitTorrent

[Anonymous Coward]

"* Yes, I know it isn't actually stealing, it's infringing copyright, but that's not the topic today."

Then don't use it. I don't say "I am going to fly my boat. Yes I know you don't fly a boat, but that's not what I am talking about" nether does anyone else.

Re:BitTorrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Trespassing isn't stealing, either, but that doesn't make it any less objectionable. You're still depriving someone of property rights.

Re:BitTorrent

[rustalot42684]

I used the word stealing because it conveys my personal views. Whether or not my opinion on that {in a moral / ethical sense} is correct is not the issue.

Re:BitTorrent

[seaturnip]

Oookay... so you believe it is morally equivalent to theft and yet do it without guilt anyway?

So when a corner store refuses to sell you beer, do you steal that too?

Re:BitTorrent

[Anonymous Coward]

That's obviously a flawed analogy.

The corner store loses something in that case. In the software case, the store/publisher/developer lose nothing, as they wouldn't have the guy's sale anyways.

Re:BitTorrent

[seaturnip]

I know it is. But that's the analogy that's not-so-implicitly made by the word "stealing" anyway, I'm just making it obvious.

Re:BitTorrent

[Anonymous Coward]

"The corner store loses something in that case. In the software case, the store/publisher/developer lose nothing, as they wouldn't have the guy's sale anyways."

Then it ISN'T stealing. To steal, you must remove something from someone's possession. If I copy someone's drawing, they keep it, I just get it aswell. Stop posting and read a dictionary.

Statistics lie

[grub]

Sure, the sales to minors has gone down, but I'll wager the sales to parents of those minors has gone up almost as much.

Re:Statistics lie

[grolschie]

Exactly. It's just like alcohol and cigarette sales - many kids simply get older people to buy it for them.

In unrelated news

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Sales of fake IDs up!

Re:In unrelated news

[renegadesx]

And clients for Jack Thompson down! not all bad see :)

'80s kids didn't want M-rated games

[Anonymous Coward]

'80s kids wanted their M-TV!

M-Rated Game Torrents to kids UP

[thewils]

,Pirate bay reports.

The summary should be...

[hedgemage]

Efforts to teach parents responsibility taking hold. More parents are actually putting some thought into child-rearing instead of simply buying their kids whatever they want.

So????

[Xinef Jyinaer]

The fact that kids are buying lower rated games doesn't really mean anything. Of all the game boxes i have sitting on my shelf, three of them are rated M: Counter Strike: Condition Zero, Halflife 2 and Dungeon Siege 2(This game is absolutely terrible in my opinion it cost me $80 and I hate it. It hardly deserves the M rating even). Of my other games: Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, Star Wars: KOTR, Warcraft III and The Frozen Throne Expansion, Star Wars Battlefront and Guild Wars; ALL of them are rated 'T for teen' (I also still have my Warcraft II box however it's rated 3 on the violence scale). There is a significant difference between a decline in the buying of M rated games and the decline of using M as a rating. Also why do you need to buy more games when you already own one MMOG (I leave out the RP because some of these games have no RP at all) such as World Of Warcraft (Rated T), Guild Wars (Rated T) or EverQuest (Rated T).

TEEN Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.

MATURE Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language. (http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp)
The dividing line is basically the sexual content since there are some games (Neverwinter Nights 2 for example) which allow you to turn down the violence. It seems to me that it takes quite a bit to make a game Rated M and you cut off a decent slice of the gaming crowd (Not really but potentially from a advertisers perspective [IANAA]) so why not just make the game fit into the T rating those games aren't so bad after all.

Re:What about Halo 2?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is sales *to* kids. If an adult buys it and gives it to their child that is perfectly fine and not the topic of the study.

Re:have fun

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how much is that link gonna net you in referal payments?

This raises some interesting points

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Perhaps it is not young kids that should denied access to violent material. Small kids are not really strong enough to really hurt anyone (unless they have handguns etc). It's more of a problem giving the violent urge to the 16-25 year olds who're tanked up on testosterone and physically capable of hurting people.

But that observation aside, I expect that the correlation between game violence and realworld violence is pretty weak. My kids (11 and 15) play shoot-em-ups and don't go around beating people up.

I once shot a real person in the real world in a civilian situation and would do so again in the right situations, yet I find games, and shoot-em-ups in particular, very boring. Shooting a real person is a very different act to blowing away pixels for points.

Re:This raises some interesting points

[Falladir]

Small kids are not really strong enough to really hurt anyone

So many snarky responses are coming to mind...

The worry is that the small kids are especially impressionable, not that they are especially dangerous.

When people assert that video game violence doesn't lead to real-life violence, they're thinking too narrowly. Children may be affected in any number of ways. (As an aside, did you see The Butterfly Effect? Considering the cast and concept, it was surprisingly good. In one very memorable scene, a young kid totally wrecks a guy. I think that was one of the most disturbing things I've seen in a movie. Imbue them with an inexplicable capacity for harm, and children become very scary.)

Re:This raises some interesting points

[LKM]

If games did have a negative effects on you kids, you would probably not notice it immediately.

Re:ESRB

[Faylone]

No more than the MPAA ratings and theaters not choosing to allow minors in to R rated movies without an adult. As long as it isn't government enforced ratings, it's okay.

Meanwhile, as kids play games on the Net

[WillAffleckUW]

They laugh at such restrictions.

Anime tentacle snake monsters unite!

Re:What about Halo 2?

[tepples]

One of favorite games, as of late has been "Ghost Recon 1"-- a wargame that at least pretends to be realistic. I'm not sure why it's rated 'M' For the same reason that Saving Private Ryan is R perhaps? War is one of the most violent things that human beings do.

Could World of Warcraft be somewhat to blame?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surprised no one has mentioned this yet...

Hasn't there been general grumbling about PC games being in a sales slump and that said sales slump is generally due to World of Warcraft?

Wouldn't it also stand to reason that fewer M rated games are being sold to kids as a result of aforementioned sales slump as the kids are all busy playing World of Warcraft? If they're all busy testing the profanity filter in The Barrens and Duskwood and generally annoying the other players wouldn't they be less likely to be seeking out other entertainment?

Myself (not a kid by a long shot) I have not bought many new PC games (meaning brand new) since I've been playing WoW. I've bought The Movies to fiddle around with (the only new new game), and I picked up Morrowind III: TES and Planescape: Torment a few months back since lots of people I know have raved about them. That's about it for my PC game purchases since I've been playing WoW.

I'm looking forward to seeing more about Spore and if by some bizarre twist of fate DNF should go gold I might buy that since the apocalyse will doubtless be upon us. Other than those two there just hasn't really been much coming out for PC that has made me go "OMG! I gotta have that game!"

Clarity of communication

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not moral/ethical issue, it's a technical use-of-language one. I personally think that pirating a game is ethically equivalent to breaking a speed limit, yet I don't call it "speeding a game". We already have a snappy 1-word term for infringing a copyright. That word is "pirating", and it's been widely accepted to have that meaning for well over a century. It's the same length as "stealing" so it's not hurting you to type it out. Use it!

Re:ESRB

[ConceptJunkie]

ESRB and sales restrictions are unconstitutional.

Wow, what country do you live in? Here in the U.S., there's no problem...

Games do influence you

[LKM]

I don't think any gamer who plays modern FPS can honestly say that it didn't desensitize him (or her, of couse) to a certain degree. It became really obvious when I went to see "children of men" with some of the people I work with. The non-gamers could hardly stand the violence, and some had to look away during some scenes, while the gamers thought it was cool, and even somewhat funny.

When I was in the army, gun training was on targets shaped like humans. They do that to get you used to shooting at humans. Do you really think that shooting at human-shaped figures in games does not influence you at all?

Do violent games turn you into a murderer? Of course not. Do they have a negative influence on you? It's not impossible - personally, I would guess that they do.

Of course, being adults, we should be perfectly free to fuck with our own minds. But if I had a child, I would not let him or her play realistic, violent games like GTA.

RTFA

[porcupine8]

If it were just that sales of M-rated games were down, you'd have a point. But they actually sent teenaged "secret shoppers" into the stores, and measured how often they were turned down when they tried to buy an M-rated game (or get into an R-rated movie, etc). And really, you can figure that out by the wording in the summary, so you've got no excuse.

Not surprising...

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at dates. This is the first major survey done since 2000. The ESRB ratings system was created in 1995, and the system went through a lot of changes up until 2001. Not to mention the competing RSAC standard was still around until 1999, which served to dilute awareness about the competing system. The last time they looked at the data, the ESRB system was only five years old, and was still undergoing heavy changes, with descriptors and rating levels being added and removed. It isn't surprising that enforcement was low. Now we're looking at a market where the rating system is unified and has been unchanged for 6 years. Of course the enforcement rate is going to be better!

I don't understand why they say the ESRB system "still has a ways to go"; at retail 42% of underage mystery shoppers were able to buy an M rated game, while 4/10 were able to see an R rated movie in theaters. That's the same rate or enforcement from our 12 year old game rating system as we see in our 50 year old movie rating system; I don't think we're going to get much better than that. On the other hand, 7/10 mystery shoppers were able to buy an R rated DVD from a retail outlet, which indicates that at retail the enforcement rate for movies is actually much worse than the enforcement rate for games. Why the double standard?

So they want our game covers even more cluttered..

[Anonymous Coward]

From their summery site:
The video game industry generally provides clear and prominent disclosure of rating information in advertising; however, the ESRB has not adopted the Commission's previous recommendation that content descriptors for games be placed on the front of game packaging.

I have to ask, why? They already have the darned rating on the front, the descriptor on the back, and in their investigation parents admit to using them & being more informed, so what is the problem? And there are always going to be lazy parents who buy little Timmy any darned thing he cries for, and make such purchases without researching them before hand online or even listening to some store employee's advice.

Reminds me of how a while back they have wanted something like the game rating taking up some absurd amount of the box's cover... While movies got away with having such ratings in small print, and not even having any content descriptors.

I think the ESRB is doing a great job and could improve on contend descriptors(maybe more in depth lists available online & in store), and it is a lot more then what the movie industry does and gets away with...

When I was 12

[SupremoMan]

When I was 12 my mother bought me Mortal Kombat II. I did not realize this then, but now I see it as yet another incident in a pattern of bad parenting behavior.

Re:What about Halo 2?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair not everyone who sounds like that on Halo 2 are kids... a lot of them are just virgins.