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

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: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: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