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

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

[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

[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

[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

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: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.

In unrelated news

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Sales of fake IDs up!

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.