ESRB

Utah: Rated R for Ridiculous

by Nick Brown on March 10, 2009 · 1 comment

in Regulation, Tech & Telecom

Utah is on the verge of using it’s ‘Truth in Advertising’ bill to pass regulated enforcement of video game ratings.  The bill which was in some part drafted by Jack Thompson, the disbarred anti-violent games attorney from Florida, would fine retailers that sold games to underage customers up to $2,000 per incident.

The catch?  This only applies if they advertise that they conduct age verification, essentially encouraging retailers to remove all advertising that they check ID’s or age in some manner.  Retailers would be better off in this case not advertising in any way that they train employees to verify age before selling age restricted games.  This way if a slip up occurs—as it eventually will—the retailer wouldn’t be held accountable.

The legislation takes a giant step back considering that Patricia Vance, President of the not-for-profit ESRB ranking group, stated in an open letter to the Utah Congress that”

…the most recent such study reported in May 2008 found that national retailers refused to sell M-rated games to customers under 17 a remarkable 80% of the time, far surpassing the comparable rates of compliance for movies, DVDs, or music CDs rated for a mature audience…according to a recent audit, Utah video game retailers enforce their store policies regarding the sale of M-rated games an impressive 94% of the time — without any laws or requirements that they do so.  That level of compliance took many years to achieve, and speaks to the strong commitment of video game retailers to do the right thing.

Apparently a 94% success rate isn’t good enough for Utah who will ignore one of the best working models of self-regulation that any entertainment industry has ever seen or successfully implemented, and will instead take the opportunity to enforce government control in a way that will not prove successful and will cause greater problems down the line.

I whole heartedly agree with Matt Peckham of PCWorld when he says that,

Truth in advertising is important. No one wants to buy a “100% cotton” shirt that turns out to be 50% polyester or an LCD TV with a “full parts and labor three year warranty” that’s only honored for one. Retailers have basic authenticity obligations and consumers should have the right to take action and/or pursue remuneration when a retailer engages in deceitful advertising.

But voluntary self-regulation that hinges on an aesthetically amorphous value system resides in a legal gray area. No one’s going to disagree that selling a 50% polyester shirt as “100% cotton” is ethically wrong, deserving of legal consequences. But games ratings aren’t based on scientific analyses of the fiber content of a piece of fabric, and there’s plenty of disagreement over whether it’s the responsibility of stores or parents to enforce them. For some, game and movie ratings are simply advisory, and it’s up to parents to monitor what kids are up to, not some for-profit business, and most certainly not a bunch of at best tenuously culturally clued-in government bureaucrats.

Peckham’s insinuations that this is just the beginning are dead on.  And those like Jack Thompson that want to see violent or mature content banned from the face of the earth know just that, and are counting on it.  You see, when this model fails, politicians won’t return to the stage and admit they were wrong and redact the policy.  They will instead seek to legislate the issue even further and with a firmer grip.  This is simply the first flake in a snowball rolling down hill.

A Gamer Win For Parenting

by Nick Brown on February 23, 2009 · 2 comments

in Culture, Nanny State, Regulation, Tech & Telecom

If you’ve followed my posts here at OpenMarket.org or at my personal site, you’re well aware of the fact that I have a soft place in my heart for jumping all over any attempts by government to regulate video game ratings or content.  I always emphasize that we already have a great system in place with the ESRB and that it should be up to parents to decide what is appropriate for their children. Parents should take advantage of parental controls on their kids’ gaming systems to lock out games that have content unsuitable for children.

That being said, I feel obliged to praise the story of an individual who has avoided simply taking a superficial glance at what his child is playing, and has instead taken an honest interest and engaged their child to broaden his horizons on a subject.

Such a story is that of Hugh Spencer, a friend of Boing-Boing writer Cory Doctorow.  Spencer describes a confrontation with his son’s love affair with Call of Duty.  Some of us in this very office share this love affair, so we know just where he is coming from.  Hugh was a little concerned with the first person shooter-aspect of Call of Duty, and he was a little concerned about the violence.  The game was given a T (or Teen) rating, and his son was just thirteen years old.  On the other hand, Hugh, as a museum exhibition designer, was familiar with the content and felt it was historically accurate.  And even though the shooting and explosions concerned, him he knew that was the reality of World War II.

So Hugh set down with his son.  He took the opportunity to talk to him about what was going on in the game and made an agreement with his son:

I asked Evan to google the Geneva Convention. Then he had to read it and then we had to discuss it. This we did. So the deal is that Evan has to fight according to the rules of the Geneva Convention. If his team-mates violate the Convention then play stops and Call of Duty goes away for a while.

What a fantastic example of using a video game for a teaching opportunity.  And this is likely just one of many instances of good parenting that we don’t hear enough of.  This is also evidence that the ESRB works for parents, who should take note of the ratings system and watch what their kids play. Who knows? This just might open up more learning opportunities outside of video games based on the content of the game.

Bravo, Hugh!

More Grand Theft Common Sense

by Nick Brown on February 20, 2009 · 1 comment

in Regulation, Tech & Telecom

I used to think that the groups and individuals that sat around eagerly anticipating the launch of a new Grand Theft Auto (GTA) game were the fans.  I was wrong.  I am now positive the people salivating over these releases are those that intend to create an uproar over the games content and how it ‘endangers our children.’

Most recently to the forefront is media watchdog Common Sense Media.  The group that stated that HALO 3 was less violent than other first person shooters because, “there’s something a bit less impactful about killing creatures that don’t really exist.”  Just a hint CSM, but the characters in GTA IV don’t really exist either.

CSM’s recent review of GTA IV: The Lost & the Damned—episodic downloadable content (DLC) available exclusively on Xbox Live—highlighted the newest GTA controversy: FULL FRONTAL NUDITY.  Full frontal male nudity, to be specific.  As the scene has been described by countless outlets, it involves a politician in a steam room having a meeting with associates.  At some point in the scene it is revealed to the player that he isn’t clothed.

Hide your sons and your daughters!  They may see a digitized, pixelated version of something they’ve seen a thousand times on themselves, in the boys locker room, or health class.

Once again, this is an issue of parental supervision.  If you don’t want your kid playing it, don’t allow them to play it.  The Entertainment Software Association, the predominant trade association of the video game industry, reported last year that 94% of gamers under 18 were accompanied by a parent when they purchased their video games. Additionally, and more specifically, GTA IV: The Lost & the Damned is DLC off of Xbox Live.  You can’t go and buy it in a store.  You have to download it on your Xbox 360.  To do so, a  credit card transaction has to take place to purchase credits that you can exchange for online content in the Xbox Live store.  Or you can purchase a points card in a store to redeem on the system.

The bottom line is the DLC expansion of GTA IV must be purchased on Xbox Live.  What’s the significance?  Well in the first scenario.  If you child is purchasing content on Xbox Live with an adults credit card, there should be supervision over their purchases.  Secondly, and more importantly is that games have built in coding indicating their rating to the game system.  A parent can go into the game consoles settings and tell the system that it is not allowed to play games of a certain rating.  Then when the child puts a game into their system or tries to play downloaded content of a rating they are not allowed to play, the system doesn’t allow it to be played.

When parents are involved in what their kids are playing and watching on tv, common sense just tells us, that the children are less likely to be involved in content their parents don’t want them to be witness to.  I believe this message is beginning to get out, especially when considering some of the figures the ESA released in their report.  So there is a good chance that the message of watch dog groups advising parents of game content like Common Sense Media, the ESRB, and whattheyplay.com is reaching its intended audience.

But at the same time, it seems like some groups are trying to use bigger shock value to get people to their site or talking about their work at the detriment to the software.  However, if that is the method in which we are able to keep the ratings board unregulated and maintained by an impartial committee, I don’t have that big of a problem with it.