ESRB Ratings "Awareness" May Be Maxed Out

[Andy Chalk]

ESRB Ratings "Awareness" May Be Maxed Out

The president of the ESRB says awareness and use of its videogame rating system among parents may be as high as it's going to go.

Whenever the topic of videogames and violence comes up, somebody always mentions how important it is to make parents aware of ratings. The "Gun Violence Prevention Task Force" report [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122029-Gun-Violence-Task-Force-Calls-For-Research-Parental-Tools] filed earlier this month made a point of noting that "the entertainment and videogame industries have a responsibility to give parents the tools to make appropriate choices about what their children watch and play." But what do you do when everybody who wants your tools already has them?

"We have seen a fairly stable percentage of parents in terms of awareness and use in the last several years," ESRB President Patricia Vance told GamesIndustry. "I don't know how much higher we're going to be able to push that. We're now at about 85 percent awareness among parents with kids who play videogames, and 70 percent say they use them all the time or most of the time."

Vance said those numbers could slowly rise as lifelong gamers become parents themselves, but it could just as easily go the other way as parents who are more familiar with games and less suspicious of their deleterious effects decide for themselves what their kids can play without relying on ratings. Either way, Vance said the agency will continue its consumer outreach activities. "I don't see us backing off despite high awareness and use levels," she said. "It's part of who we are."

She also dismissed questions about taking part in unified ratings for television, movies, music and games, saying that such a system would be "dumbed down."

Source: GamesIndustry [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-02-13-esrb-awareness-may-be-maxed-out]


Permalink

 

[thesilentman]

No cure for reading it seems. Seriously people, the ESRB rating is on the front and back of the freaking box. If you can't notice that, I'm not sure what else to say here.

 

[J Tyran]

A related question, why the resistance towards legally enforced age rating for games in the US?

 

[Godhead]

A related question, why the resistance towards legally enforced age rating for games in the US?

Because it's viewed as inhibiting freedom of speech as videogames are legally classified as "art" in the US. We had a big case over it with the Supreme Court and they ruled the law as unconstitutional.

 

[Phlakes]

A related question, why the resistance towards legally enforced age rating for games in the US?

It can be a bit of a slippery slope when the government is deciding things like that. And most retailers are already doing a decent job on their own, even if it could be tightened up online.

EDIT: Also what he said^

 

[mateushac]

A related question, why the resistance towards legally enforced age rating for games in the US?

It's mostly about freedom of speech. Theoretically, you cannot restrain people's access, regardless of age, to the works protected by freedom of speech (which is the case o videogames)

(At least that's what the supreme court ruled here in Brazil. I guess the same must apply in the USA)

 

[Andy Chalk]

A related question, why the resistance towards legally enforced age rating for games in the US?

The First Amendment is the "freedom of speech" one, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." That includes books, music, television, film, the works. There are certain exceptions which are exempt from First Amendment protections, but U.S. courts define those exceptions very narrowly and anything that does not fall within that definition is protected.

Legally restricting game sales is problematic for a couple of reasons. One, it opens the floodgates to similar restrictions on other media - the "slippery slope" argument that if we can ignore the First Amendment for games, then why not for other things as well? Second, it would impose restrictions based on the medium rather than the content. Look at this way: Pornography is exempted from First Amendment protections, but nobody is talking about restricting all movie sales because some movies are porn.

It's a complex issue and the U.S. is unique in the way it has codified freedom of speech laws into its constitution, but I think we're all better off for it.

 

[Jodah]

A related question, why the resistance towards legally enforced age rating for games in the US?

As others have said, free speech is the primary reason. Another reason is that it would put video games into the same category as: pornography, tobacco, alcohol, and firearms, in that it can be restricted by the government. No other form of entertainment media is "officially" censored or restricted by the government.

 

[grigjd3]

A related question, why the resistance towards legally enforced age rating for games in the US?

While there has been plenty said about this above, I would like to provide an example of a government agency defining what we can see: the FCC. The FCC has a policy of refusing to thumb-up or thumb-own content before it goes to television and then responds to complaints with fines. The result is that fines get arbitrarily placed on certain content and there doesn't seem to be any restriction to other content which may or may not be viewed as worse. The point of the matter is that the agency is effectively being run by a set of people with a clear religious/moral agenda and in the end, this just doesn't jive with the values we've built this country on (don't bother with the hypocrisies, I know they are there). Any agency we set to adjudicate who can see what will have some agenda they will push, either their own agenda or another's. So if the agency decides that global warming is a scam by scientists trying to get those fat government-grant-salaries, then they could easily decide that any reference to global warming is not allowed. Or they might decide that violence against Arabs is fine but violence against Americans is not (see modern warfare). It's a possibility I'd rather live without.

 

[LordLundar]

if that's true how come so many parents still complain about violent video games(teen or mature) getting into the hands of young children??

"Best enforcement out of the bunch" simply means it's higher. It's still a long ways from perfect. As well, the enforcement is only as good as it's allowed to be. Too many parents blindly buy an M-Rated game for little jimmy not paying attention until they walk in and see a dismembered head on the screen. They then proceed to blame the industry for "exposing her precious child to such filth" because they don't want to admit that they are the problem.

 

[Something Amyss]

No cure for reading it seems. Seriously people, the ESRB rating is on the front and back of the freaking box. If you can't notice that, I'm not sure what else to say here.

The thing is, for all the blame being passed around, video games have the best rate of self-policing and the ratings system is well known/understood. It's a better system than the PA label on music, a better system than the MPAA, etc.

People are quick to jump on the "stupid people" bandwagon, but the ESRB is reaching more people than it's given credit for.

Now, if we could just do something about all those parents who let their 9 year olds play M rated games online....

A related question, why the resistance towards legally enforced age rating for games in the US?

People insist free speech, though this concept is largely erroneous (sorry, Andy). The right to sell one's games largely falls under commerce, which Congress can control. I've always found this argument to be really stupid. You have the right to speak in any format in which you would like to express yourself. You do not have the unfettered right to release a product. The First Amendment was never intended to cover commerce. That's why we have like 90 sections that reference it explicitly in the body of the Constitution, etc.

Though on a related topic, I'm not a fan of a nanny state.

A related question, why the resistance towards legally enforced age rating for games in the US?

Because it's viewed as inhibiting freedom of speech as videogames are legally classified as "art" in the US. We had a big case over it with the Supreme Court and they ruled the law as unconstitutional.

If you mean Brown v EMA, the ruling was specifically based on the grounds of the case, where California tried to rule that games don't qualify as art.

I'd be willing to bet that a case that went to the SCOTUS on commerce grounds would be a VERY different result.

The anti-gaming lobby is kind of like Ken Starr. Back in the 90s, there was a very good chance Hilary (and possibly Bill) Clinton could be nailed for a real estate scandal known as Whitewater. A special prosecutor named Ken Starr, in all his infinite wisdom, decided that he was going to instead crusade against Slick willy getting a consensual blowjob in the White House and effectively blew the case. No pun intended.

Schwarzenegger and company decided, instead of arguing on commercial grounds, played ball with the "free speech" argument and tried to remove free speech protections from games so that their current legislation would work. That's like trying to rebuild your entire car because you left "the club" on.

I'm really dating myself with this post.

if that's true how come so many parents still complain about violent video games(teen or mature) getting into the hands of young children??

It's usually parents complaining about other children, and this isn't a unique phenomenon. There's a similar case in Congress where everyone hates Congress but most people are fine with their own representation.

"Kids shouldn't have access to these games. Oh, but my kid is a special snowflake."

I really think NO child should be playing these games, especially not online. Part of the problem is that everyone does think their child is a special snowflake. I've heard kids cry because they lost at Modern Warfare, and nobody was even insulting them. They just lost. Parents always think their kids are different. They won't believe they are bullies or dicks, or whatever. Hell, even given proof most of them will be in disbelief.

The thing is, the FTC does undercover shopper tests every year, and games are pretty hard for kids to buy.

Without the aid of a parent or other adult. This is where the system tends to break down, but it's not a gaming thing.

This also brings up one of the big problems with any such legislation: unless you criminalise buying a game for your child, you're not likely to do better than the current self-enforcement. And really, if you try and make it illegal for parents to dictate what they can buy, you're going to lose the support of shitty parents everywhere, because "ain't nobody gun tell me how to raise my kids!"

 

[RicoADF]

A related question, why the resistance towards legally enforced age rating for games in the US?

The First Amendment is the "freedom of speech" one, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." That includes books, music, television, film, the works. There are certain exceptions which are exempt from First Amendment protections, but U.S. courts define those exceptions very narrowly and anything that does not fall within that definition is protected.

Legally restricting game sales is problematic for a couple of reasons. One, it opens the floodgates to similar restrictions on other media - the "slippery slope" argument that if we can ignore the First Amendment for games, then why not for other things as well? Second, it would impose restrictions based on the medium rather than the content. Look at this way: Pornography is exempted from First Amendment protections, but nobody is talking about restricting all movie sales because some movies are porn.

It's a complex issue and the U.S. is unique in the way it has codified freedom of speech laws into its constitution, but I think we're all better off for it.

Having ratings enforceable by law is not restricting freedom of speech, how the US can be so backwards and allow kids to buy mortal combat I will never know. Yes there are guidelines that the stores should follow, but there's no enforcement and thus they can sell to whoever they want. All media needs ratings to be enforced, remember its banning games that restrict freedom of speech, not enforcing ratings. People that argue the slippery slope are paranoid over nothing.

 

[Something Amyss]

if that's true how come so many parents still complain about violent video games(teen or mature) getting into the hands of young children??

"Best enforcement out of the bunch" simply means it's higher. It's still a long ways from perfect. As well, the enforcement is only as good as it's allowed to be. Too many parents blindly buy an M-Rated game for little jimmy not paying attention until they walk in and see a dismembered head on the screen. They then proceed to blame the industry for "exposing her precious child to such filth" because they don't want to admit that they are the problem.

Or they insist Jimmy can handle it and then call everyone ELSE bad parents for doing the same.

 

[Andy Chalk]

People insist free speech, though this concept is largely erroneous (sorry, Andy). The right to sell one's games largely falls under commerce, which Congress can control. I've always found this argument to be really stupid. You have the right to speak in any format in which you would like to express yourself. You do not have the unfettered right to release a product. The First Amendment was never intended to cover commerce. That's why we have like 90 sections that reference it explicitly in the body of the Constitution, etc.

I must respectfully disagree. If there was any reasonable case for game sales to be regulated under commerce laws, at least one of the many individuals and states who have attempted to impose such laws would have taken a shot at it - and not just with games, but with books, music, movies, literally every medium that has ever gone to market. We're not talking about whether or not you can sell your product but whether or not a citizen of the United States has a right to consume that product. Beyond very specific and narrowly-defined exceptions, the government cannot restrict a person's access to speech in any form.

Again, pornographic movies are legally restricted - movies as a medium are not. Likewise, pornographic games are legally restricted, but the medium of videogames is not, and should not be.

[/benstone]

 

[Riley Holt]

I think as a gamer, when I become a parent, I'll use the rating system to decide if I need to observe the game more closely. E? Go for it. T? If the kid is at least 8, it's fine (seriously, T is a really low rating). M will require further scrutiny.

A "Halo"-like game is far less deserving of keeping out of children's reach than, say, Manhunt, or some similar game. At least in the first one, you were a SPACE MARINE shooting SPACE ALIENS because SPACE RING. And I'm not being a dick. I liked Halo. But it should have been in some not-yet-created "older teen" rating. Sort of the video game version of PG-13, because there's a HUGE gulf between PG and R. Maybe "T 15+"? Or the EU Rating. PEGI 16, is it?

... Just checked the PEGI website. PEGI ratings are 3, 7, 12, 16, 18. Because really. What's the point of E 10+, ESRB? Same with "AO," because those games are nigh-impossible to find (since they tend to basically be "porn-games" as opposed to being violent). But I digress, and the more I ramble, the more off-topic I get. Point is, there should be a little bit of a shuffle with the rating system. And as a gamer in his mid-20s, I'll know that "M" games at least deserve to be looked at a bit closer before purchase. Because it'll likely be "Call of Modern Duty 45: Gotta get Those Terrorists: Black Ops: Zombie Edition," than anything that'll actually scar the kid.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Having ratings enforceable by law is not restricting freedom of speech, how the US can be so backwards and allow kids to buy mortal combat I will never know. Yes there are guidelines that the stores should follow, but there's no enforcement and thus they can sell to whoever they want. All media needs ratings to be enforced, remember its banning games that restrict freedom of speech, not enforcing ratings. People that argue the slippery slope are paranoid over nothing.

There are those who believe that the fundamental freedom of expression is pretty important, and sometimes that means taking the good with the bad - or with the things you don't happen to personally agree with.

 

[RicoADF]

Having ratings enforceable by law is not restricting freedom of speech, how the US can be so backwards and allow kids to buy mortal combat I will never know. Yes there are guidelines that the stores should follow, but there's no enforcement and thus they can sell to whoever they want. All media needs ratings to be enforced, remember its banning games that restrict freedom of speech, not enforcing ratings. People that argue the slippery slope are paranoid over nothing.

There are those who believe that the fundamental freedom of expression is pretty important, and sometimes that means taking the good with the bad - or with the things you don't happen to personally agree with.

Were not talking about restricting freedom of expression though. This is about ensuring that retail stores follow the guidelines about what's allowed to be sold to minors. If a parent buys the kid the movie or videogame its not illegal to watch/play. That way 10yr olds can't buy GTA behind their parents back. Ratings enforcement and censorship are 2 different things, which Americans can't seem to understand (probably because you've never had it, so fear the unknown). I will emphesise, this isn't restricting freedom of speech, its enforcing the ratings that already exist and are agreed apon.

edit: fixed spelling errors caused by phones stupid spelling auto correct.

 

[Something Amyss]

Having ratings enforceable by law is not restricting freedom of speech, how the US can be so backwards and allow kids to buy mortal combat I will never know.

I understand where you're coming from, but this is a nation that doesn't even want to restrict kids access to FIREARMS.