Senate Introduces Truth In Video Games Ratings Act

[Sean Sands]

Senate Introduces Truth In Video Games Ratings Act

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) has introduced S.3935, Truth in Video Games Ratings Act, in the United States Senate requiring the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) to employ new methods for rating video games.

The Truth in Video Games Ratings Act would require the ESRB to make its ratings decisions based on hands-on access to the full game. Currently, the ESRB comes to its ratings decisions based on video presentations provided by game developers and producers. The bill, to prevent developers from trying to hide content from the ratings board, would have the FTC, "specifically define parameters for describing game content and what would count as a mischaracterization of a game?s content." Additionally the bill commissions a Government Accountability Study [http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/6386990.html] "to determine the efficacy of the industry?s ESRB ratings system and the potential for an independent rating system that would be controlled by parties with no financial interest in the video game industry."

Senator Brownback is also a co-sponsor of the recently passed Children and Media Research Advancement Act [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/newsroom/view/64828], and along with other notable senators is an outspoken critic of violent video games.

Permalink

 

[DanSheldon]

And again, a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. GTA:SA is the obvious catalyst to this. But look at what happened there. It was found that there was a section accessible that should have garnered the game a higher rating. They then had to burden the cost of replacing all copies currently on the shelves with AO ratings or modified versions. None of that is cheap and probably cut into their profits a good deal. Moral of the story: If you get caught with material you didn't show to the ESRB (whether intentionally or not, irrelevant), it's going to cost you money and time.

 

[Echolocating]

I wonder how release dates would be affected. I mean, these developers work feverishly right to the very end... now they have to take into account that some board has to review their game first before it gets a rating. Are the members of the ESRB really going to "play" every game to figure out each one's rating?

I'm very confused as to how this is going to work. I mean, Hot Coffee obviously spurred this whole thing... and that required some hacker to unlock it or something (I never played GTA:SA). The point is that this Act (and others like it) won't change a thing. DanSheldon has it right, in my opinion.

I have a sneaky suspicion that the ESRB will somehow justify a tax on games to cover their new and improved "part" of the process. Somehow, somewhere... this all boils down to money.

 

[Graham Templeton]

Great to think about, impossible to implement. Does the ESRB have the funds to employ the sort of manpower it would take to completely finish every game that it rates, taking the time to check every nook for even the hint of a cranny? No. And even if it did, the game would be completed by some teenaged QA reject, not a board of advisory; how can we trust the MINDS OF OUR CHILDREN to their subjective judgement calls?

Stupid, stupid, and unconstitutional.

 

[heavyfeul]

id like to see some game developers go the unrated route, i personally find this regulation crap to be inane and restrictive to the content that goes into video games, i hope with internet distribution of games the day will come when the wallmarts of the industry stop influencing games with adult content from being made.

i dont care about american kids, i dont care what they play or what 14 year old who is repeatedly mollested by his family goes off the deep end and kills them off, it isnt gtas fault his father and step mother were complete fuck heads.

all this political pandering pisses me off, dont senators have more important things to do like promoting there idiotic religion or sleeping with underage chinese prostitutes?

americans should ask for a refund...

I couldn't agree more. The government has no business restricting free speech. If the industry wants to volutarily participate in a ratings system to cater to the needs of their customers, fine. If we are not careful, pretty soon games and movies will come under the pervue of some entity like the FCC (Federal "Censorship" Commission). Let people make there own decisions.

 

[heavyfeul]

In a related note, Jack Thompson strikes again:

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=11011

 

[TomBeraha]

i dont care about american kids, i dont care what they play or what 14 year old who is repeatedly mollested by his family goes off the deep end and kills them off, it isnt gtas fault his father and step mother were complete fuck heads.

all this political pandering pisses me off, dont senators have more important things to do like promoting there idiotic religion or sleeping with underage chinese prostitutes?

americans should ask for a refund...

The senators feel a need to be involved because they care about re-election. The american public at large strikes me as a bunch of imbeciles who jump to conclusions on hearing news rather than turning it over a few times in their mouth before swallowing.

The real culprit I'd point a finger at is the American way of life - On the whole we watch TV for our information or we get it from others who watched TV. Our "news" shows are targeted for highest ratings, which we've proven time and again is the one that has the most sex, murder, and horrible things being done to children. So, shockingly, those are the things that they air when they have the opportunity. I love my country deeply. It makes it all the more painful that Americans on the whole don't care about anything beyond the here and now, and whether or not I know why that happened, it seems obvious that is what's happened. I don't know if it's better elsewhere, but at least here, we seem to be devolving to a animalistic state where we care more about our gain than societies.

- Tom

 

[Goofonian]

The american public at large strikes me as a bunch of imbeciles who jump to conclusions on hearing news rather than turning it over a few times in their mouth before swallowing.

Strangely enough, this is the way most people I know (I'm talking around 95% here) feel about americans as a general rule. This of course is not helped by the fact that nearly all of your politicians fit said description perfectly.
As far as I can tell, the USA does not have a very good image in the worlds eye right now.

 

[TomBeraha]

As far as I can tell, the USA does not have a very good image in the worlds eye right now.

Not that I can tell either. For whatever it's worth to any international readers; Not all americans are so willfully ignorant. I stay here because I believe in the ideas that rest in our constitution. I want to help fix the problems we've got now from the inside. I don't believe that abandoning this ship is the answer just yet.

- Tom

 

[Maruza]

I agree with pretty much everything said before me. Everyone here seems to be using logic to tear apart a bunch of pretend logic fueled by greed.

Stuff like this makes me feel sort of helpless. It's wrong, it's obviously wrong, and it's happening anyway.

-Thanks

 

[Lara Crigger]

Actually, I think this is a good idea; it's just doomed to be implemented poorly. The MPAA doesn't rate half-watched movies, and the RIAA doesn't hand out the "Explicit" tag by only half-reading CD lyrics sheets. If you are going to rate a game, you should take into account all the content in the game, just to be fair to the game.

However, games contain far more content than a movie or a CD - hours and hours worth - so as Graham points out, the ESRB would never have the time or money to get people to play all the games that are released. And that would affect release dates, as games wallow in committee, waiting for months, even years, to be rated.

What's the solution? I don't know. Children getting access to M rated games is a problem in this country, and the industry does not seem to be taking effective enough steps to prevent it. But... is it really their job to do that? Shouldn't the blame, if our politicians want to assign blame, go to the retailers who actually sell the kid the game, and even more so to the parents - gasp - who allow their kids to buy and play M rated games in the first place?

 

[heavyfeul]

Actually, I think this is a good idea;

I couldn't disagree more. We must be very careful on the powers that our government weilds when it applies to the domain of free speech. We already allow our government to censor television content and politicians have perfected the art of media manipulation. Should we now sit back and clap our hands as they stick their nose into the video game ratings system, handing down mandates to a private industry that already practices self-censorship?

If changes to the ratings review system need to be made, let consumers demand it from the industry. The more we rely on politicians to fix every little problem we have, the more control and influence they will have in over our everyday lives. It is a lot easier to give power, then it is to take it away. Once a government has been empowered in one form or another, they rarely yield that power back to the people. Once they get their foot in the door, it will be impossible to keep them out.

 

[Lex Darko]

Actually, I think this is a good idea;

I couldn't disagree more. We must be very careful on the powers that our government weilds when it applies to the domain of free speech. We already allow our government to censor television content and politicians have perfected the art of media manipulation. Should we now sit back and clap our hands as they stick their nose into the video game ratings system, handing down mandates to a private industry that already practices self-censorship?

If changes to the ratings review system need to be made, let consumers demand it from the industry. The more we rely on politicians to fix every little problem we have, the more control and influence they will have in over our everyday lives. It is a lot easier to give power, then it is to take it away. Once a government has been empowered in one form or another, they rarely yield that power back to the people. Once they get their foot in the door, it will be impossible to keep them out.

I have to agree with Heavyfeul on this topic. I'm sure many people have been to a game store in which a parent looks at the rating of a M rated game and still buys it for their 10 year old. I actually remember one incident where a child no older than 8 yrs old picked up a copy of GTA:VC handed it to his mother and said "I want this game." His mother said "are you sure it's rated M." He replied "yes, this is the one." At the counter in this particular store the clerk tried to warn the mother that it was inappropiate for kids under the age of 17 to play this the mother replied "this is what he wants."

No amount of government legislation is going to stop a situation like that and events like that happen everyday.

 

[Joe]

I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but I'm far more concerned by industry "self-regulation" than I am by the government taking interest into what we, as a culture, consume. When we left food inspection up to the meat packing industry with no oversight, fingers and feces made it into sausage. Without someone objective (and, sorry, the ESRB is propped up by successful videogame companies, including Take2, which means their duck-like ambling is sponsored by the very games they rate) overseeing what's going on, I'd hate to see what types of byproducts will eventually make it into what the ESRB doesn't see.

And that's really the issue, here. It's not censorship, it's just making sure these companies play by the rules they've allegedly agreed to. Will it slow things down? Probably. Can the ESRB afford this? I hope not; maybe their going out of business will pave the way for a better regulatory commission, one that bothers to educate people on what its ratings actually mean [http://gamepolitics.com/2006/10/02/212/].

And really, as anti-legislation as you guys seem to be, I'm pretty sure you don't like the idea of having to deal with the aftereffects of the digital equivalent of fingers in your ground beef. Sure, stuff like Hot Coffee gets by now. Personally, I don't see a problem with that appearing in a game already rated M. But what happens when companies like Massive start making subliminal advertising deals on the sly with game makers? If no one's looking at the whole game, stuff like that can get through. Do you really want to associate Link with Diet Coke or - gasp - voting Democrat?

Believe me, I'm about as anti-censorship as they come. But I'm also against regulatory bodies not doing their jobs, especially when they can lull people into a false sense of security.

 

[Lara Crigger]

Actually, I think this is a good idea;

I couldn't disagree more. We must be very careful on the powers that our government weilds when it applies to the domain of free speech. We already allow our government to censor television content and politicians have perfected the art of media manipulation. Should we now sit back and clap our hands as they stick their nose into the video game ratings system, handing down mandates to a private industry that already practices self-censorship?

No, that's not quite what I meant. I'm not in favor of the government regulating the industry more than anyone else is... but the Truth in Video Games Ratings Act is a good idea, if nothing else. If you're going to rate something based on its content, well, then you need to see all the content; you can't just rate it on half or some of the content and expect the rating to be fair.

But the problem is, what do you do with games that allow player-based content creation or modding? Or games that have no set end, like MMOs? And even if you assume that those games don't exist - which is a dumb and unfounded assumption - but even if you do, there's no way the ESRB would be able to play all the games released all the way through. There's not enough time and money for that. So, the proposal is impossible to implement in any meaningful way.

But the idea that ratings should apply to all the content? That's not a bad idea at all.

As for government regulation? Joe brought up a very good point, and an industry that regulates itself is destined for faulty regulation. An independent body is necessary for fairness. But is it the job of the government to do the regulating? I don't think so. (We don't expect governments to regulate books, after all.) But if not them, then who? I think it's a more complicated issue than how it usually gets treated in the gaming communities and press.

 

[Adam LaMosca]

Actually, I think this is a good idea;

I couldn't disagree more. We must be very careful on the powers that our government weilds when it applies to the domain of free speech. We already allow our government to censor television content and politicians have perfected the art of media manipulation. Should we now sit back and clap our hands as they stick their nose into the video game ratings system, handing down mandates to a private industry that already practices self-censorship?

No, that's not quite what I meant. I'm not in favor of the government regulating the industry more than anyone else is... but the Truth in Video Games Ratings Act is a good idea, if nothing else. If you're going to rate something based on its content, well, then you need to see all the content; you can't just rate it on half or some of the content and expect the rating to be fair.

But the problem is, what do you do with games that allow player-based content creation or modding? Or games that have no set end, like MMOs? And even if you assume that those games don't exist - which is a dumb and unfounded assumption - but even if you do, there's no way the ESRB would be able to play all the games released all the way through. There's not enough time and money for that. So, the proposal is impossible to implement in any meaningful way.

But the idea that ratings should apply to all the content? That's not a bad idea at all.

As for government regulation? Joe brought up a very good point, and an industry that regulates itself is destined for faulty regulation. An independent body is necessary for fairness. But is it the job of the government to do the regulating? I don't think so. (We don't expect governments to regulate books, after all.) But if not them, then who? I think it's a more complicated issue than how it usually gets treated in the gaming communities and press.

In industries where we worry about fingers ending up in chili or exploding automobile tanks or carcinogenic product additives, I think government regulation is a good idea. But we're talking about entertainment media here. We're talking about protected speech, not product safety.

The bottom line is that the ESRB already does a reasonably good job of informing consumers about the content of nearly all of the games that bear its ratings. The exceptions, like Hot Coffee and Oblivion, are relatively isolated and can be prevented in the future without sweeping, logistically impossible changes to the system.

For example, currently the ESRB asterisks online games' ratings with the disclaimer, "Game experience may change during online play." I see no reason why the issue of moddable content can't be handled in a similar fashion.

 

[Russ Pitts]

I think this is an issue of "who do you trust" economics. People are understandably mistrustful of the government, but what's ironic here is the level of trust being displayed for a regulatory body that is made up of and funded by the very businesses it is supposedly regulating. How would this same gathering of consumers feel about the CEO of AT&T taking over the job of the FCC Chairman?

I know there's some nostalgia (and I've shared it) over the good ol' days when films were not subject to the whims of the "concerned citizen" organization that is the MPAA, but movie producers are perhaps the most wretched human beings on the planet. We trusted them to govern the content of our films? Were we insane?

I personally like the ESRB and believe it does a good job. But I don't take the subject of content rating very seriously. Some people do, and I completely understand their logic. If I had children, I would probably feel more secure about the content to which they were exposed if someone other than the producers of that content was giving it a once-over before applying a rating.

 

[Ajar]

Actually, I think this is a good idea; it's just doomed to be implemented poorly. The MPAA doesn't rate half-watched movies, and the RIAA doesn't hand out the "Explicit" tag by only half-reading CD lyrics sheets. If you are going to rate a game, you should take into account all the content in the game, just to be fair to the game.

According to my understanding, the ESRB is supplied with videos of what the developer deems the "worst" content in the game, and the ESRB arrives at the rating based on that. So it would be more like rating a movie "R" based on having viewed the most gratuitously violent scenes, or the scenes that contain nudity.

But the problem is, what do you do with games that allow player-based content creation or modding? Or games that have no set end, like MMOs? And even if you assume that those games don't exist - which is a dumb and unfounded assumption - but even if you do, there's no way the ESRB would be able to play all the games released all the way through. There's not enough time and money for that. So, the proposal is impossible to implement in any meaningful way.

When I launch an online-enabled game, I generally see an ESRB message that says something along the lines of "Game experience may change during online play," presumably to account for 13-year-olds experimenting with profanity. It would be trivial for the ESRB to change that warning to read "Game experience may change during online play or with third-party modification," and I think that would be a reasonable extension of the system.

I think that if the problem is "underage" children gaining access to T, M, or AO-rated games, the obvious solution is to leave the ESRB and ratings system as-is and simply give the ratings legal weight. That is, make it illegal to sell an M-rated game to anyone under 17, and fine retailers that are caught violating the law. In fact, some jurisdictions here in Canada already do this.

I also think that the ESRB's rating system is flawed, but that's a separate discussion.

 

[TomBeraha]

*deep breath* okay folks.. here's my rant.

Maybe it's just me, but I personally don't think it's a stretch to pass legislation making parents responsible for their children. Or maybe that's just supposed to be common sense.

I don't see a need for a regulatory body of any kind. Parents should be involved in their children's lives. Letting the TV / Computer / Console watch them for hours on end is pathetic. Parents have been absolved of far too much guilt here. The culprit is NOT the video game industry, is not a lack of information about said games, because ANY parent who bothers to spend time with their children and research and understand their hobbys (read: Parents) will be able to intercede and handle issues as they come up.

Laws that make it illegal for porn to be distributed to minors certainly haven't stopped (or even slowed in my opinion) the minors from accessing it. So are we looking for a solution like that one? Do we want a finger to point at someone else instead of taking responsibility for our own actions so badly?

We need to remember that a law is not unbreakable, and that regulation is unperfect, and always will be. We need to remember that if something matters to us, that we have to put effort into seeing it happen (or not happen).

I realize that making parents responsible for their children seems unreasonable and unnacceptable to the massses, but perhaps we could stop for a second and wonder why that is? I've heard it argued that parents can't be there all the time, to which I respond, if you can't care for your child then don't have one. Caring for a child is a lot more than providing food and shelter. It's teaching and nurturing and helping them grow into good people. Parents don't have to be around all the time to monitor their children's behavior, monitor what games they play, what movies they see. Parents DO need to stop blaming third parties for corrupting children that they can't be bothered to spend time with.

- Tom