Self-Regulatory Generals

[Joe]

Gamepolitics has a great write-up detailing what went down at the videogame hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday [http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/306226.html]. The panel of senators seemed pretty hell-bent on taking potshots at the FTC for not throwing the book at Take-Two over Hot Coffee, but what stuck out for me was testimony by Patricia Vance of the ESRB, and follow-ups from David Walsh of NIMF and Kim Thompson, a Harvard researcher who found that the ESRB doesn't consistently follow its own rating guidelines.

What struck me most was this passage:
For her part, researcher Kim Thompson suggested that the ESRB might do well to actually play the games which it rates (the ESRB relies primarily on game publishers to tell the ratings body what type of content games contain).

That's when it hit me. It's what's had me sitting on the fence regarding Hot Coffee, and occasionally nodding my head when the "bad guys" start passing stupid laws. It's a question that plagues me wherever I encounter situations like this:

In what world does it make sense to let an industry regulate itself?

 

[Joe]

Original Comment by: GlennZilla
http://[email protected]
I have to disagree with you.

My problem is that in Oklahoma where I live, I could be put in jail for the same charge as someone who shows thier child pronography. That should make me REALLY popular for my one year sentence in the county jail. The $1,000 fine I could recieve instead or along with the jail time really could hurt the gaming budget you know?

But mostly I am worried that legislation that is so clumisly executed as the farce that is Oklahoma's Games=Porn law will dry up the local retaillers. Sure the ESA plans to file a lawsuit but c'mon this is Oklahoma, we can't get Tattoos until November 1st, and our beer is watered down by law.

If the local retaillers are forced to card everyone that buys GTA:IV and Gears of War when they arrive in November (hoepfully) they will probably not make as much money. And Wal-Mart will likely pull all MA rated titles just to be safe. Thus we end up with fewer games available which drys up the market as people find new hobbies. Eventually I'm stuck smuggling in Halo 3 and forced to play it behind a locked door where my daughter can't find me.

I understand that Comics and Rock & Roll both survived similar censorship attacks, but both eventually capitulated to either self-censoring or seemy niche markets.

My largest concern is the pressure exherted on all businesses to make a profit create games that can be sold to anyone. This will squeeze out the funding for games that I might enjoy in order to get a better return on thier investment. Thus I am forced to play Barbie Horse Party 5 instead of Half-Life 4 or Resident Evil 5 as they will have a harder time securing proper funding.

If you worried about "carpon copy games" before just wait until developers are forced to work within the narrow guidelines of the "comtemporary community standard" the Oklahoma law sets down.

--GlennZilla

 

[Joe]

Original Comment by: Mark
http://frontal-lobe.net
If you don't trust the industry - which for all its mixed allegiances at least understands games and wants them to succeed as an art form - to regulate itself, then I can't imagine you'd trust the government to regulate it either.

 

[Joe]

Original Comment by: Bob_Arctor

Well. What we have in the UK seems to work OK. Mind you it's still very possible to buy a game underage with the new grey ratings. The old red 15s and 18s worked better at alerting the checkout guys. Mind you there is also the thing about how old you look, it's not like alcohol where if you look under 21 they ID you.

I think the states are getting in a massive stress over nothing. From this side of the pond it often seems that America is just mad, what with the scary religiousness, bizzare drinking laws, obsession with pornography and games...

 

[Joe]

Original Comment by: dosboot

First of all, don't take anything Kim Thompson has to say seriously. Thompson talks about how E rated games like pacman 'reward violent activites' and therefore are inconsistently rated. I don't know about you, but I don't consider pacman to be a violent game.
(link: http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/42535)

Also the ESRB is much less affiliated with the industry as a whole compared to the MPAA. The MPAA don't just rate movies, they are a lobbying group for the entire movie industry. The ESRB on the other hand is self-regulating and separate from the ESA (the analogous video game lobby). Like the raters for the MPAA, the people in the ESRB who decide the ratings are ordinary folks not tied to the industry.

I'm surprised to hear this sort of thing at the Escapist. You are usually hip to what is going on. It is plainly obvious that any real discussion about rating issues are being drowned out by politicians who want to scapegoat video games for everything.

 

[Joe]

Original Comment by: Funky J
http://www.funkyj.com
I've argued the exact same thing (albeit less eloquently) on the GamePolitics forums.

However, the issue that comes up is the MPAA, the organisation that reviews films, is also totally and completely industry supported, and is not legislative in power at all.

The Capitol Hill politicians and newspapers constantly bring up the MPAA in relation to the ESRB, but they work IN THE EXACT SAME WAY.

So, unless these politicans can prove beyond doubt that video games harm children BEYOND the way movies do, how can they justify treating the games industry differently to any other?

 

[Joe]

Original Comment by: GlennZilla
http://[email protected]
Well the problem is that there is no concrete evidence either way in the debate about the media's effect on children. Other than the well documented shortened attention span kids get from TV, online activites as well as games there's nothing but anecdotal evidence.

One of the aspiring legistlators made the mistake of coming to my front door last night. I unloaded on her. By the end of it I couldn't tell if she was greeing with me to shut me up or that I had made my points clear.

But after discussing them for a week and a half now with any friend or victim nearby I have narrowed my concerns to a few bullet points.

? Games held to a higher standard than other media. (A mature "R" rathed movie is viewable by any 17 year old or with an accompanying adult, no such provision in the OKlahoma Law. I just get a year in the county jail if I am spotted. Also there's no penalty if your child is caught watching "MA" tv shows.)

? Vague defintions of "excessive violence". For example, one of the definintions in the Oklahoma Law would make Star Wars: A New Hope "Excessivly violent" since the violent destruction of Alderran shows nothing of the repurcussions for such wholesale murder. And I could go on about thier "Violence that does not advance the plot", have they never seen professional wrestling?

? Lumping Violent Video games in with Pornography. If I have to go to jail because my daughter came into the room while I played Halo 2, then why do I get the same conviction as the guy who took pictures of his daughter's girly bits?

I think the problem is that non-gamers don't have any understanding of games. For many they only remember Pong, Pac-man or "that nintendo thingy". They are then appalled when someone shows them the spraying blood in the Gears of War trailers. So they overreact and enact ill-prepared legistlation. The problem I feel is that gamers should explain to the non-gamers that a video game is not a babysitter. You can't give a 13 year old free access to Xbox live and Halo 2 and expect him not to act like the thousands of others just like him.

In a prefect world all this could be ended with some clever PSA's that show all the controversial games and platforms with "NOT A BABYSITTER".