Microsoft Helps Out Battlefield Dad

[Jabberwock xeno]

What I find the most interesting about this whole situation was that the game was bought on a 9-year-old's account when the game can only be played by 13+ year olds.

And yet, he was still allowed to purchase the game.

Whether or not the warning was there I don't think is the issue, and if it was it seems that the game itself didn't even abide by it if it allowed a 9-year-old that he wouldn't have been able to play in the first place. That's just shady, I think, and as other people had pointed out before it's akin to letting a 16-year-old buy a beer, then calling the police on him due to "illegal possession".

...You got a point.

 

[Actual]

The terms and conditions state you must be 13 to register the account and you must register to play. As he is well above 13, according to the T&Cs he should have been able to register the account on his son's behalf.

This is a failure in the system, parental controls need to work both ways, limiting the content you don't want your child seeing but allowing those you do.

It's up to the parent to decide what is suitable for their child not anyone else.

Sorry, but America needs the "recommended age limit" to become a legal age limit. I know that opinion isn't exactly popular on here, but it would at least give some validity to decisions like this. The game was rated 13, the kid is 9. These are the same parents that moan when their kids are exposed to "offensive" material in games or online.

No, this is exactly the right sort of parent, one who takes the time to research what is suitable for his child. Your solution would make good parents criminals for daring to think they know their children better than the government or games industry.


Out of curiosity I'd love t know what would happen if a person on the Escapist with Publishers club membership admitted to being under-13. It's a year payment and at no point during payment (that I saw), does it say you need to be over 13. Of course it does say that when you make your account.

 

[Therumancer]

This follow up seems to miss the entire point of the parent letting his kid play an "M" rated game, especially under the current climate. I might be thinking of the wrong guy, but that seemed to be the gist of a lot of opposition, including mine.

As I said at the time I believe, PG stands for "Parental Guidance" which is the kind of product that a parent can choose whether their kid should or should not see, this is "T" for video games. The R rating stands for "Restricted" and is the equivilent of a video game's M rating. That means that a kid should under no circumstances be experiencing that material, and a parent who allows it is being negligent.

Cases like this are EXACTLY why games are going up before the Supreme Court. The ratings are not legally enforcable. It's not a crime to violate them, because they aren't part of the law. People want to make them a matter of law rather than a simple voluntary guidepost because of situations exactly like this, and letting the kid play that "M" rated game even with a Parent's permission pretty much proves the point being made by those pushing for legal regulation.

It's as much a matter of timing as anything, as I remember the details of this case, the situation is as bad as EA's "Your Mom Hates This Game" Ad campaign.

Truthfully I think this resolution came about due to fears of the bad press, and the loss of money it could entail. The companies putting money before responsibility is exactly how we got into this whole mess with gaming being threatened by legal regulation, and the threat to free speech that ultimatly entails.

If "we" wind up losing that case, and it snowballs into even worse attacks on our freedom of speech, this is the kind of case we're going to have to blame for it.

 

[Eri]

Andy, you sure are trumpeting pretty loudly in favor of someone who disregarded reading Terms of service just to save a few seconds. Shady or not, the companies were all doing the 100% legal thing and had the digital paperwork to prove it. While I might feel slightly sorry for him had he not gotten a refund, it was his own fault.

 

[Jumplion]

As I said at the time I believe, PG stands for "Parental Guidance" which is the kind of product that a parent can choose whether their kid should or should not see, this is "T" for video games. The R rating stands for "Restricted" and is the equivalent of a video game's M rating. That means that a kid should under no circumstances be experiencing that material, and a parent who allows it is being negligent.

Parents can still accompany their kids to an R rated movie (at least from what I've experienced), and plenty of them sneak into those theaters or are allowed access anyway, so I don't really see your point.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

its still bullshit, they shouldnt even allow a game to be purchased for an account that cant play it, if they do then thats a trap that should be illegal

I kind of agree. I'm glad everyone is happy, but if you're using a 9 year old profile, YOU HAVE TOF FUCKING READ!!!

I'm 21, I don't read age restrictions, because I'm in Canada and I was legal 3 years ago. a 9 year old or his father will have to read a little more carefully for fear of age restrictions.

I also feel the video was unecessary. It wasn't THAT far down and it was in caps

 

[Therumancer]

As I said at the time I believe, PG stands for "Parental Guidance" which is the kind of product that a parent can choose whether their kid should or should not see, this is "T" for video games. The R rating stands for "Restricted" and is the equivalent of a video game's M rating. That means that a kid should under no circumstances be experiencing that material, and a parent who allows it is being negligent.

Parents can still accompany their kids to an R rated movie (at least from what I've experienced), and plenty of them sneak into those theaters or are allowed access anyway, so I don't really see your point.

That's because the ratings are not legally enforced, they aren't laws. Things like the ESRB and MPAA are private groups, NOT part of the goverment, and have no abillity to pass or enforce laws. It comes down to the business owners to enforce the ratings on their private property, and people to otherwise abide by the regulations.

A parent CAN accompany a kid to an "R" rated movie, and isn't violating a any laws in doing so, though technically the MPAA could fine the theater owner if they paid attention. This is however negligent behavior and in something like a divorce case, one parent proving the other parent took the kids to see an "R" rated movie could be highly influential (and has been used before) because it shows negligent behavior.

Of course the biggest differance right now is that MOVIES are not being threatened by the goverment but GAMES are. Due to people and businesses not abiding by the rating system for games, there is an attempt being made to make those ratings legally enforcable. This means that if a parent lets a kid play an "M" rated game it becomes an actual crime. If a Gamestop employee sell an "M" rated game to a kid, even with parental permission, that also becomes a crime.

This is what the whole legal fiasco Governor Schwartzneggar started is all about, and why it's going to The Supreme Court. It's a free speech issue because the goverment isn't supposed to be able to regulate the media, and by making ratings legally enforcable and deciding what people can and cannot choose to access in ANY context establishes dangerous precent. I'm surpriused your not aware of this, it's been all over the news, and tons of articles have been on The Escapist about it.

At any rate, with companies being called negligent and not enforcing the ratings, and people PAYING ATTENTION due to this being fought in the highest court in our nation, and the side wanting to do the regulation looking for ammunition, a case with Microsoft, or any company, knowingly giving a minor access to an "M" rated game helps their case. They know that the parent in question is being negligent and has every intention of giving access to that game to a minor. There isn't even the plausible deniability involve in a situation where an adult buys a game and them privatly gives it to a kid later.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

Looking at that YouTube clip it does seem that the T for Teen rating was pretty easy to spot. That should have at least set some alarm bells ringing that a slightly deeper look at the ToS might have been in order.

 

[Vrach]

its still bullshit, they shouldnt even allow a game to be purchased for an account that cant play it, if they do then thats a trap that should be illegal

^This. Also, it's even greater bullshit that a parent can't override settings at his/her whim. The decision for a child to be able to play video games, of whatever rating, belongs to the parent - not to Microsoft, EA or any other related party.

 

[Jumplion]

Le Snip

Ah, okay, I see what you mean now.

 

[VincentX3]

Wow.. a miracle Microsoft does something good
End of the world is near.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Morale of the story: You get a refund for a 'non-refundable purchase' if you complain loud enough and get attention.

Happens in retail all the time. Policies only apply to those willing to roll over for them.

Is this a news post because The Escapist was the only site that would run with the story?

No, it's news because we say it is. Sir.

What I find the most interesting about this whole situation was that the game was bought on a 9-year-old's account when the game can only be played by 13+ year olds. And yet, he was still allowed to purchase the game.

Ding. If the game has an age policy and can detect if the age on the account doesn't meet it, it should not be sold. Taking somebody's money and then rolling out the age policy is, as you say, shady.

There's many ways to do it, you don't even need to know how the thing works, just look how isntructions.

I don't have an Xbox Live so I can't confirm or deny. Can you enlighten us?

The bottom line is that there are too many "should haves" throughout this case. Should Wetzel have read the T&C a little more closely? Sure. Should he, as a parent, be able to override an arbitrary age limit? Also sure. Should there be some mechanism for correcting situations like this without having to run through two separate customer service departments, a blog post and Twitter? I think so.

He didn't abuse the system, he made a mistake, and in my mind there's no question that mistake was helped along by EA. Hanging a guy out to dry for something like that is unfair.

 

[mjc0961]

Haha, I'm in the news. It's actually a little embarrassing somehow.

I still say he got way more than he deserved here. The block of text isn't THAT long, not when you compare it to the gigantic EULA. And no, that is not buried away. Hell, the guy found it in a place even I didn't know about (on the details page, before he clicks "download again"). If anything, his video shows how EASY it is to find the age requirement information both before you click anything that asks you to buy it, and then again before you confirm your purchase, and that it is indeed his fault that he didn't pay more attention before rushing to the "buy game" button.

But anyway, it's nice that this story got a happy ending for everyone: he and his son can play together, and Microsoft gets a nice chunk of respect and positive PR for going so far to make their customers happy. They could have just said "Sorry, it was right there that you needed to be 13, so you'll just have to wait 4 years to play." and I would have said "yep that's fair" and not have lost any respect for Microsoft. But this was really great, kudos to you for this MS.
Why does MS have such a bad rep among people anyway? At the very least, their Xbox team is great. Between giving that autistic kid and his mom lying about the kid cheating and Microsoft giving them some Xbox Live Gold time or MS points (I don't remember which) and this, you'd think more people would have nice things to say about them.

Ah well. All's well that ends well, I guess. Except you, EA. You still need to get rid of that EA Account shit: people's PSN and Xbox Live accounts should be enough for the console versions.

Ding. If the game has an age policy and can detect if the age on the account doesn't meet it, it should not be sold. Taking somebody's money and then rolling out the age policy is, as you say, shady.

That's on EA though, not Microsoft. It wasn't Microsoft's policies that said a 9 year old couldn't play the game. That was EA's constant requirement of having an EA Account to play any of their games online, regardless of platform. So I don't know what Microsoft (or Sony, since the same thing happens on Playstation Network) could really do here. Kids are normally only blocked from playing certain games if the parental controls are set for various ESRB ratings, otherwise you can play whatever you want at any age on PSN or Xbox Live. It's EA throwing in the extra age requirement here.
If we have to look at anyone to say "Do something to stop this from happening again", I vote we look at EA. MS and Sony do all they can by making sure that little blurb of terms and conditions says you have to be 13 for a required EA account. Of course, EA won't do anything. An EA account is another form of DRM and we all know how much they love to ruin the customer's day with that shit.

 

[Casimir_Effect]

Great, now someone who isn't old enough can play a game that was never meant for them. That's exactly how to keep the press off gaming when they complain minors are seeing violent content.

 

[magma]

What I find the most interesting about this whole situation was that the game was bought on a 9-year-old's account when the game can only be played by 13+ year olds.

And yet, he was still allowed to purchase the game.

Whether or not the warning was there I don't think is the issue, and if it was it seems that the game itself didn't even abide by it if it allowed a 9-year-old that he wouldn't have been able to play in the first place. That's just shady, I think, and as other people had pointed out before it's akin to letting a 16-year-old buy a beer, then calling the police on him due to "illegal possession".

I disagree with the last part because it isn't exactly accurate. They just sold something which could not be used under certain circumstances, like some of Microsoft's points cards (note: as it has been explained to me by Microsoft phone support some points cards are for whatever reason glitchy and will not get activated by your retailer when purchased properly... I was told this after 2 months of support not checking if it was this supposedly common problem).

 

[CustomMagnum]

This follow up seems to miss the entire point of the parent letting his kid play an "M" rated game, especially under the current climate. I might be thinking of the wrong guy, but that seemed to be the gist of a lot of opposition, including mine.

As I said at the time I believe, PG stands for "Parental Guidance" which is the kind of product that a parent can choose whether their kid should or should not see, this is "T" for video games. The R rating stands for "Restricted" and is the equivilent of a video game's M rating. That means that a kid should under no circumstances be experiencing that material, and a parent who allows it is being negligent.

Cases like this are EXACTLY why games are going up before the Supreme Court. The ratings are not legally enforcable. It's not a crime to violate them, because they aren't part of the law. People want to make them a matter of law rather than a simple voluntary guidepost because of situations exactly like this, and letting the kid play that "M" rated game even with a Parent's permission pretty much proves the point being made by those pushing for legal regulation.

It's as much a matter of timing as anything, as I remember the details of this case, the situation is as bad as EA's "Your Mom Hates This Game" Ad campaign.

Truthfully I think this resolution came about due to fears of the bad press, and the loss of money it could entail. The companies putting money before responsibility is exactly how we got into this whole mess with gaming being threatened by legal regulation, and the threat to free speech that ultimatly entails.

If "we" wind up losing that case, and it snowballs into even worse attacks on our freedom of speech, this is the kind of case we're going to have to blame for it.

No, it's not. From the MPPA's own website at http://www.mpaa.org/ratings/what-each-rating-means

R ? Restricted. Children Under 17 Require Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian. An R-rated motion picture, in the view of the Rating Board, contains some adult material. An R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements, so that parents are counseled to take this rating very seriously. Children under 17 are not allowed to attend R-rated motion pictures unaccompanied by a parent or adult guardian. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about R-rated motion pictures in determining their suitability for their children. Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures.

So no, what you're saying is the R rating is actually what the circumstances are supposed to be for an NC-17 rating.

 

[mjc0961]

Great, now someone who isn't old enough can play a game that was never meant for them. That's exactly how to keep the press off gaming when they complain minors are seeing violent content.

It's called parental supervision. This isn't some lazy parent buying GTA IV for his 8 year old kid and then blaming the game industry when his 8 year old kid "borrows" his car and drives over a sidewalk full of people because he thought it was fun in the game. Aside from the whole "didn't read the terms and conditions before buying" thing, he's actually being quite responsible being involved in his son's gaming (or as he puts it, dragging his son into his own gaming) and I do applaud him for that.

 

[Jamous]

It must be said; HUZZAH! I just get around the problem by saying I'm older than I am on my accounts; hasn't failed me yet.