Dennis McCauley's Game Politics has been by far the most complete and well-reseached source for coverage of the ever increasing collisions between the video game industry and the worlds of politics and law. This weekend, McCauley published an editorial claiming that Washington, with its recent congressional hearing about games and previous senate hearing, has been barking up the wrong tree by questioning people like the Entertainment Software Association's Doug Lowenstein and the ESRB's Patricia Vance. Rather, he argues, Capitol Hill should be demaning answers from executives at Take-Two and Rockstar, the companies involved with last year's Hot Coffee incident that put a renewed focus on legislating games. As a means to pin down specific responsibility for the events, he has come up with a few questions to start off:

-who conceived the Hot Coffee idea? -who created the animations? -who eventually decided to nix it from the final version? -why it wasn't removed from the disc entirely? -did insiders realize the active and highly-skilled GTA mod community would find the sex animations? -why did Rockstar and Take-Two lie about Hot Coffee when it was revealed? -why did they try to blame the mess on their biggest fans, the GTA mod community?

McCauley notes that many game-related bills currently being written, debated, or passed have had the momentum to continue only because of the lingering Hot Coffee uproar. "In California, for example, Leland Yee's video game bill was, by his own admission, dead in the water in June of 2005," he writes. "Hot Coffee burst onto the scene in July. By October, Yee's bill had been passed and signed into law. It now awaits a ruling from a federal judge on its constitutionality." Noted designer Warren Spector had some critical words for Rockstar last year, McCauley notes, despite his admiration and respect for the ambitious game designs the company has pioneered. The driving point of the Game Politics editorial seems to be that, as would be the case with a particularly controversial book or movie, the issues regarding controversial games should be limited to those particular games rather than forcing the industry as a whole to defend itself in broad strokes.

Read more »

In March, the United States Senate held a hearing to discuss the potential harmful effects of video games. Yesterday, the House of Representative Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee held its own hearing, and as with the Senate the prevailing emotion throughout was one of hostility towards the game industry and the Entertainment Software Ratings Board in particular. ESRB president Patricia Vance was present along with Entertainment Software Association president Doug Lowenstein. The Federal Trade Commission, which recently warned Take-Two for last year's Hot Coffee incident, was represented by Bureau of Consumer Protection director Lydia Barnes. Also in attendance were Harvard associate professor Kimberly Thompson, Childrens Technology Review editor Warren Buckleitner, and National Institute on Media and the Family president David Walsh, both critics of the ESRB. Vance discussed a new initiative from the ESRB to issue fines of up to $1M to video game companies that fail to disclose objectionable in-game material to the ESRB for rating purposes. This is in addition to the FTC's warning to Take-Two that further incidents would be met with fines of $11,000 per violation. Depending on the judge interpreting such a case, a violation could refer to the lack of disclosure as a whole, or each specific copy of the game in question sold to consumers. Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) kicked things off by noting that video games provide potential fun and entertainment, claiming that the core gaming audience remains children. (The latter statement runs contrary to statistics stating that the majority of the gaming audience is of adult age.) Stearns then criticized Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PS2, Xbox, PC), a constant theme throughout the hearing. He claimed that the game's violent content is undeserving of First Amendment protection, being "more akin to hate speech than free speech." Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) expressed frustration that the FTC did not fine Take-Two for its actions, as it would have against a television broadcaster or a radio show, claiming that the publisher has seen no consequences from the scandal. However, it should be noted that, unlike video game publishers, network television and radio broadcasters send free content over public airwaves. Following discussion largely focused on violence in video games, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) criticised games for their depictions of explicit sexual acts, claiming that young gamers are being desensitized to such content. She also touched on sexual predators acting via the internet. Lowenstein compared the video game industry film and music, noting that an entertainment medium should not be judged based on only its most notorious works. "Defining this industry based on its most controversial titles would be like defining the film industry based on Kill Bill, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Natural Born Killers," he said, "or the music industry based on Eminem, 50 Cent, and The Dixie Chicks." Vance delivered an address in defense of the ESRB's rating system. She provided results from a parental survey on ratings systems, indicating that among the systems used for movies, music, and video games, parents find the ESRB's video game ratings to be the most useful. Vance also touched on the aforementioned new ESRB fine. Thompson and Walsh each delivered testimony harshly critical of the ESRB. Thompson highlighted alleged cases of soft ratings by the ESRB, claiming that 60% of games rated "E for Everyone" reward violent actions. At one point during the hearing, Vance pointed out that most parents, as well as many congressmen present, would disagree with Thompson's claim that Pac-Man is indeed a violent game. Walsh also mentioned the recent Sex in Games Conference, describing it as "a meeting between video game developers and the pornography industry." Panel members were also subjected to direct questioning from representatives, much of which had a hostile tone. For more exhaustive coverage, check out Game Politics and GameSpot. A transcript of Vance's testimony is available from the ESRB website.

Read more »

At this year's E3, there were some posters on display featuring characters clearly drawn by Mike "Gabe" Krahulik of Penny Arcade. Each character's poster was labeled with one of the well known ESRB content ratings: E (Everyone), T (Teen), M (Mature), and so on. Now, the ESRB has sent out an announcement explaining the characters. Penny Arcade created the series of characters as part of a campaign by the ESRB to remind actual gamers of the purpose of ESRB ratings. "We don't expect to ever be considered cool among gamers, but at the very least we want gamers to understand the purpose we serve," said ESRB president Patricia Vance. "After all, many of them will be parents one day, at which time we expect they will be far more appreciative of the tools we provide."

For the past several years, gamer magazines and websites have loyally and consistently supported ESRB PSA campaigns, with over 70 ads published generating 25 million impressions. However, game enthusiast publishers felt that the ESRB ads, which target parents, were somewhat disconnected to their readers and the editorial environment. The Penny Arcade campaign was developed with this expressed purpose in mind, and does not replace the existing ESRB OK to Play? ads, which will continue to appear in all non-game enthusiast media.

Only the first two ads were revealed alongside the announcement, both corresponding to the E (Everyone) rating: Sarah and The Andersons. Characters corresponding to the remaining ESRB ratings, most of which were on display at E3, will presumably be formally revealed in the near future.

Read more »

Today, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board issued a parental warning announcing that the rating for Bethesda Softworks' The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (X360, PC) has had its rating changed from "T (Teen)" to "M (Mature)". The change follows the ESRB's reevaluation of certain violent and sexual content in the game. As well as determining that the depictions of blood and gore in the game are in fact of greater intensity than was originally taken into consideration when the game was first rated, the change also reflects the Hot Coffee-like discovery of hidden files within the game that, when accessed via a fan-created mod, allow gamers to play the game using topless female characters. These files are only accessible within the PC version of the game, but it appears that due to the violent content, the rating change will apply to both the Xbox 360 and PC versions of the game.

The pertinent content causing the change in the ESRB rating involves more detailed depictions of blood and gore than were considered in the original rating of the game (the game already carried a Blood and Gore content descriptor), as well as the presence in the PC version of the game of a locked-out art file that, if accessed by using an apparently unauthorized third party tool, allows the user to play the game with topless versions of female characters. The locked-out topless skin was found by ESRB to exist in a fully rendered form on the game disc, but is not accessible in the Xbox 360 version of the game.

Rumors have emerged in the past few days that Oblivion has been pulled off the shelves of many retailers, which is now explained by the ESRB's action. According to the organization, developer Bethesda is contacting retailers to ensure that the game is not sold to consumers under the age of 17. Stores will also be required to rebrand existing packaging with "M (Mature)" stickers, which will be included on the packaging of further print runs. Bethesda is also working on a patch for the PC version of the game that will disable access to the offending art assets. Coincidentally enough, Oblivion is co-published by Take-Two Interactive, parent company of Rockstar Games. Last year, Take-Two and Rockstar were blasted for similar hidden materials in Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PS2, Xbox, PC), in last year's "Hot Coffee" scandal. When accessed through a mod or a third party "cheat code" device, players were able to participate in a mini-game depicting sexual activity between consenting adults. "This proactive move to change the rating once again confirms that ESRB's first priority is to ensure that consumers have reliable, accurate information with which to make educated decisions about the games they or their children play," said ESRB president Patricia Vance. UPDATE: Bethesda Softworks has issued a press release responding to the ESRB's rating change on Oblivion. The response indicates that Bethesda will be acting in full compliance with the wishes of the ESRB on the matter, but is also firm in stating that Bethesda proceeded in good faith throughout all of its dealings with the ESRB in obtaining the original "T (Teen)" rating for the game. Bethesda reiterates that there is no nudity in Oblivion without players resorting to a third party modification, and the company is currently working to ensure that such tampering cannot occur in the future. The developer also maintains that it fully disclosed all violent content in the game during the ratings process, including indicating that the game has "frequent" blood and violence as well as "occasional torture, vulgar acts, and gore." Co-publisher does not expect the change to affect the success of the title, which has seen universal acclaim and strong sales figures since its release in March.

Read more »

The Federal Trade Commission has released results of its most recent yearly investigation of video game retailers, tracking how easy it is for minors to purchase Mature-rated software. The availability of games featuring violent and sexual content deemed "M" is a crucial point in much of the attempted game-related legislation that has sprung up recently. Drafters of bills which would federally regulate such games claim that laws are necessary since retailers do not do their job in checking customers' age and limiting game sales as appropriate. However, it looks like that situation is improving. While the results of this 2005 study are less than ideal, results have improved each year since the study began in 2000, making 2005 the best year yet. This past year, 42% of underage shoppers were able to buy an M-rated game, down from 85% in 2000. Forty-four percent of stores gave ratings information, up from 12%, and 50% of involved employees asked the customer's age, up from 15%.

The shop, conducted between October 2005 and January 2006, involved 406 stores in 43 states selling electronic or video games. Three hundred and six of the stores were national retailers, while the other 100 were local and regional sellers.

The undercover shop is the fourth conducted in connection with the Commission's reports on the marketing of violent entertainment media to children. The Commission plans to conduct another undercover shop later this year to test whether young shoppers are able to buy tickets to R-rated films at movie theaters, R-rated movies on DVD, explicit-content labeled music recordings, and M-rated video games.

Perhaps not surprisingly, it appears that national chains, which generally have strict operating guidelines for individual stores, scored significantly better than local and regional chains. In fact, across categories, national chains scored almost twice as well as local and regional chains (the numbers given above are an average of all stores). This is the first year that a majority of underage shoppers were not able to buy M-rated games. The steady improvement in each of the three categories is good news for organizations such as the ESRB, which defends the self-regulatory system of game ratings and will likely use these figures to show improvement when appealing further potentially harmful legislation.

Read more »

Been wondering what's going on in the world of game legislation and controversy? No? Well, here's an update anyway. This week: - A $600M lawsuit against Rockstar Games, owner Take-Two Interactive, Sony, Wal-Mart, and GameStop was allowed to continue by the Alabama Supreme Court this week. The companies are being blamed for a 2003 incident in which car theft suspect Devin Moore grabbed a police officer's gun and started shooting, killing two officers and a dispatcher. His actions were painted as being influenced by Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Game and retail industry groups had appealed to throw out the suit. At the time of his arrest, Moore made the widely quoted statement, "Life's like a video games. You've got to die some time." - The US Senate this week held a hearing on the effects of violent video games. The hearing came at the request of Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), one of the four senators who proposed the Children and Media Research Advancement Act. Witnesses from the research community included the American Psychological Association's Dr. Elizabeth Carll, who stated that her organization's "analysis of violence in interactive video game research suggests exposure increases aggressive behavior, aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal, and decreases helpful behavior," and the University of Illinois' Dr. David Bickham, who noted that "scientific research has repeatedly demonstrated that children learn what video games teach." ESRB president Patricia Vance testified in support of the self-regulatory ratings organization, pointing to the comprensive nature of the ESRB's ratings and the quickness with which it reacted in the Hot Coffee scandal. Republican Assistant Majority Leader of the Minnesota House of Representatives explained a bill he is sponsoring in his state, seeking to fine minors $25 if they purchase an M-rated game; the law would not take any action against parents or guardians buying Mature games for minors. Paul Smith of law firm Jenner & Block spoke in support of the industry, citing several instances of courts defending video games as a form of expression; in the past, Smith has represented publishers such as Acclaim, Activision, Capcom, Eidos, Infogrames, Interplay, Nintendo, Sony, and Square. Law professor Kevin Saunders of Michigan State University disagreed, likening playing video games to playin more traditional games such as pinball, an activity not protected as expression. Also present was Rev. Steve Strickland, brother of one of the slain police officers in the above incident. - Since Shack is going Oblivion-crazy: Christopher Weaver, who you might know as the founder of Elder Scrolls developer Bethesda Softworks, has written an editorial for Next Generation in which he decries a violently offensive mobile game called Office Massacre. Weaver took issue with developers wanting to capitalize on controversy for its own sake. "Creativity demands that we can do better than copying tragic life events for crass entertainment," he said. (Office Massacre has since been cancelled.) - Game Politics has reactions from California Assembly Speaker pro tempore Leland Yee (D) regarding Yee's presence in a panel at last week's Game Developers Conference. Yee is the author of a California bill seeking to limit the sale of violent games to minors. The GDC panel discussed the impact of legislation on games and how the industry should react.

Read more »

As you have probably noticed, the legal and political climate surrounding video games and the video game industry is becoming absolutely stifling. The number of laws being proposed or passed on a daily basis relating in some way to the restriction or regulation of games continues to grow. Of course, most of them are struck down by the courts, but the fact that politicians feel compelled to keep proposing them, and elected officials continue to pass them at the senate and house levels, indicates that the general sentiment about games is not a good one. When politicians are unable to pass laws that restrict game sales or content, they obtain funding for surveys that will potentially allow them to do so. At this rate, don't be surprised if some of these attempts end up sticking. While it may be difficult to gain a broad perspective on the issue as a gamer, when it's easy to ignore the constant assault and observe the industry largely operating as usual, public opinion is undoubtedly very negative. At this point, there are over seventy pieces of state legislature in the U.S. attempting in some way to regulate video games, and there are multiple measures at the federal level as well across party boundaries. This would simply not be so widespread if the average citizen who elects the politicians in question supported or was indifferent to video games. With the non-gaming public's knowledge of games being that they might kill you and with their loudest educator being Jack Thompson, who continues to testify in game-related cases and speak as an expert on national television despite how much we may think he has been discredited, it should come as no surprise that the public opinion of games is largely uninformed and negative. Why is there so little resistance when video games are presented as nothing but killing simulators? Why doesn't anybody know about Ico or Katamari Damacy, other than the people playing them? In fact, one would say that much of the public is very aware of games such as The Sims, but nobody from the games industry ever seems to be around pointing that out when John Pundit is decrying the entire medium on TV. And, really, why aren't there more games for gamers that aren't so violent? Let's be honest with ourselves here, when the core audience of a medium does, in all frankness, spend so much of its time virtually killing things, that's bound to attract attention. I'm sure that after seeing that, a good number of readers have bristled and are prepared to be loudly offended in the comments section, but really, it shouldn't come as that much of a surprise that people might see our hobby at least as something a bit odd. At last year's E3, Entertainment Software Association president Doug Lowenstein--you know, the guy who comes out and pats everyone on the back in those articles about game legislation being struck down--posited an question to the industry. "We've all seen games that depict content which is constitutionally protected artistic expression and yet which also raises the question of whether it really was necessary to realize the designer's artistic vision. That's not a call for censorship or government intrusion into video game sales," he said. "But it is meant to say that it is fair for critics, and us, to ask whether everything that is cool and pushes the envelope is, in fact, creatively necessary." It is enlightening to note that Lowenstein's address was given before the whole Hot Coffee incident. A year prior to that, I had a similar train of thought in an editorial entitled "I Kill You." In the last few weeks, much of this seems to be reaching critical mass. SILOE Research Institute executive director and former VP of LucasArts global sales & marketing John Geoghegan gave a 12-step presentation at the Game Marketing Conference. He spoke on how the games industry, and its marketers in particular, should be presenting games to the public. (From Goeghegan's address: "How not to market in a hostile environment? Basically, don't do everything we're doing right now," and "We're not making friends. I haven't seen this much animosity since big tobacco told congress that cigarettes are not addictive.") Dennis McCauley of the excellent site Game Politics this weekend published a call to the ESA to step up its efforts not just in response to legislation but out in public, to the people who are supporting such legislation. Late last month, the ESA hired a lobbyist to promote its interests in Washington. And, this morning, the ESA launched the Video Game Voters Network, an organization dedicated to raising awareness and action among gamers about the political situation surrounding the industry. Currently, it is centered around the Family Entertainment Protection Act proposed late last year by Hillary Clinton. The act would assign federal enforcement to ESRB ratings, but also gives the FTC the power to circumvent ESRB ratings if mandatory investigations reveal what are determined to be misleading or incorrect ratings. The VGVN calls for gamers to write their senators and point out that neither cable television, books, nor movies are federally regulated in the way proposed by FEPA, and nor should games. Hopefully, the ESA's latest effort is indicative of a change in attitude on the part of the industry; for one thing, organizations such as the ESA need to be involved all along the line, not just to appeal to courts after bills have been passed. Ideally, gamers will send a stronger message to their elected officials as well. At this point, there are many, many people--politicians and otherwise--who want to damage games and the games industry, and clearly somebody needs to return fire.

Read more »

A nonpartisan group of four United States senators--Sam Brownback (R-KS), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), and Rick Santorum (R-PA)--have proposed legislation authorizing research into the effects of various media such as video games on the development of children. Press releases announcing the legislation were also sent out by Lieberman, and Clinton. The Children Media Research and Advancement Act (CAMRA) has been approved by the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP), which means it will be going to the senate floor for consideration. One of the press releases stated that the act would be allocated $90M over five years, but this appears to be referring to a prior version of the study proposed in 2004. Specifically, CAMRA calls for a research program within the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in association with the National Institute of Health (NIH). The CDC would run a six-year study analyzing the effects that various electronic media (such as games and television) have on the social, emotional, physical, educational, and behavioral development of minors. Diplomatically, none of the press releases mentioned violence or aggression as hypothetical effects of media. "Electronic media is so pervasive in children's lives that it often plays the role of a babysitter, even going so far as to define the cultural norms children come to accept," warned Senator Brownback. Last week, Brownback also spoke out against the growing amount of violence on television, in response to a study on children's programming: "I fear too many parents have an unjustified sense of security when they place their children in front of the television. I hope this new study from the Parents Television Council will demonstrate that children's programs are not necessarily free of violence, crude language, and coarse humor."

"Today's vote by the HELP Committee is a big step toward helping parents get the information they need about the effect of media on their children," Lieberman said. "America is a media-rich society, but despite the flood of information, we still lack critical information. As policymakers -- and as parents -- we have a responsibility to examine the effects of media on our children, a responsibility this legislation can better enable us to fulfill. No one is looking out, in a systematic way, for cumulative impact of today's newer electronic media on our children. The questions about the effects - positive or negative - of media on our children's health, education and development are too important to go unasked and unanswered."

The senators proposing the bill are certainly well known to gamers who follow legislation targeting games. Clinton, with the support of Lieberman, recently attempted to federally enforce and overhaul ESRB ratings, and Lieberman has been one of the longest-standing critics of the industry since before the founding of the ESRB. The reason for a CDC-led study is clear; up until now, research directly linking video games or other media to altered behavior or development in young people has been generally contradictory or less than credible. However, a six-year collaboration between the CDC and NIH would surely be seen as the definitive research on the matter. If it turns out the results the that Clinton, Lieberman & co. are expecting, it would add needed firepower to the largely ineffective attempts at curtailing or regulating the sale of violent video games. Most legislation that is passed or proposed dealing with allegedly harmful content in games is struck down because, without conclusive evidence that such content is directly harmful to minors, such legislation is considered a violation of free speech under the First Amendment. As far as what would happen if such survey demonstrated tangible negative effects on minors, there doesn't seem to be a clear cut answer based on past rulings. For example, when striking down Illinois legislation attempting to legally forbid the sale or rental of violent games to minors, Judge Matthew Kennelly did point out that there was a lack of conclusive research supporting the law, but he also stated that, "In this country, the state lacks the authority to ban protected speech on the ground that it affects the listener's or observer's thoughts and attitudes," suggesting that even if such research were to be produced, the First Amendment would take precedence. However, a federal judge indicated in regards to a failed St. Louis County, Missouri law that "the county may constitutionally restrict the speech at issue here" if "empirical support" is provided showing a link between games and behavior. Marv Johnson, speaking as legislative council to the American Civil Liberties Union, indicated concern with the legislation: "Down the road when--if there is some sort of finding that there is harm in this--then we're going to see calls to regulate speech because of the potential harm. That's where there's going to be a problem." ESA president Doug Lowenstein hasn't released any statements yet, but that should be coming any moment now.

Read more »

Last week the National Institute for Media and Family gave the games industry its 10th annual report card, awarding it an overall grade of D-, as well as an D- for Retailers' Enforcement of ratings policy and an F for for Ratings Accuracy. Well, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, which is the North American organization that assigns content ratings to games, has responded with its own report card for the NIMF. Calling the NIMF card an attempt to "undermine parental confidence" in a system that more than 80% of parents believe assigns accurate ratings, the ESRB graded NIMF on Full Disclosure of Pertinent Facts, Research and Analysis, Documentation of Presentation and Evidence, and Working Well with Others. Each category was assigned an F grade. Unsurprisingly, NIMF received an F overall, with additional Demerit for Neglecting Parents' and Childrens' Best Interests. ESRB president Patricia Vance explained the justification for the grades in a public statement.

"In recent years, the report card concept has become increasingly arbitrary, simple-minded, and silly, more of a headline-grabbing tool than a parent-helping tool, and NIMF's 2005 report card continues that disappointing tradition. For years, ESRB respected the work of NIMF, recognizing it as a serious-minded watchdog group sincerely interested in helping parents make smart media decisions, and for this reason we have previously sought to engage them in a cooperative and productive dialogue. But this year NIMF made clear that its real agenda is to undermine parent trust in the ESRB. We will not allow NIMF to mislead parents about the accuracy and effectiveness of ESRB ratings. Accordingly, and reluctantly, we have little choice but to publicly challenge NIMF's numerous inaccurate and misleading claims."

While some may call the ESRB's grades uncalled for, it is no different from the F grade assigned by NIMF for Ratings Accuracy. When most surveyed parents believe that game ratings are correct, it is clear that NIMF was not referring to the industry as a whole but rather to the one standout example of the year, namely Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The grade was nothing more than a political jab, which has no place in such a report. After taking undue fire this whole year, the ESRB has finally responded in kind.

Read more »

An Illinois law that would have gone into effect January 1, limiting the or rental sale of particularly violent games to minors, has been shown to be unconstitutional by U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kennelly. Supporter of the bill claimed that games with very violent or sexual content have a negative influencing effect on children, but Kennelly claims that they "have come nowhere near" to tangibly demonstrating why the measure should be upheld. He also pointed out that there has not even been a conclusive causal link between games and violence, or at least not one that runs the way the bill's supporters claim.

"Defendants have failed to present substantial evidence showing that playing violent video games causes minors to have aggressive feelings or engage in aggressive behaviour...With these limited findings, it is impossible to know which way the causal relationship runs: it may be that aggressive children may also be attracted to violent video games." ... "In this country, the state lacks the authority to ban protected speech on the ground that it affects the listener's or observer's thoughts and attitudes," the judge wrote.

It was certainly good news for groups such as the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, which helped launch the suit to block to the bill. IRMA president David Vite said, "It's unfortunate that the state of Illinois spent taxpayer money defending this statute. This is precisely what we told them would happen." Entertainment Software Association president Doug Lowenstein also chimed in, noting that "this is the fifth decision of this type," suggesting that attempts to impose legal restrictions on game sales end up on shaky ground. The ESA is also contesting Hilary Clinton's recently proposed Family Entertainment Protection Act, which seeks to give the federal government certain degrees of power over the ESRB.

Read more »

Attempts to legislate the games industry aren't showing signs of letting up. Senator and former first lady Hilary Clinton (D-NY) has announced her intention to present her Family Entertainment Protection Act to Congress in two weeks. The bill will be presented along with fellow Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), for years one of the more outspoken politicians on the subject of video games. Clinton's legislation has five main points, focusing on both retailers and the ESRB, the industry's voluntary ratings board. The FEPA puts a prohibition on the sale and rental of Mature- and Adults Only-rated games to those under the age of 17, resulting in fines for violating retailers. It also allows the Federal Trade Commission the authority to conduct a yearly random audit of retailers to guage the effectiveness of retailers in upholding the new policies. Clinton's bill maintains the ESRB as an appropriate ratings system, though it seems to include provisions allowing for that to change. It gives the FTC a mandate to investigate the problem of misleading or incorrect ratings, such as those found in the Hot Coffee incident. If that is found to be widespread, the FTC may take ambiguous "appropriate action." Additionally, the bill demands an annual analysis of game ratings to ensure that the ESRB maintains its standards and "does not change significantly over time." Finally, it requires that the FTC receive complaints from consumers regarding alleged misleading practices in regards to ratings; such complaints would be presented to Congress. Of course, the industry responded, and unsurprisingly did so by way of Entertainment Software Industry president Doug Lowenstein:

"While we are gratified that the Senator holds the ESRB in such high regard that her bill would give these ratings the force of law, the courts have made clear that giving a private party governmental powers is unconstitutional. Beyond that, the bill clearly infringes the constitutionally protected creative rights of the video game industry. Thus, if enacted, the bill will be struck down as have similar bills passed in several states. So while this bill is positioned as a pro-family measure, in truth it will leave parents no better off."

One of Clinton's justifications for her bill is the latest annual report card on filed by National Institute on Media and the Family, which gives the industry a 10-year cumulative grade of D-, based on factors such as Ratings Education (C+), Retailers' Policies (B), Retailers' Enforcement (D-), Ratings Accuracy (F), and Arcade Survey (B-). It notes unhealthful effects of games, stating, "Increasingly, it seems that the average gamer is getting heavier," but did not qualify that gamers are also widely known to be getting older. There was a response to this as well, coming from Interactive Entertainment Merchant's Association president Hal Halpin, who raised doubts as to the scientific validity of sting operations conducted by the NIMF. He noted that yearly requests to the organization to disclose its methods have been denied, and claims that its findings are informed by a poor sample rather than "actual real-world market value." He pointed out that the industry had vast improvements in retail, with underage "secret shoppers" in sting operations being turned down 56% of the time attempting to purchase M-rated games compared with 19% in 2000.

Read more »

I'm telling you, that Mario Kart DS is really good. I feel like I'm going to have a fun stroke or something.

Read more »

North America's video game ratings organization, the ESRB, has come under a lot of fire recently for being an inadequate resource to inform parents and make sure that games are being played by their appropriate audiences. Many believe that an industry such as the games industry cannot be trusted to self-regulate when it comes to categorizing potentially harmful content in its products. Even many gamers believe that putting the rating responsibilty in an independent hands would, if nothing else, cast less blame upon the industry itself when controversies such as the Hot Coffee incident arise. On the other hand, some gamers believe that it would be dangerous to take control out of the hands of the industry. Online trade magazine Next Generation has an interview with ESRB president Patricia Vance, in which Vance defends the ESRB and explains why it should remain in control of ratings information. She notes that the actual ratings themselves are assigned by independent sources, and points to films as a good example of another self-regulatory industry.

"The real issue, frankly, boils down to why parents are happy to make those purchases for their kids. They saw the five descriptors on GTA, and the M rating. Why isn't the parent hesitating before bringing that home? Because parents have the right to make up their own minds about what's appropriate for their kids. Parents are involved in a purchase something like 90% of the time. They are either making the purchase of approving the purchase."

So which way should it work? Would an independent organization be a bad move, or is the ESRB botching it up?

Read more »

Trade publication Next Generation has posted a claim that the ESRB is to blame when it comes to poor ratings in games. A board independent, not industry-dependent, should launch a revision of ratings decisions; they say the ESRB has brought us shame. Well, that's what they say; what they've shown us today is a new ratings system technique. It rates violence, sex, language each on their own scale, presenting each one as unique. There are three traffic lights, one for each category, and red, yellow or green tells the degree. Parents check out these lights, determine how much is all right for their game-playing child to see. Seems a bit complicated, just a tad overrated? Pun surely intended, but the article's recommended to see a new side of the situation. With recent events, might be good to prevent further criticism to an industry organization. Uh, sorry about that. In somewhat related news, the Entertainment Software Association joined with the Video Software Dealers Association to, as promised, file a lawsuit attempting to overturn California's recently passed legislation forbidding sale of violent video games to minors. The lawsuit is focusing on perceived violations of First Amendment rights as its primary argument. In response, the bill's author Leland Yee has launched sharp criticism yesterday against the industry, apparently claiming that the industry as a whole "is not concerned with the health and welfare of our children; they are simply concerned with their own financial interests." California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who recently approved the bill, strongly supports the video game industry but has stated certain games should not fall into "the wrong hands" or the hands of children. Note: the first paragraph of this news item should be read as a poem.

Read more »

Gamasutra reports that the Entertainment Software Rating Board has emailed all major publishers, asking them to check all games launched since September 1, 2004 (a nice random date) for hidden content ala the Hot Coffee scene in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Any extra material that can be unlocked through cheat codes or mods must be reported to the ESRB by January 9 of 2006. The board may then re-rate the title if the extra material does not conform to the game's original rating. The ESRB also warns that "punitive in addition to corrective actions may result" if publishers do not notify the board of any games that might contain hidden content and then have that content unlocked. And then there's this

Finally, the ESRB addresses third-party 'mod' content which could potentially change the game's suitability, but was not inserted by the game's developer, commenting: "ESRB remains concerned about third party modifications that undermine the accuracy of the original rating, and we are exploring ways to maintain the credibility of the rating system with consumers in light of modifications of this nature."

Read more »