FTC Says More Regulation Needed For Games 149
simoniker writes "The FTC has testified in detail to Congress that, though the game industry has 'made progress' in regulating the marketing of violent video games, 'more needs to be done.' It also revealed that it's conducted undercover surveys into whether underage gamers can buy M-rated games. It also commented: that '...the Commission will continue to monitor closely developments in the area and will initiate actions, such as the case challenging the marketing of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, when appropriate.' Will we see the FTC stepping in more often in controversial cases regarding violent video games?"
Finally (Score:5, Funny)
FTC asking for expansion of regulatory powers? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Regulation on videogames is only needed... (Score:5, Funny)
Prosser. (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdotter: > What exactly was wrong with the ESRB ratings we had already? They gave an age category and described any potentially offensive content. It was perfect. What more could we need?
Government: What do you mean "what more could we need"? These are regulations! You've got to legislate regulations!
Some factual information for you. Have you any idea how much damage that bulldozer would suffer if I just let it roll straight over that Constitution of yours?"
Slashdotter: "How much?"
Government: "None at all."
So... I actually read the article (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I know I'm also choosing to believe that the FTC wouldn't step in with some wide ranging rules allowing the ATF to become the ATGF. Although visions of moderately trained ATGF agents conducting a SWAT style raid on a LAN party do make me smirk. "Damn, those are good speakers! That really sounded like a flash-bang!"
Re:Regulation on videogames is only needed... (Score:2, Funny)