FTC Says More Regulation Needed For Games

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?"

Re:ESRB?

[DaSenator]

They are. The ESRB contacted the great guys from Penny-Arcade to come up with a new ratings awareness campaign. Here are two links below. http://www.penny-arcade.com/esrb_andersons.jpg [penny-arcade.com] http://www.penny-arcade.com/esrb_sarah.jpg [penny-arcade.com]

BBFC

[abigsmurf]

The UK's BBFC system works well Independant from the government and from studios, non profit organisation that receives it's funding from review fees. It ratings for individual titles aren't influenced by media or public pressure but for its overal guidelines it surveys the public to see what they think is acceptable. Bascially if someone goes "who thought XXXX was a film suitable for 12 and unders?!?!" the BBFC can essentially say "you did".

Re:Finally

[Yst]

Quoth the article,

Lydia Parnes, Director of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection, told the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection...

Quoth the poster,

they've already fixed all the other problems in the world like... the war in Iraq, FEMA handling the New Orleans relief, stopping Iran from producing nukes, world-hunger, huge corporate scandals, huge governmental scandals

So are we to understand that the Congressional Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection should redefine its mandate as being focused on urban disaster relief, foreign intervention, corporate law and governmental oversight, while abandoning any prior objectives, merely because those stated objectives aren't as grand in scale of moral import as others we can point to if we try?

I'm bloody sick of this sort of argument. The FTC may be despicable at times, but this is not an argument which serves in any way to illustrate that point. The existence of 'bigger fish to fry' in government policy does not imply that all branches, committees and appointees within the system should, ideally, cease to operate or perform their duties the moment an issue of the day completely irrelevant to their role but of greater general import arises.

Re:BBFC

[Indefinite, Ephemera]

Just to clarify the parent: the BBFC [bbfc.co.uk] classifies games insofar as it's required to as the designated authority for the Video Recordings Act, and so only the 15+ and above ratings are required. (For games in general there's PEGI [pegi.info].) For films there's a wider set of classifications; the BBFC's role in the film industry predates its legislative functions. I don't know how much flexibility the Video Recordings Act offers to reflect public opinion in practice, but I suspect it's less than the Board enjoys in its non-statutory role.