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?"
ESRB? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words (Score:2, Insightful)
Government involvement probably isn't the answer, and this hopefully is just one step towards another independant system.
Regulation on videogames is only needed... (Score:4, Insightful)
*Hyperbole alert.
Seriously though, it is (and should) ultimately be up to the parent to decide what their kid (read: under 18 years old in the US) can play. Even thats a bit arbitrary, as I was sixteen when I was playing Counter Strike, a 'M' rated game. Its more of the fact that I knew it was a game, and knew that it was not real. Six year old Timmy is more than likely unable to properly make the distinction.
More regulation by parents (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ESRB? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ESRB? (Score:2, Insightful)
In this day and age, most children have an independent source of income that allows them to afford games, consoles+TVs/computers and a private unsupervised apartment to play them in.
As you can see, it is impossible for parents to dock allowances and take away games if they disagree with the content. The kids will go to their private apartments and play them.
Thus, we need our tax dollars wasted^Wspent to investigate and enforce this issue.
Re:ESRB? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the ESRB should have the power to pull M-rated games from the shelf of a retailer who sells them to kids. That way there would be a business reason to enforce the ratings.
Maybe that's what the FTC means when it says the game industry has not regulated itself very well.
Bureaucracy.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bureuacrat: Yes, more needs to be done. And I need more resources with which to do it.
The exact topic du jour matters not one bit.
The primary motivation of any bureaucracy is to extend its dominion and claim more needs to be done.
A surprising number of organizations, many of the quite large, are basically moving along with this motivation and nothing more. I don't care to get flamed so I won't name names, but there's a lot of 'em.
Re:ESRB? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, they're already on that. Anyways, I think it's the parents' responsibility to figure out that there's a rating system; the ESRB's job is not to find every single parent and explain. The MPAA doesn't advertise their rating system at all, and their ratings and content descripters are much less intuitive and detailed than the ESRB's, yet it's the ESRB that always gets bitched at. Fuck that shit. Parents just need to read the fucking label, it's not that hard.
Re:ESRB? (Score:3, Insightful)
Today's society has changed. Teen and pre-teen children have larger amounts of finances than I did when I was a child. Television (and video games) and cash have become a steady replacement for babysitters, and often parents do not take an interest in what there child is doing.
The problem is still, ultimately, a parenting issue. It is in everyone's best interest to protect a child and have their parents be the decision maker. Enforcement wouldn't be a big brother approach, like some believe, but more a safety net. If a person, as a parent, would allow their kid to play a game that has been deemed age inappropriate, so be it. The parent would be the one to make the purchase. I just don't get what is so wrong with that.
Times change, and people tend to not accept it. When I was a kid, I remember going to the local store to pick up a pack of cigarettes for my mother. I was probably about nine, and the store was two hundred feet from the house. The act was innocent, and it was easy for the shopkeeper to know that (usually by a call-ahead from my mother). Of course, I am sure that there are a lot more nine year olds that would smoke the same pack of cigarettes in today's society, so enforcement of laws already on the book became more dominant.
Without something to enforce, then, the ratings system is - ultimately - pointless. Not because they don't get it right (most of the time), but because there is no substantial motivation for a proprietor to enforce them. Parents seem to be disinterested, removing any chance for a general honesty system to work.
Re:ESRB? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ESRB? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which, by the way, is a much larger problem than games.
Or (Score:5, Insightful)
One of my coworkers has twin boys age 12 and a younger one age 7. All play videogames. They all have their own computers, they all have their own gameboays etc. None play any games that he hasn't first. He tries them, and decides if he finds them acceptable. He uses the ratings as a guideline, but the ultimate decision is what he feels is ok for his kids. After all, he understands their maturity level.
I don't see why that's such a big deal for some parents. Nobody is saying you need to be a gamer or spend all your time playing games, but you can spend 30-60 minutes playing a game to see if it's acceptable. Hell, for that matter you can start playing games, play them with your kids. No different than any other activity you might dow ith your kids. Never know, might even find it fun, games are actually designed with fun in mind.
I just do not see this as a big problem. As a parent you need to be highly invloved in your kids' lives. Yes, that means your social life will suffer, but that's kinda the deal. I think there needs to be more emphasis on good parenting, less on how society can try to Nerf-pad itself to make sure kids never encounter anything harmful.
Re:do we really need more 'morality police' ? (Score:2, Insightful)
#2) The ESRB notice is FAR superior to the moving rating system... since it tells you why a movie got the rating it received.
#3) It's the PARENT'S job to oversee what their kids do, not the government, not the gameshop.
The government has been legislating for over 200 years... do we NEED any more freaking laws?!
DVD (Score:2, Insightful)
Games have been around for a short while compared to movies. Movies in the beginning went through the whole "they are evil and will corrupt our children" phase already. Been there, done that. Games haven't finished with it and it looks like they still have a ways to go. In the public's (or maybe I should say politician's) eyes, games are still seen as primarily for children. This has made it easier to let children buy any game they want. People still think child+game=ok. The last point I want to make is that the people who work at stores that sell games are not told (usually) to match the ESRB rating to the customer. If they aren't somehow motivated to do this, then they probably don't give a shit. I know people who got in trouble when they had summer jobs at a BestBuy and sold R moves to 11 year olds. I doubt they would have had the same thing happen if it was a M rated game. These are my opinions. I am not an expert, so please don't treat it as if I were.
I do agree with the assertion that it is ultimately up to the parent in these matters. If they choose to not pay attention to their children's game playing habits, they shouldn't have the right to complain. Also how do kids get the money to buy games these days. I don't remember having $50 laying around when I was 9.