On this LGJ, commentary on the recent Supreme Court decision.
Read on!
Showing posts with label Game Ratings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Game Ratings. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
LGJ: You down with FCC?
In this LGJ, a discussion of the role of the FCC and a little talk about the idea of universal ratings.
Read on!
Read on!
Monday, January 14, 2008
Best Buy Video Game Ratings Shenanigans
An interesting anecdote has appeared on the Consumerist blog. To summarize the story, a 21 year old went to a local Best Buy to purchase a copy of Assassin's Creed (Rated M) and a Xbox Live Gold card. The protagonist of our story had his 15 year old brother in tow, as he was taking him to dinner. Upon getting to the counter, the clerk made a series of loud statements to everyone in line that he was "illegally purchasing a video game for a minor." After a string of banter, the 15 year old left the store, the patron waited in line again only to have the store refuse him yet again, this time on the half-baked theory that the gift cards were "stolen." Needless to say, the customer left the store, went to a different Best Buy, and purchased the game without an issue.
I must say this is one of the worst cases of store clerk vigilante-ism I've run across, and is disturbing on a number of levels. First and foremost, the rating system is voluntary. No state has yet passed any regulation barring the sale of any game to anyone that has withheld scrutiny in a court of law. To have clerks declaring random acts "illegal" on their own authority is disturbing, and the fact that the manager saw no reason to rectify the situation (or, for that matter, also bought into this arbitrary declaration of legality) speaks very poorly of the management of the store. More importantly, it may suggest that Best Buy's corporate policy may need to be revisited and revamped to have a clear, uniform policy in stores nationwide. Second, this particular anecdote rises past the level of restriction I've seen some store clerks operate under with regard to alcohol and tobacco. Should a law ever be passed, it raises serious concern that minors won't even be allowed in the store, which would essentially end the sale of M rated games entirely. Third, it's further discrimination against the medium. Would this clerk have even blinked if it were an R rated movie rather than an M rated game? I somehow doubt it.
While I'm sure this anecdote will make a certain attorney happy, the rest of the gaming community should keep a vigilant eye out to prevent these kinds of problems from being widespread. Moreover, when issues such as these are made public, the corporate offices of the retain store should be made keenly aware that it will cost them sales if they allow their store clerks to harass paying customers.
I must say this is one of the worst cases of store clerk vigilante-ism I've run across, and is disturbing on a number of levels. First and foremost, the rating system is voluntary. No state has yet passed any regulation barring the sale of any game to anyone that has withheld scrutiny in a court of law. To have clerks declaring random acts "illegal" on their own authority is disturbing, and the fact that the manager saw no reason to rectify the situation (or, for that matter, also bought into this arbitrary declaration of legality) speaks very poorly of the management of the store. More importantly, it may suggest that Best Buy's corporate policy may need to be revisited and revamped to have a clear, uniform policy in stores nationwide. Second, this particular anecdote rises past the level of restriction I've seen some store clerks operate under with regard to alcohol and tobacco. Should a law ever be passed, it raises serious concern that minors won't even be allowed in the store, which would essentially end the sale of M rated games entirely. Third, it's further discrimination against the medium. Would this clerk have even blinked if it were an R rated movie rather than an M rated game? I somehow doubt it.
While I'm sure this anecdote will make a certain attorney happy, the rest of the gaming community should keep a vigilant eye out to prevent these kinds of problems from being widespread. Moreover, when issues such as these are made public, the corporate offices of the retain store should be made keenly aware that it will cost them sales if they allow their store clerks to harass paying customers.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Jack Thompson: Online Game Sales = Deceptive Trade Practices!
I'm certain many of you, the readers, have seen the latest Jack Thompson coverage on Game Politics found here and here. Dennis was quick to point out the FTC provision about credit card ownership being adequate proof of age for online transactions, and the FoxNews contributor was quick to play the free speech card. However, there's an elephant in the room I'd like to address.
Everything Mr. Thompson has said about games applies to movies on DVD.
Anyone with a credit card can go to Amazon.com and pick up Saw I, II, or III (unrated, meaning the more violent cut than the theatrical one) just as easily as you can order Manhunt 2. The same applies to Best Buy, Circuit City, or whatever other entertainment online store you'd like to site. To the same ends, in-store id checks are equally lacking on these (and other) movie titles. While I haven't played Manhunt 2, I can only imagine the graphic content is probably on par with the Saw series, which is exceptionally brutal if you haven't seen the movies. Given that the research on the impact of media is mixed, and that movies have been found to affect young people like games by some studies, why ignore the movie industry?
There can only be a few answers:
1. Mr. Thompson is afraid of the people in the movie industry, as they would likely be viewed as "more powerful" than the game industry.
2. Mr. Thompson is giving undue weight to the unproven link between interactivity and a heightened impact.
3. Mr. Thompson has an unhealthy fixation on and unequivocal bias toward games, which cannot easily be explained.
4. Mr. Thompson's logic is flawed, for some other unexplained reason, so that he either ignores or actually favors violent movies. (Perhaps he is a Saw fan.)
The simple point being: If you would like to go on a crusade against the media, go on a crusade against the media, not one medium.
Ultimately, the decision should still be left to the parents, and the tools are in place for the parents to make those decisions. It is not up to the government, or Mr. Thompson, to make those decisions for society, parents who are failing to perform their duties as parents, or parents who are actively monitoring their child's media consumption. And if anyone is to be held responsible, it should be the inadequate parents, not the game manufacturers, game retailers, or game raters. I can only hope that the news media will tire of this issue soon, or that the American people will begin to realize that playing the "For the Children" card has reached a point where it should be accompanied by automatic scrutiny, as it is rarely actually being used to help the children anymore.
Everything Mr. Thompson has said about games applies to movies on DVD.
Anyone with a credit card can go to Amazon.com and pick up Saw I, II, or III (unrated, meaning the more violent cut than the theatrical one) just as easily as you can order Manhunt 2. The same applies to Best Buy, Circuit City, or whatever other entertainment online store you'd like to site. To the same ends, in-store id checks are equally lacking on these (and other) movie titles. While I haven't played Manhunt 2, I can only imagine the graphic content is probably on par with the Saw series, which is exceptionally brutal if you haven't seen the movies. Given that the research on the impact of media is mixed, and that movies have been found to affect young people like games by some studies, why ignore the movie industry?
There can only be a few answers:
1. Mr. Thompson is afraid of the people in the movie industry, as they would likely be viewed as "more powerful" than the game industry.
2. Mr. Thompson is giving undue weight to the unproven link between interactivity and a heightened impact.
3. Mr. Thompson has an unhealthy fixation on and unequivocal bias toward games, which cannot easily be explained.
4. Mr. Thompson's logic is flawed, for some other unexplained reason, so that he either ignores or actually favors violent movies. (Perhaps he is a Saw fan.)
The simple point being: If you would like to go on a crusade against the media, go on a crusade against the media, not one medium.
Ultimately, the decision should still be left to the parents, and the tools are in place for the parents to make those decisions. It is not up to the government, or Mr. Thompson, to make those decisions for society, parents who are failing to perform their duties as parents, or parents who are actively monitoring their child's media consumption. And if anyone is to be held responsible, it should be the inadequate parents, not the game manufacturers, game retailers, or game raters. I can only hope that the news media will tire of this issue soon, or that the American people will begin to realize that playing the "For the Children" card has reached a point where it should be accompanied by automatic scrutiny, as it is rarely actually being used to help the children anymore.
Friday, September 7, 2007
The ESRB "Review Process"
A recent PC Magazine interview sheds some light on the ESRB rating process, which leaves a lot to be desired. While I am a firm proponent of industry self-regulation, I have often been puzzled at the ratings some games get. For example, when I saw that Smash Bros. Melee was rated "T for Teen," my immediate thought was "What next, Barbie's Mystic Horse Adventure 7 being rated M?" For those not familiar, while Smash Bros. is a "fighting" game, it's no more violent than a typical Saturday morning cartoon and contains no blood at all, whatsoever. In any event, now that the ESRB has stated how the games are "rated," it makes more sense.
To summarize the interview, game publishers send in a DVD of selected scenes and a lot of paperwork to get the game rated. In fact, the process is outlined in detail on the ESRB website. The point being that the ratings board never plays the games. Yes, you read that right. The people who rate video games do not play the game they are rating. It would be the equivalent of basing movie ratings on a form and a trailer. Context would be wholly absent.
I can see the logic the ESRB is using. First, playing the games would require a release candidate, which could delay the process. Second, it would take their "trained reviewers" much longer to play through the games in full than it would to review some paperwork and a DVD. Third, and finally, it's entirely possible that some, if not a large section, of the reviewers may not be able to complete the games at all. Moreover, the system they have going has rarely been faulted (see Hot Coffee).
On the other hand, I get the impression that ratings for media content are more accurate when the reviewer takes the content in context and on the whole, rather than seeing mere snippets. Perhaps the better approach is to have the ESRB hire "designated gamers," and have the reviewers watch the game being played for some period of time in addition to the forms and DVDs in order to contextualize the game. Perhaps then Smash Bros. Melee would have been rated a more appropriate E or E10+ rather than T. On the other hand, perhaps the powers that be would just assume most games be rated a tier higher than the content actually is, either to give parents more discretion or to insulate themselves from complaints. In any event, with the recent Manhunt 2 controversy, I expect that this issue will likely be blown well out of proportion by certain people in the media and politics. If anything, it creates a harsher rating system, not a weaker one.
[Thanks Jonathan!]
[EDIT: Reader Andrew Eisen, in the comments, points out: "Additionally, ESRB staff, including raters (time-permitting), play the final version of both hand-picked and randomly selected games to verify that all the materials provided by the game's publisher during the rating process were accurate and complete."
My thought is that, while true, and a new addition to the process, it still isn't for the purpose of actually rating the game, or putting elements in context. It's just like a double-check once the game is rated, and only occurs sometimes rather than on all games rated.]
To summarize the interview, game publishers send in a DVD of selected scenes and a lot of paperwork to get the game rated. In fact, the process is outlined in detail on the ESRB website. The point being that the ratings board never plays the games. Yes, you read that right. The people who rate video games do not play the game they are rating. It would be the equivalent of basing movie ratings on a form and a trailer. Context would be wholly absent.
I can see the logic the ESRB is using. First, playing the games would require a release candidate, which could delay the process. Second, it would take their "trained reviewers" much longer to play through the games in full than it would to review some paperwork and a DVD. Third, and finally, it's entirely possible that some, if not a large section, of the reviewers may not be able to complete the games at all. Moreover, the system they have going has rarely been faulted (see Hot Coffee).
On the other hand, I get the impression that ratings for media content are more accurate when the reviewer takes the content in context and on the whole, rather than seeing mere snippets. Perhaps the better approach is to have the ESRB hire "designated gamers," and have the reviewers watch the game being played for some period of time in addition to the forms and DVDs in order to contextualize the game. Perhaps then Smash Bros. Melee would have been rated a more appropriate E or E10+ rather than T. On the other hand, perhaps the powers that be would just assume most games be rated a tier higher than the content actually is, either to give parents more discretion or to insulate themselves from complaints. In any event, with the recent Manhunt 2 controversy, I expect that this issue will likely be blown well out of proportion by certain people in the media and politics. If anything, it creates a harsher rating system, not a weaker one.
[Thanks Jonathan!]
[EDIT: Reader Andrew Eisen, in the comments, points out: "Additionally, ESRB staff, including raters (time-permitting), play the final version of both hand-picked and randomly selected games to verify that all the materials provided by the game's publisher during the rating process were accurate and complete."
My thought is that, while true, and a new addition to the process, it still isn't for the purpose of actually rating the game, or putting elements in context. It's just like a double-check once the game is rated, and only occurs sometimes rather than on all games rated.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
