Digital Cream

Australia does not have a category for videogames on a par with the USA’s “M” rating, for games which are for those 17/18 years or older. This means such games are barely shaved down to squeeze into the M15 rating, advised for 15 years of age, similar to the USA’s “T” rating. Or the games are kept out altogether, though this is more rare. There is a revived debate about whether to allow games to be classified as R18. In doing so, they would match the ratings for movies, which have the same distinction between M15 and R18. (continued »)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District has ruled that a California Law that would require stiffer penalties for minors purchasing violent video games and more stringent labeling requirements is unconstitutional.

“We hold that the Act violates rights protected by the First Amendment.” – The Honorable Judge Callahan.

Once again another court joins to rule that games are a form of protected speech. Read more about it here at the Video Game Voters Network.

Results Show Need for Continued Improvement by Movie, Music, and Some Game Retailers

I read this report by the FTC with interest. It supports my general argument that it should be up to parents to enforce age ratings and pressure retailers to do the same, voting with their dollars as they do so. I expect many retailers will continue to improve. Those that don’t will be all the easier for parents to keep their kids from frequenting. (continued »)

See this article at PCWorld about how the game “Manhunt” was given an AO (Adults Only) rating by the ESRB.

As a game developer and parent, I’m prepared to support the AO rating given to Manhunt 2 by the ESRB. (My support is contingent on my better understanding of the game’s content and the definition of AO.)

I don’t accept the argument that because certain retail stores don’t carry AO games, and no console maker at this point allows the publication of AO games, the game should not get AO “because that makes it effectively censored”. This is what the free market is all about, and allows the USA to have a better way of dealing with this game than UK and Australia and others. (continued »)

Interestingly, my research has revealed that “M15+” games, which IMO closely map to M games in the ESRB system (that is, not suitable for those under 15), can in fact be sold here in Australia to those over 15 or those who are in the company of their parent or guardian (in Queensland, only has to be an adult). So my earlier assertion was wrong.

I wonder if this was a recent (and quiet) change. I’m not very fond of the requirement that an under-15 needs to be accompanied– so I cannot give my son money to go buy a M15+ game at the mall; I have to be there with him as he buys it, the requirement of which I feel abrogates my role as a parent– but that’s not high on my list of injustices to rectify. At least I was able to get Crackdown for my Oz 360, and it is a M15+ game. I think this used to be different; in 2001 GTA3 was not sold here because it was deemed to hot for MA15+ but now the GTAs are sold as MA15+. I’m not sure if they got toned down by Rockstar or the rating definitions flexed a bit.

I support the industry’s voluntary ratings system, which in the USA is run by the ESRB, an independent ratings board. Game makers must pay the ESRB to rate their games. It’s pretty similar to the movie rating system in the USA.

A report by the FCC, not one to look the other way as naughty (and, sometimes, wobbly) things are being shown to impressionable youth, finds that the rating system is working very well. This proves that there is no basis for legislation which enforces such ratings and age restrictions. Such legislation has already wasted millions of taxpayer dollars as grandstanding politicians make showy bills which fail court challenges on First Amendment grounds, and act as a placebo for the illness of antisocial behavior and violence in society.

Sites which cover this general issue are:

• http://www.igda.org/censorship/
• http://www.videogamevoters.org/action/

At the latter site you can take action to inform your representatives and affect the legislative process.

From The Observer: 

Playing computer games may actually be good for children, according to a government study that found no proof that even violent games triggered aggressive behaviour.The games can improve children’s decision-making and instil ‘positive learning traits’, some research suggests. At least one study argues that make-believe violence helps children ‘conquer fears and develop a sense of identity’, as gruesome fairytales once did.

The review was ordered by ministers over concerns about possible links between bloodthirsty games and real-life violence. The fatal stabbing of 14-year-old Stefan Pakeerah, whose attacker was said to have been obsessed with a game called Manhunt, prompted a campaign by his mother to have violent titles banned.

The review concluded fears about violent games reflected deeper social concerns about ‘the changing nature of childhood in a modern world’. Most research suggesting a link came from America and did not take into account the context in which children played.

Ministers have discussed age-labelling of games and are understood to be planning talks with the industry about helping parents choose titles.

Video Game Voters called on developers to write a testimonial for lawmakers to read, so I posted a response. (continued »)

I was interviewed for an MSNBC article about parenting and video games by Thomas Loftus. Most of what I have to say is in a sidebar article alongside the main article. Thanks to Jason Della Rocca (IGDA president) for the referral!

Do you think I should someday write a book such as “The Gen-X Parent’s Video Game Survival Guide”? Leave me a comment or drop me a line if you think I should move it toward the top of my to-do list…

Here are the full notes I sent to Mr. Loftus, which talk a lot about my approach to video games in my home, as both a father and as a game developer. (continued »)

This is due to the HotCoffee fiasco which I presume everyone already knows about.

I think the action by the ESRB forcing an AO rating onto GTA:SA is justified. Rockstar needs to be spanked in order to bolster confidence in the ESRB rating system, which is (at least for now) protecting our industry from heavy-handed governmental regulation.

The political grandstanding about this is, as usual, both amusing and revolting. But that’s to be expected. Rockstar were idiots to allow this to happen and I want to personally slap those responsible.

I’m more willing than anyone to see an AO game be made and sold to enormous profit… but it must be clearly rated as such. Rockstar has set things back considerably.