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 »)

Teenagers who regularly play online multiplayer games could be benefiting from personal development that does not occur in the ‘real’ world, according to a new study. (continued »)

I posted to an IGDA discussion group something about video game addiction, its relationship to drug addiction and the use of the term “addictive” in the game industry. In the course of this I rabbited on a bit about drug law and treatment. I think it’s worth sharing, as the discussion led me to more nuanced opinions and a lot of new things to think about. (continued »)

This article at ZDnet upholds what I have asserted before: too many things are being sloppily called “addictions”. Having experimented with cigarettes, being a slave to daily caffeine, and remaining in a wary waltz with my family nemesis alcohol, I know the difference between something which is addictive and something which is so pleasurable that maybe it absorbs more time than it should. There are many things I like a great deal, and which I need to check myself from doing so much of that they take time away from things I enjoy less but know I *should* do. But compelling, tempting enjoyability does not make those things addictive. To call them that is an insult to addicts and a blurring of a very important medical term.

Besides, if video game addiciton gets classified as a bona fide addiction syndrome and therefore gets insurance coverage, Blizzard may as well open up an HMO, haul it in from both ends, and eventually buy America. To which I would respond: Nerf SUVs.

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.

Hm, interesting how the media jumps all over it when a shooter appears to be (like the vast majority of kids in USA) a player of video games which have violent content. But how relatively silent they are when the harebrained “cause” might be religion. Examples abound, not the least of which are those, whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jew or other, (hm, few Buddhists…) who readily discard their lives or that of others to pursue a religious ideal in act of “war”, as they define it. To be more direct, I notice that in an article about the Viginia Tech shooter Seung Hui Cho, aka “Ax Ishmael”,  his putative religious delusions are described but in no way commented on as a cause of his horrific act. As well they should not. (continued »)

I previously vowed to discuss and link to studies on both sides of the games and violence issue, and I’m now making good on it. An AMA report summarizes and has links to resources; I have read a few of these articles. In short, the report finds some apparent causal relationship between consumption of violent games and aggressive behavior immediately afterward.

Given my review, I now concede that some amount (perhaps large, perhaps small) of consumption increases aggressive affect and behavior in the immediate period following play of violent games. (continued »)