Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) has sponsored legislation in the United States Senate which would require the ESRB to play games in their entirety before assigning an age rating.
Brownback's Truth in Video Game Rating Act (S.3935) would appear to be the Senate version of a House bill of the same name proposed by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL).
“The current video game ratings system needs improvement," Brownback said, "because reviewers do not see the full content of games and don’t even play the games they are supposed to rate. For video game ratings to be meaningful and worthy of a parent’s trust, the game ratings must be more objective and accurate.”
Brownback's measure would mandate the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to administer the requirement for a complete play-through before rating.
“Game reviewers must have access to the entire game for their ratings to accurately reflect a game’s content," Brownback added.
The bill would also direct the FTC to define parameters for describing video game content as well as defining what kind of behavior by the game industry would break those rules.
Brownback also would have the Government Accountability Office (GAO) evaluate the efficiency of the ESRB system as well as the potential for establishing an independent rating body with no ties to the industry. Universal systems spanning movie, TV and games would also be looked into.
The conservative Brownback has been very active on video game issues in recent times. He worked with Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) on game-related bills such as the recently-passed CAMRA legislation and held committee hearings on video games in the Senate earlier this year.
Full text of Brownback's new bill is not yet available. We'll post it when it goes up on the Congressional system.
Comments
Re: Brownback Proposes Game Ratings Bill in Senate
In 50 hours of play, I travelled to less than 0.1% of the planets in Spore and documented less than 1% of the preexisting species, let alone the 80,000,000 user-created vehicles. Good luck, ESRB.
This is a signature virus. Please copy and paste into your signature to help it propagate.
This would require them to play a game the whole way through, seeing everything in the game. Now, for some games, that may not be too bad. But what about others, like Oblivion, or the Grand Theft Autos, or any modern RPG? You know, the ones that take much larger amounts of time to beat in general, and that's not including all the extra stuff like side missions and such.
This, in turn, has the effect of making games take much longer (and thus be much more expensive) to rate, thus, quite possibly putting an end to either the ESRB, or any sort of long, dynamic, nonlinear games.
Of course, I'm guessing that's exactly what he's trying to do...
1st amendment and 14, Brownback loses by default.
God I swear, these idiots get dummer by the minute.
America seems to be on the fasttrack to destroy the MMO industry when this ever allowed. And isn't this completely unconstitutional? Here he is suggesting that a governmental organization is telling a private organization what to do. The government can't dictate what kind of methods the ESRB should or shouldn't use.
MMO
you can't exactly rate MMORPG or any MMO unless you include player-orignating activities.
Obviously Brownback has no idea what he's proposing.
The bill would also direct the FTC to define parameters for describing video game content
Violates the First Amendment right there.
Also the fact that it focuses on the video game industry means the bill violates the industry's Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of due process.
No surprise that Brownnoser is doing this, as he's got Presidential aspirations as well.
That's just an example of one Easter egg. Another egg in another game included going to the top of a bridge... for no reason pertaining to the story.
The point is, as if beating the entire game, side missions and all wasn't enough, they'd have to look for hidden things... without knowing WHERE to look! It's hard enough doing it right if all you've got is a guide on gamefaqs.com, but doing it without knowing what you're looking for? Come on!
Publishers would never pay the ESRB what it costs to rate games in this manner. If gaming magazines don't review games this way with advertiser support, how can the ESRB ever do it?
The entire system of ESRB ratings is supposed to be voluntary. Publishers voluntarily submit for ratings, and retailers voluntarily choose what they will or will not stock on their shelves in part based on those ratings.
This shouldn't be a political issue at all. If consumers find the ESRB ratings unreliable, they should communicate this directly to the retailer. If the retailer cannot use the rating system for the purpose for which it was designed, they will communicate this to the ESRB and to the publishers.
As much as people like to pile on it, the ESRB system is not broken. One instance of one publisher submitting a sandbox game that had hidden content unlocked by consumers is not an indictment of the ESRB's entire system.
What the ESRB ought to be doing right now is getting the retailers and publishers to rally behind it; because if the ESRB is seen as a total failure and it is replaced with a mandatory, legislated ratings system, that certainly won't be better either for retailers or publishers.
The only reason I can think for them not to do so is that 1) they resent the necessity of any ratings system whatsoever, and 2) they hope that while the scandals may eliminate the ESRB, that legal challenges can successfully be brought against any mandatory, legislated ratings system that replaces it, which will create a vacuum.
Actually, that might be what the publishers want. I doubt all retailers want to have to decide what games are appropriate by reading reviews.
1. Ist amendment= Doa for your bill, as has been seen by 8 other courts.
2. 14 amenmdent on top of that= Government interferance in private rating system equal Constitutional suicide.
3. Equal protection and Due process, this bill violates both.
Anything else I missed or should have included?
“The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an agency that works for Congress and the American people. Congress asks GAO to study the programs and expenditures of the federal government… It studies how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. GAO advises Congress and the heads of executive agencies (such as Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Department of Defense, DOD, and Health and Human Services, HHS) about ways to make government more effective and responsive. GAO evaluates federal programs, audits federal expenditures, and issues legal opinions... Its work leads to laws and acts that improve government operations, and save billions of dollars.”
The ESRB is not the federal government.
Andrew Eisen
“The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an agency that works for Congress and the American people. Congress asks GAO to study the programs and expenditures of the federal government… It studies how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. GAO advises Congress and the heads of executive agencies (such as Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Department of Defense, DOD, and Health and Human Services, HHS) about ways to make government more effective and responsive. GAO evaluates federal programs, audits federal expenditures, and issues legal opinions... Its work leads to laws and acts that improve government operations, and save billions of dollars.”
The ESRB is not the federal government.
Andrew Eisen
Anyway, this legislation won't pass for the two simple reasons that have been cited before in the similar bill: GAO and FTC, as it is NOT their job to monitor and dictate content and would be considered clearly unconstitutional for them to do so.
However, is it too much to ask for the ESRB to at least play a beta version with the same relevant content that they currently view a video of? That might just be a token concession, but it would silence the ignorant critics.
Asshat Senator: "ESRB, you don't even play the games you rate! Won't somebody think of the children!"
ESRB: "We do play them. And we are helping parents (who are members of the ratings review team by the way) to protect their kids already. You lose sir."
See, wouldn't that be nice?
~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~
This is all a warm up I think, for Brownback's proposed presidential campaign, as according to Wikipedia, he's hinted he might run as a Republican candidate in 2008. I doubt it, though. He's far too conservative for mainstream America (he championed Intelligent Design), and there's the little matter of his taking money from Jack Abramoff. Those are already two big strikes against him.
Thank you for your Cooperation, good night.
From here on out, every game will be sold WITH a strategy guide, thereby forcing the the authors of such books to give their own review of the game and allowing parents to see absolutely everything their child can see or do on said videogame.
Vote for me and I'll pass legislation that forces videogame developers and producers to change the pornographic packages from an unintelligable 7 1/2 x 5 1/2 x 1/2 to a much improved 18 x by 12 x 5 inch package. This will allow more pictures, larger icons, and lengthier unnecessary descriptors in the esrb box so that parents can begin parenting with quick glances that take less time out of their busy lives rather than sit down with their children day in and day out. After all, time is money.
So vote for me, Blitz Fitness, and I'll show the constitution who's boss.
*This message approved by Blitz Fitness himself, as no one would honestly want this joker in office*
Personally, i think Senator Brain dead up there needs to shut his mouth, but thats just me.
On a side note, awesome game related article, sarcasticly tearing up Jacks Arguments about games.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34670
Take a look and enjoy.
I'm really hoping this bill doesn't make it out of committee...it's nothing but bad news for this industry.
I swear to god, that is all i ever hear during the election years.
Essentially forcing games to delay their release until they've gone through what could be a hundred or even hundreds of man-hours of play constitutes a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
Unless Sen. Brownback is REALLY proposing that the ESRB ALSO go through ALL the files used to create the game, which would take even longer. I hope Sen Brownback is prepared to go through 27,000 texture files per level, just to make sure one doesn't look like a nipple. Oh, and better do combinations of all, just in case two textures lined up form a naughty picture.
- Warren Lewis
- Warren Lewis
3 words... Random level generator...
Kinda hard to play a game in it's "entirity" when the game has an infinite number of levels.
Disgaea's definately not the first, nor will it be the last...
I'd definatly love to see the ESRB use this when they go to defend themselves against the bill. Grant it though, unlike judges, the legislators will ignore it and probably just try to dodge the question.
One good thing about legislation in congress though... better chance of anti-game politicans looking like complete idiots on national TV; all thanks to the daily show. Daily show may not focus much state side, but they just eat up the idiocy that goes down in congress. I'd just love to see another Jon Stewart styled bashing. Ah, the power of common sence...
In an ideal world, yes this would be the case. Speaking as someone who has an eleven year old brother and will someday take up the mantle of parenthood myself, I would honestly prefer that every bit of content in a game be unlocked and reviewed before a rating was assigned to a game. I would prefer that our Hot Coffees and Headshot Modes be taken into account when the game is rated.
Then again, in the same ideal world there is no war; no famine, hunger or poverty; no violence and no crime. As a citizen who must exist in not just the vaccuum of my country but the greater community of the world, I would rather see these more important things disappear first before video games get proper rating... if we're going to be taking steps towards that perfect world.
Then again, what do I know? I'm just some punk kid who plays videogames.
Right now, to be rated by the the ESRB, it costs, what did someone say? Around $5000?
If such a bill passed what would it effect?
Right now, the independants who sell or distribute only online aren't always rated by ESRB. Would this bill only apply to publishers of software ONLY sold in brick and mortar retailers? Or would it require all others to have their material rated by the ESRB?
Whether it requires everyone or only sales in brick and mortar retailers, wouldn't the cost of having to rate games go up since more personnel would be required to play so many games all the way through?
And if this requirement is made by the government, wouldn't that mean that the government's Small Business Administration would have to, if not at least be heavily pressured to, require grants to be offered to individuals who wish to sell their small company or individually made games just to get rated by government requirement?
If not, I foresee possible arguments of discrimination in certain quarters since requiring, by government order, to have games rated and making the cost impossible for small business or individuals to make.
And not to mention higher taxes if grants are made.
And discrimination accusations if grants are limited and made only to some and not to other individuals/small businesses.
Maybe it does sound extreme, but there was already talk about how expensive it is now. I could easily foresee the cost tripiling from government requirments.
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Let's take a look at Grand Theft Auto. A big game, takes over ten hours to beat, probably closer to thirty if you want to get 100%. Hidden packages, jumps, Kill Frenzies, etc. make seeing 'the whole game' a very worthy endevor.
So, we create a film. What does this film contain? A flyby of the city, showing any points of interest, some footage of how combat works with each different weapon, and the cut-scenes for each mission. There, you've seen everything in the game. You haven't played a single bit, but you know what combat looks like, and you've seen every bit of scripted action in the game, so what's left?
Oblivion and MMO's are a bit more difficult, simply due to being on an even bigger scale. So what does the ESRB do? They ask the video game companies to send the footage that best represents the game. They *gasp* trust them (although I'm sure there'd be some hefty reprecussions for, say, not showing the presence of Fatalities in a Mortal Kombat Game). This is self-regulation, after all.
On that note, can the government force the ESRB to do anything? This is completely self-imposed by the industry. The government has no right to tell them how to do their jobs. To put it on my level, it would be like the government telling me that I had to make a version of my program for Macs (Maybe not a good example, as I work for a state university and my program does run on a Mac, but you get my point. ^_^)
What Brownback is proposing is out of the question though, unless the game is rated by the developers themselves.
Voluntary change by the developers as you say is a good thing and i agree, but when government gets involved and forces it by law, it's wrong. As the government is now taking it over. It reeks of communism.
Brokenscope:
It's too bad there are very few of you left out there. The Republican Party has for the most part been taken over by the Religious Right and the Big Government moralists. This is not what the Republican party was founded on. It was founded on the individual's right to make or break it on their own and less government intrusion in our personal lives.