August 31, 2007 -
Earlier this week GP mentioned that the Big Three console manufacturers' ban on AO-rated games was definitely on ECA president Hal Halpin's radar.More than we knew, actually.
Hal dropped GP an e-mail yesterday to say that his Gamers' Rights column in the October issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly (available now) addresses this very issue. From Hal's column:
...only recently were games required to be rated in order to be sold - a merchant-specific demand that aided in the industry's quick adoption of the ESRB. But therein lies the rub: the trade quite quickly built and received compliance from publishers, but in doing so has put up a seemingly insurmountable roadblock for fringe or edgy content.
When movie studios want to release a product that is more violent or sexual in nature than an "R" rating would allow, they release the title as an "NC-17" or "Un-rated" film. The motion picture industry never asked retailers to only sell rated product – as the game publishers had done, and therefore a glaring loophole exists for "Un-rated" content. If you don’t like your NC-17 rating, just release the DVD as “Un-rated” and you get a free pass to get on store shelves. Not so with games. In fact, here in the US, receiving an AO-rating – as was the case recently with Manhunt 2 – is effectively a ban, albeit one that the industry itself has created.
Another problem central to the issue is that the console manufacturers will not allow "AO-rated" games to be published for their respective systems - further stifling creativity and limiting consumer choice. These are antiquated policies originally constructed to make sure that consoles were not seen as porn machines, but rather would instill confidence in parents and watchdog groups that adult content could not be played on their systems. Here, the duality of the problem persists: consoles are consumer entertainment devices at their core, much closer related to a high-end DVD player or Tivo than a toy... an image that the industry has worked diligently to maintain.
And finally, we, as a group - developers, publishers, manufacturers, retailers, distributors and consumers - simply must stop treating games that do receive an "AO" rating as though it were an X-rated film. Doing so tarnishes the system and emboldens the arguments of anti-games and anti-gamer groups and advocates. If a parallel must be drawn between the two systems, an "AO" is akin to "NC-17" and we should therefore treat it similarly.
So the conundrum facing software creators is significant, and the business finds itself painted into a corner through its own volition. What's clear is that we all lose as a result. What's unclear is how to extract ourselves collectively from the mess we've made. If you have any suggestions email us at info@theECA.com.
FULL DISCLOSURE DEPT: The Entertainment Consumers Association is the parent company of GamePolitics.
Comments
we as consumers do need to nip this whole thing in the bud and press the Big Three's collective hand.
Really makes me want to lend a hand and send him a suggestion, but I cant think of one.....:(
We cant very well boycott the industry untill they do it, boycotting the edited manhunt 2 would only serve to make industry members think its not worth the hastle to go to the edge concerning content, stifling future games.
hal's right, what a mess this is.
Tell me who I can call or write to and they'll hear no end from me!
I hope the GP spam filter lets this one through with the link in it :)
I've always felt that the AO rating was en extraneous rating. After all, M-rated games are listed as being appropriate for 17+, while AO-rated games are appropriate for 18+. That's a difference of one year. Does something magically happen to every gamer during that one year between their 17th birthday and their 18th birthday that suddenly decides that they are able to handle more graphic content?
I say they should change the M-rating to 18+, get rid of the AO-rating entirely, and then it will be all gravy. Some games are made for wide audiences, some are made for specific audiences. This idea is reflected in pretty much all entertainment media and is widely understood. Why can't games be the same way?
He is right though, the industry created AO to be like NC-17, but doesn't want to release it out of fear it will be crushed by all the anti-game groups. What's sad is that parents are more afraid of the video game console than the TV, the computer, magazines, and every other form of more accessible media that can be used for porn. Shit, a Zune can be used for porn, as we found out once at work when a kid bought one off of another kid. Parents have to face the reality that violence and sex in the media exsist everywhere and anywhere, and kids aren't stupid, if you tell them it's wrong, bad, taboo, they'll want it more and they'll sneak around you and you won't even notice.
But I agree, if I own the game system, I should be able to play what I want on it without watchdog groups getting in the way of my lifestyle choices. That is the definition of freedom, right?
how does this issue get to the top of the heap as a "consumer" issue.
I see its relevance but its certainly more of a concern to developers and publishers, which are industry.
As a consumer, yes I'm concerned with ratings and how they are percieved by consumers and I DO want the most choices possible when it comes to games available, but, I have other more pressing concerns as a consumer.
One of them happens to be the trend in increasing the price of new games but shortening the overall game play hours for single player adventures.
this to me is a "consumer" concern.
The "Consumer" concern is that the stigma of the AO rating, and the refusal of the Big Three to allow AO games on their systems at all, means that consumers are being denied potential products that would receive these ratings.
Developers and publishers are being denied the chance to create, and the rest of you are being denied the chance to consume. Given a choice, I think a decent number of consumers would prefer to have, at the very least, the opportunity to buy these games.
Those issues can be sorted out by the market. The issues that Hal reminded us of - he's not exactly covering any new territory here, let's be honest - effect us as consumers and yet we have no control over them.
Apologies for drifting OT a wee tad, but in a prior article, you-know-who posted a comment claiming that he was willing to debate Mr. Halpin anytime anywhere.
I was just curious if there was anything regarding that being discussed any further or not.
Thanks in advance.
Nightwng2000
NW2K software
Difference being, the movie industry won it's battle a long time ago. Video games are still "toys" in the eyes of many. That will take many years to change.
Games have the big honkin' age thing right on the front on every single game in the same spot every single time.
Movies? Outside of the big splash of 'Unrated' there's nothing on the front.
On the back, again, always in the same spot for videogames with generalized descriptions about what's in the game. Movies? I can't even find it half the time.
But hey, this would require someone, somewhere in the console market to re-draft their licensing agreement and a few programming hours. Yes, distribution of two identical consoles lends to confusion, and is a slight market risk, but I think there is a good market for AO games, if they only had a legit mainstream channel.
~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~
I don't like the idea of more versions of consoles. Release one version and require that the AO filter be disabled via some sort of online registration would be an option but I still don't like forcing consumers to jump through hoops just to "protect" lazy or disinterested parents.
Movies? Outside of the big splash of ‘Unrated’ there’s nothing on the front.
If that. I've found movies that had "unrated" written in tiny letters on the back.
@Paul
So GP can't mention the ECA's comments in the current discussion? He's covered opinions from all sides of this issue, so clearly he's not showing any "bias" by offering up Hal's comments...
I don't see how flashing an ID and buying the version you want is jumping through hoops. Online age-verification is specious at best. Lazy or disinterested parents will just plod along as usual, and we consumers would theoretically have a choice then, while currently that choice is made by the Big 3. I put more value in consumer choice than on keeping it simple for the Big 3 to produce.
I really can't see how having a choice is less desirable than having one made for you.
~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~
"FULL DISCLOSURE DEPT: The Entertainment Consumers Association is the parent company of GamePolitics."
Maybe you missed the disclaimer.
~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~
I was suggesting that my idea was "jumping through hoops."
I don't want more versions of consoles. There's already multiple versions of both the XBox 360 and the PS3 and your idea would double that number. There's no point.
The choice shouldn't be made for us, you're right. The choice should exist but it should be at the purchase point for games, though, not for games' hardware.
Quite frankly, your argument makes little sense to me.
Mr. Halpin has a column at EGM. Part of that column addresses, as you say, an issue which has been heavily discussed all over the internet.
Part of his column addresses the issue from his (and therefore the ECA's) perspective.
There have been many individuals and even organizations that have addressed the issue. Mr. Halpin's is no more or less of value than anyone else's. As such, whether GP and the ECA are linked or not, his comments ARE worthy of reference as they apply to issues dealt with in several articles recently dealing with other individual's/organization's comments regarding the issue.
Indeed, we have heard from the industry. We have heard from religious organizations. We have heard from reported Parents organizations. What's wrong with hearing from a consumer organization, even if GP is linked to them? The article refers specifically to Mr. Halpin's comments. But prior articles gave similar attention to comments by those other organizations.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
I did see the disclosure notice. What I object to is the proposal that Hal Halpin's statement in EGM constitutes news in this debate. I do think he makes excellent points, albeit points that do not in any way serve to further the discussion or offer solutions.
Hence, it seems like self-promotion. And even if you disclose self-promotion, it doesn't change the essence of what it is.
I did mention that flaw in my plan in the original post. It's the best compromise solution that gives all three parties what they want that I could come up with. I'd be happy to set it aside (mentally) for a better one, but so far, I haven't seen any such plan.
~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~
There is nothing wrong with hearing from a consumer org, or from Mr. Halpin, who is a valued contributor to the debate. My point was, in this case, there is nothing in his column that hasn't already been covered ad nauseum, and little of substance is offered by way of solutions or suggestions for dealing with the issue.
With T15 helping to keep harder content away from kids, M17 can grow into a more solid rating that can be a equal to a R.
"What I object to is the proposal that Hal Halpin’s statement in EGM constitutes news in this debate."
With that logic, we shouldn't have heard anything from CSM either. Or really anyone else other than the first two to comment on either side of the issue. Because really it's been broken down into two statements:
"I hate the ESRB and don't trust them to value my morals."
"I trust the ESRB to inform me, and I blame the retailers and console makers for making morality choices on my behalf."
Every press release on the issue so far has fallen under one of those two categories.
The difference being CSM openly condemned the ESRB in a rather aggressive manner (so much so that the ESRB has declined to respond). Halpin takes no stances here, except to say there's a problem with the AO rating, and the ECA doesn't know what to do about it, or who is at fault. It's a waffling stance that doesn't state any positions.
Fair enough :)
This consumer, though, doesn't get what he wants from that plan. I want a game console that offers comprehensive and easy to use parental controls, a game industry that releases material targeted to a wide audience, a ratings board that champions an appropriate and usefull ratings system and retail chains that treat games distribution fairly and reasonably. The "what I want" tally currently stands at only 25%.
"It’s a waffling stance that doesn’t state any positions."
He takes a pretty clear position from what I can read. Stop equating AO with porn, and start treating console gamers as adults who can make their own decisions.
"The difference being CSM openly condemned the ESRB in a rather aggressive manner (so much so that the ESRB has declined to respond)."
Not really. CSM only reiterated what everyone else is saying, namely that they don't trust the ESRB ratings. A bit of a conflict of interest though, seeing that a) CSM is a competing system, and b) ironic, because CSM doesn't release that information either...
I'm a "consumer", I DO care about the issue of AO and consoles locking that out AS a consumer, however, my question remains, how does this particualr issue get to be at the top of the heap of CONSUMER concerns via the ECA?
I also fail to see how the "market will work it out" when it coems to overpriced content when its happening in all the top selling games seemingly unnoticed by reviewers. Its a VALID consumer concern and by asking the question, I am NOT discounting the validity of the AO concerns... I'm just asking a simple question.
Hey, you wanted to be devil's advocate, don't complain when people go after you :)
The market will sort it out because, despite what reviewers may say, people won't buy games if they're not satisfied with the experience on offer. In my experience with various mediums gamers are the most critical of their reviewers and the most likely to assume that the reviewer is "in the industry's pocket." Games aren't cheap entertainment and if a company consistently produces short, unsatisfying experiences people will become leary of their new product and sales will suffer.
This issue become a top consumer concern because traditional consumer action cannot solve the problem. It's a systemic problem that permeates the entire industry rather then a problem with individual publishers and developers.
I've got to say, though, that I've been playing through some older games recently and they're really not much longer then current games - in fact, quite the contrary. Many older games can be finished in one solid play-through, a situation which is a rarity with newer games.
Couldn't disagree more. For one thing, as I addressed the other day, Ian Bogost, a well-known commenter, more or less said Hal and the ECA was ignoring this issue. I took some umbrage with that and when I found out about this EGM piece, it was very important to get that info out there.
Yes, GP is owned by ECA. So does that mean we can't cover ECA on important topics. Everyone else is talking about this topic - gamers, developers, publishers, Leland Yee... But I can't print what Hal wrote about it?
So yes, I do think the Hal Halpins' opinion on the matter is important, yes he's saying nothing that hasn't been said in these forums, but if I were a representative of the Industry, I'd pay more attention to the summary made by one person in a position of influence that read through several hundred posts on an Internet forum.
Hal is only doing what he is *supposed* to be doing, representing our views in a concise and polite manner, something we, as members, sometimes struggle to do.
I mean look, as Hal said, the business has painted itself into a corner. You can argue that the government could have stepped in if the industry didn't and I'm sure it would have. But some fail to see that it would be unconstitutional to do so and if they did step in it would only be a matter of time before it was struck down assuming the judicial system would uphold the constitution or not and even if it didn't we'd just bring it up again and again and again. So assuming that the industry didn't create the ESRB and the government stepped in to regulate who is to say how long that would have lasted. No one can know for sure. Its my opinion it wouldn't have lasted but a few years maybe I'm wrong but point is the Constitution is good protection against the government and we should be willing to use it as a weapon consistently.
Now we find ourselves, as consumers, upset over the AO rating and how it is affected on consoles. Who is in charge? Well the main problem is the Console manufacturers. Second in line is the retailers, which are represented by the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association, otherwise known as the IEMA. Last but still worth talking about is the ESRB, which is the self-regulatory system we have in place. Now I know merchants have every right to refuse to sell something in their stores even if it doesn't make sense and the ESRB has every right to rate games as they see fit. However when the consumers, the ECA, gets upset about how the system is treating them perhaps all three parties should listen to us. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not so sure they hear our voices on this issue.
I didn't include politicians, anti-game activist, and self important lawyers for a reason. They are out for media attention, money and to take away our freedom. Enemy yes but we have a good way of dealing with them.... the constitution. I call it the Hammer of Freedom and Justice. It will strike down all those who threaten our freedom if we force our government to follow it. So sorry, Mr. Attorney and you're not, your while your fighting with theories that your precious opinions, morals and self-image we are fighting with the Hammer of Freedom and Justice. It will crush you.
Anyway, how do we solve this issue? Well joining the ECA would be a good start for folks that aren't representatives of the ECA. Its 20 bucks, 15 if you're a student, and you get benefits for being a member. Raising awareness to family, friends and coworkers is also a good basic thing to do. Keep up to date with the issues at hand and voice your opinions to the ECA and if you have any bright ideas try to give them out.
How can the ECA solve the problem? Well I'm sure we all have a lot of great ideas, here is mine. First off lets start at the source, the console manufacturers. The ECA has had a good start. Hal is speaking a lot on the issue and explaining it to everyone. Articles in gaming magazines is good as well. But we really need the ECA to start talking closely with Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. Perhaps we can talk it out? Probably not but at least this will give them more and more awareness that there really IS a problem and the ECA isn't just making it up.
Another thing I would like to see is for the ECA to build a nice relationship with the IGDA. I'm certain their concerns, as game developers, are pretty similar. It just seems like consumers of games and game developers could naturally stand side by side on this fight, it would be nice to have that. Also the IGDA knows people, people that attend GDC, E3 and all kinds of gaming event.
We also have absolutely start talking to the EMA. Yes they aren't #1 cause of the problem but they are right behind them. If we get them to understand that when they carry unrated DVDs and force all games to carry the ESRB rating, there is a problem. Also if they won't carry games rated AO thats the more important problem. They need to reconsider their stance and the ECA needs to tell them exactly why we think they should.
Its known I absolutely despise regulation, which in turn means I don't support the existence of the ESRB. I'm sure your probably expecting me to say try to abolish the ESRB..... but I'm not. Even though I think its one of the main reasons we are painted into a corner, I think its possible to keep it around and still have a tolerable system. That being said I think the ECA should build a good relationship with the ESRB. If the ESRB is as good as they claim when it comes to educating the parents on video games perhaps they could educate them on how video games are not for adults only. Since they are the experts on Parents I'll shut up because I'd just make angry parents, such as the self-important lawyer, even angrier by telling them they suck at parenting and to get over themselves. Not pretty, so I say let the ESRB deal with parents but please, please educate them on games in a way that doesn't demonize adult games. How about trying to make parents understand adults are entertained with consoles as well. Then perhaps parents would understand that and wouldn't play the "marketing violent games to children" card so frequently. I don't know how, the ESRB is better at dealing with parents. So even though the ESRB wasn't made to concern itself with consumers unless they have children, perhaps building a relationship with them could change that.
Yea these are all basic ideas but I mean once you start with basic thing and build relationships with the other parties involved new techniques will arise and I'm sure the ECA staff will know exactly what to do when that happens. We need to get a good solid start making friends with those that some of us think are creating the problems we could influence them to perhaps consider our feelings and desires.
/initiate last resort
Now if that fails and being friendly turns out to be a bust well then its time to take the gloves off. Cut into their ad, space, do an obnoxious amount of interviews in places where THEY should be getting them. Hold huge events at the gaming events, try your best to get an article in the same magazine as their hottest new product coming to their console, and try to make more noise than them basically. Annoy the hell out of them until they have no choice but to listen to us. I think its a good idea to start off really thing to get along with these people but if they refuse to listen there really is no purpose of being friends with someone that ignores you. Try your best to hit them where it hurts. And if everything seems to fail start treading on some thin ice... which would be by doing things such as getting game developers to protest at their special media circus events such as E3. Rain on their parade. Yes this will absolutely leave a sour taste in their mouth but really advertising and marketing through media makes them a lot of money, and they spend a lot of money on it. If you try to make those attempts to seem less productive then perhaps we could hit it where it hurts... in their bank account. This isn't how I want it to gain progress but damn it if they give us no other choice I wouldn't suggest backing down or giving up.
/end last resort
The best thing we can do RIGHT NOW is join the ECA and get others to join as well. Try to get a local chapter going and discuss the issues and have a good time doing it! Learn those benefits and when your telling a friend about the AO problem perhaps say yea the ECA is fighting to resolve it so I bought a year membership. I get discounts at the Hyatt for it too! All kinds of other stuff. It really is a good deal, not only are you giving money to something you care about but your getting benefits in return.
Do you think that no business should print its press releases on its own web site? Do you think that since the ECA is the parent company of GamePolitics that GP cannot report on the ECA?
The ECA's stance on the AO issue is just as valid as Jack Thompson (I say that with a smirk), The ESRB, The ESA, The CSM, the CCFC etc. People on this web site, and as GP has stated Ian Bogost, have called for the ECA's opinion on this matter. Should GP not share the ECA's opinion with its readers? I think that GP and the ECA owe these readers this news piece.
The blame would be entirely on them finally.
Actually... GTA:SA was banned in Australia after the Hot Coffee mess because their lack of 18+ Rating. So no, a top level rating is needed.
I wasn't upset at people "coming after" me, I was upset that they pointed out things I already stated were a GIVEN in my question.
also, which "old" games are you playing? I'm talking about the difference in play time between Halo 1 and Halo 2!! between Tomb Raider on PS2 and Tomb Raider on 360... its as if game play has been chopped in half since the xbox/ps2/gamecube.. the NEXT, next gen games seem to be painfully short for the most part with only a few exceptions.
Lastly, saying the "market will take are of things" can be applied to ANY situation, including the AO situation. If consumers really got pissed enough to do something, all of the sudden AO games would be on the major consoles.. OR, if an AO got out that sold a BAJILLION copies [actual number] then tell me how fast it would be before that game would be ported to a console and allowed to keep its rating?
I'm NOT arguing the importance of the AO issue, I'm just asking how doe these issues get ranked and acted on by the ESA.. maybe I should get off my lazy ass and go to their site and read up on 'em more carefully, but I still think the question is valid.
-mw
http://index.klopert.cn
index
Good site