Should the ECA create a voluntary rating board?

[Terrible Tom]

All the money in the ****ing world couldn't buy me one second of trust
or one ounce of faith in anything you're about

[Brokenscope]

No, It will only serve to confuse the people who actually need the ratings.

[Tollwutig]

No, It will only serve to confuse the people who actually need the ratings.

I'm with Brokenscope, it would only further confuse people and the ESRB already has enough of that because they can't use MPAA ratings.

[Tollwutig]

Because there are already issues with people not knowing what the ESRB rating is. There has been attempts at legislation trying to make the already obvious rating logo take up over half of the box. Many parents complain that the fact that the ESRB uses different ratings than the MPAA that it is too confusing, at least according to the National Institute of Media & the Family (http://www.mediafamily.org/).

Common Sense Media already assigns ratings to video games, which are primarily ignored. PTC also assigns video games a rating, although they only do so on their website.

Then you'd run into the difficulty of getting the Game Developers to submit the product to this new ratings board and to carry the rating on the package itself.
The ESRB ratings came about because Congress began to seek to mandate a ratings system. (Which would face legal challenges.) The ESA (when it was formerly two separate groups) brought about the ESRB. Game developers agreed to have their games rated, and Game retailers agreed to only carry games which had a ratings. (Therefore forcing any developer who was not a member of the ESA to get a rating if they wanted to sell the game in retail).

Now since the merger of the Entertainment Retailers Association (can't remember it's full name) and the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA) into the ESA it is going to be difficult to convince retailers to require the carrying of a new ECA rating on the game package as well as the ESRB rating.

[TheUnholy]

Again, after you've yet again explained the history of the ESRB, I'm aware of where it came from and why. I don't find the any of the rating systems confusing at all. Of course you wouldn't find a ECA rating on the package at first but eventually if it proved to be a better system perhaps It could replace the ESRB which many think is deeply flawed.

Though the ESRB is flawed somewhat it really is only as of lately that the media and ignorant politicians have place more pressure on the ESRB. Having the ECA involve itself in the regulation of video game ratings is getting away from what the ECA really is. The ECA is not a governing body. The ECA is there to educate others and help support gaming industry rights.

[Thefremen]

No, as a card carrying member of the ECA I do not want it to go beyond the mission statement, which is to represent consumers in affairs of govt. Now, if it comes the time when one must choose between ECA giving out ratings or the gov't giving out ratings, I'll choose the ECA, but as it is if it gave out ratings it would have to take money from game makers and that would mean it stops being an .org that represents me. If you want the ECA to become another tool of the VG makers like the ESA go ahead and tell hal halpin.

[Hannah]

I think it'd be a waste of time. As others have said, it would confuse customers -- a common complaint about ESRB ratings is that they're incomprehensible to the average soccer mom, largely because they differ from TV/movie ratings.

Besides, who would benefit from such a rating system? Most people's needs are already served by the ESRB, and I don't see how the ECA could do anything for me that the ESRB doesn't already do.

[TheUnholy]

Provide a rating system for all gamers and not just parents is one.

What benefit is there for a gamer to recognize a rating though? Gamers in the sense that I am thinking of are individuals conscious enough to make their own decision. Gamers recognize the content of video games through research and experience with genres. If a gamer knows a game is an FPS, then they know there is going to be violence and possible language and/or gore. Now for the occasional gamer, I believe they follow the same philosophy of purchasing a video game. They look at a title and knowing that a game is hitting up in the $50-$60 range, they are going to judge whether or not they should spend their hard earned cash on a game they might not necessarily understand.
People now don't go buying things blindly. Unless they are uninformed parents and their children are begging for a game that they have no idea of the content, then the ESRB rating is sufficient, yet tainted with media & political agendas, enough for a parent to make a somewhat educated purchasing decision.

[ezacharyk]

The ECA should not get involved in the ratings process. The ESRB is doing just fine as is. If you want a second opinion on a game's content you should visit Gamer Dad (http://www.gamerdad.com/)

I think that they do an outstanding job reviewing games. If they got some more support then they could be a power to be reckoned with.

The ECA would be a very bad choice for rating a game. They are there to support the gamers when it comes to legislation and corporate policy that effects the gamers.

[GamersRyno]

Maybe it is just me, but I disagree yet agree with ratings boards. I DO think they should indicate what is in the game (objective) such as drug references, life-like violence, etc.
However, they should NOT indicate (subjective) which ages the games are appropriate for. This should be decided by the parents.

In general they should provide unbiased, factual information to the parents and then let the parents make educated decisions based on their knowledge of their children.

[Tollwutig]

Maybe it is just me, but I disagree yet agree with ratings boards. I DO think they should indicate what is in the game (objective) such as drug references, life-like violence, etc.
However, they should NOT indicate (subjective) which ages the games are appropriate for. This should be decided by the parents.

In general they should provide unbiased, factual information to the parents and then let the parents make educated decisions based on their knowledge of their children.

I agree in theory but in reality parents are not necessarily the only ones doing the purchasing all of the time. The ratings also assist retailers in whether or not to sell material to an unaccompanied minor. In regards to this the subjective portion allows only parents to over rule and decide their child is mature enough to view the content, or as they often do ignore the rating in general because little Timmy is crying.

[GamersRyno]

When a parent sets their kid off into the vast world unaccompanied, they accept responsibility for what that kid may see. The kid will eventually be exposed to violence, cursing, drugs, and other malicious activities against the societal norms. Much like kids being offered drugs, the parents should teach their kids what is appropriate and what is not before setting them off into the real world. I am firm in my belief that retailers should not dictate what is and isn't appropriate for certain kids to play.
Now I definitely am not considering games to be in the same category as drugs and retailers as drug dealers, but to certain kids playing certain violent games is like taking drugs with its negative affects, however for other kids it is a good way to take out aggression in the virtual world as opposed to the physical world. Each kid is different. We should not make policies and laws that group people by race, age, religion, or other such category. We need to treat people as individuals.

[TheUnholy]

When a parent sets their kid off into the vast world unaccompanied, they accept responsibility for what that kid may see. The kid will eventually be exposed to violence, cursing, drugs, and other malicious activities against the societal norms. Much like kids being offered drugs, the parents should teach their kids what is appropriate and what is not before setting them off into the real world. I am firm in my belief that retailers should not dictate what is and isn't appropriate for certain kids to play.
Now I definitely am not considering games to be in the same category as drugs and retailers as drug dealers, but to certain kids playing certain violent games is like taking drugs with its negative affects, however for other kids it is a good way to take out aggression in the virtual world as opposed to the physical world. Each kid is different. We should not make policies and laws that group people by race, age, religion, or other such category. We need to treat people as individuals.

I have to agree and disagree with you. Parents are responsible with teaching their kids what is appropriate and inappropriate. Yet at the same time measures must be in place (and are in place) to prevent minors from accessing adult related content. Politics really has already played its part in filtering media for minors and parents. The major argument now is further filtering media for minors.
A rating system is in place and for most of us it is clear as to the meaning of the ratings. Parents NEED to be educated to bridge the gap and understand what the ratings mean. Parents NEED to actually take responsibility for what is viewed/played in their homes and NEED to educate their children with issues that their children may encounter outside.

[GamersRyno]

One of my fears is that the more protection society provides, the more that parents rely on the village to raise a child and less on themselves.

If everytime a guy fell there was someone there to catch him, he would be less and less cautious about being graceful. One day, though, that guy will not be there to catch him.

[Tollwutig]

One of my fears is that the more protection society provides, the more that parents rely on the village to raise a child and less on themselves.


Parents completely relying on the village to raise the child is a big concern. However, the parents should have some assistance from the village. By providing a voluntary rating on the box, and the voluntary ability to refuse to sell to someone underage due to that rating the village lays the primary responsibility on the parent while giving them some help when the parent is not with the child.
The parent can still send the child out to gain experience in the world while at the same time will be able to quickly tell if the child is making appropriate purchases by looking at the game rating when the child returns. The parent can also rest assured if the retailer voluntarily restricts sales that the child is not likely to get his/her hands on something woefully inappropriate.
At the same time with these measures in place, the parent is still more than welcome to circumvent these measures if they deem the child is responsible enough to handle the material.

It is only when we begin to legislate such measures that the parents lose the primary responsibility and turn it over to the village This is when we begin to get parents who let the village raise their child rather than do it themselves.

[GamersRyno]

I see your point, but I think the rating should simply explain the content of the game (e.g. violence, nudity, etc). A rating should not assign an age group, though. I believe in individuality. What is appropriate for one 16 year old may not be for another. A broad statement such a game being appropriate only for those over 18 years old, is no different than stereotyping people by other physical attributes. This is why I think the decision should solely be that of the parents and not retailers/government.

[Tollwutig]

I see your point, but I think the rating should simply explain the content of the game (e.g. violence, nudity, etc). A rating should not assign an age group, though. I believe in individuality. What is appropriate for one 16 year old may not be for another. A broad statement such a game being appropriate only for those over 18 years old, is no different than stereotyping people by other physical attributes. This is why I think the decision should solely be that of the parents and not retailers/government.

I agree in that individuals differ, but Parents deserve the right to choose what material their children are exposed to, and should have a say in the purchases their children make. In the United States we legally define children as those under 18 years of age. Is it arbitrary? Yes, very much so, but there really is no method to determine an adult from a child that is not arbitrary in some way. So we use age, as it is the most fair, and least likely to be used to corrupted by government.

Now given that parents have a right in choosing the materials their child is exposed to before they are of age, and that retailers can not discern the choice of every parent when a potential teen makes a purchase, it comes down to the fact that retailers need something in place in order to allow or disallow such purchases, arbitrarily.

So the choices of the retailers are below:

1) Disallow all purchases of content related goods to all people under the age of 18. Which means a child could not purchase even Barney without a parent being present. This would be the over kill choice, as it would do more harm than good, for the children, as there are many lessons to be learned from the ability to purchase items on ones own.

2) Disallow all purchases based on content. Basically make store policy which states that any material containing any violence can not be purchased by anyone under the age of 18. The retailer would have to use very broad generalizations because they could not assume what level of content parents would approve of, this of course would mean that even the lowest levels would have to be restricted.

3) Disallow purchases based on an Age rating provided by a third party institution. This method means a ratings board reviews the material, and using commonly acceptable community standards as to what is and is not appropriate for the majority of a particular age group, assign a rating. The retailer then uses this rating to denote an allow or disallow of the purchase by age group. In addition it provides the parent a tool as to whether even consider that their child is mature enough to handle such content. ( A parent looking at a mature rated game can decide automatically that a 7 year old is unlikely to be mature enough to handle it)

4) Allow all purchases of material no matter what the age. In an ideal world parents would be aware of what purchases their children make, and not get angry when they make purchases which with they do not approve.

Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world, and children do make purchases which the parents do not approve, and today parents do not decide to blame their children. Instead they blame the retailer who sold the game and the company which produced the game in the first place. In their ignorance and anger they then begin calling for legislation to prevent such games from being made in the first place.

Options 1 & 2 to me seem like over kill, to prevent vast purchasing power based on broad arbitrary assumptions (The age of adult hood is 18), or all violence could be potentially viewed as bad so children should be exposed to no violence. Either one is highly limiting and would be the likely result of any legislation within the U.S.

Option 4 would be ideal if humans weren't, well human. Unfortunately people do not like taking blame but passing it on. It has been shown in history that if parents do not like their children being exposed to something they will call for legislation to attempt to ban it all together.

Option 3 is more ideal, it poses some restriction on sales of material parents may object to, without limiting it entirely, protecting the rights of both Children & Parents.

I guess the question that really would have to be answered is, do parents have the right to restrict the free speech rights of their children? (think I'll save that for a debate thread.)

[ZippyDSMlee]

the ECA could annoy the ESRB to be a bit more open with things but other than that waiting for the evolution of ratings is annoying.