It is too early to say for sure but there are some encouraging signs that our public policymakers are finally starting to get the point went it comes to the sensibility (and constitutional futility) of trying to regulate video game content. Just yesterday, for example, lawmakers in the District of Columbia passed legislation that establishes a program to educate consumers about existing video game ratings and console-based controls. This represents a major shift away from the regulatory approach originally floated by incoming D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty. While serving as a D.C. Councilman, Fenty introduced a bill that would have proposed the old regulatory combo of mandates and stiff fines on game retailers who didn’t enforce the city’s approved regulatory scheme.
But the new version of the bill, entitled the “Consumer Education on Video and Computer Games for Minors Act,” takes a very different approach. The bill requires the city to “Develop a consumer education program to educate consumers about the appropriateness of video and computer games for certain ago groups, which may include information on video and computer game rating systems and the manner in which parental controls can enhance the ability of parents to regulate their children’s access to video and computer games.”
In a phrase, D.C.’s new approach is “education, not regulation.” And while some might object to the idea of government promoting education efforts about video game ratings or console controls, that approach is infinitely more sensible (and constitutionally permissible) than government censorship.
Continue reading →
I have come across some very silly applications of antitrust principles in my time, but this one has just moved up to the top of my list. Over on Business Week.com, Jason Brightman argues that video game retailers such as Game Stop are “forcing” consumers to commit to expensive product bundles in order to get their hands on a new PlayStation 3 or Nintendo Wii gaming console.
Mr. Brightman apparently thinks there is some sort of grave cosmic injustice at work when retailers bundle together gaming consoles with games or other products and require that users agree to purchase that bundle in order to be one of the first people to get their hands on a hot new console. He argues:
“Unfortunately it’s become all too common in recent years for retailers, particularly specialty stores like GameStop/EB, to pull a fast one on consumers who are all too eager to get the newest consoles at launch–remember last year’s $1,000+ Xbox 360 bundles? While it’s true that pre-order campaigns for brick-and-mortar locations allowed customers to pre-order nothing but the console, why should online consumers get the shaft? And is this even legal?… [U]nfortunately, it looks like this ‘predatory packaging’ is legal, but why the heck are consumers getting these console bundles shoved down their throats?”
Oh, come on! You have got to be kidding me. This is called capitalism, buddy. You know… supply-and-demand… rationale pricing of scarce goods… efficient market allocation, etc, etc. In fact, I want to make the exact opposite point that Brightman makes: I think the folks that are selling these consoles on a conditional basis or for a large mark-up are doing society a great service because they are ensuring that those of us who really want these scarce consoles the most can get are hands on them right away.
Unless he wants to make the argument that video game consoles have suddenly become life essential goods on par with food and water, his argument is just plain silly. After all, would anyone die if they had to wait a few weeks before they bought a stand-alone video game console at regular retail prices? How spoiled are we as a culture when we’re even having a debate about fair video game console allocation!?!
Incidentally, what about all those people on eBay selling the extra consoles they bought for major mark-ups? Should they all be in jail? Or perhaps the DOJ or FCC should regulate the video game console marketplace to determine fair prices and efficient distribution of video game consoles to the masses. Perhaps the rallying cry for this new regulatory movement can be “From each according to his [gaming] abilities, to each according to his [gaming] needs.”
Ridiculous.
Washington Post technology columnist Mike Musgrove reminds us in his column today that the video game industry’s voluntary ratings system–the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB)–continues to come under fire in Washington and in the states. Musgrove notes that:
“Earlier this year, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) was one of several lawmakers who introduced bills that would take the video game rating system away from the ESRB, but those bills never made it out of committee. Last week, at a summit on video games, youth and public policy, Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) trashed the game industry’s ratings system and called for a new, independent system. Brownback and McCollum agree that the current system–because it’s run by the game industry–can’t be trusted.”
This is nothing new, of course. I have written extensively about the politics of video game regulation and discussed how the video game ratings system has been criticized for a number of supposed shortcomings. Most recently, I wrote about Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (D-CT) “Family Entertainment Protection Act” (FEPA, S. 2126), which would create a federal enforcement regime for video games sales and require ongoing regulatory scrutiny of industry ratings and practices. (Note: There was also a House version of the bill).
Continue reading →
I heard the rumors over the weekend and hoped that they were not true. But they were. “E3” the video game industry’s amazing annual trade show, is going to be scaled back starting next year. The big, beautiful, booming spectacle of hundreds of gaming companies coming together to show off their amazing new games, platforms and other inventions… is no more. It will be replaced by a smaller show at a smaller location with a smaller crowd.
As a gaming fanatic, it is sad news to be sure. I may be a 37-year-old father of two, but when I was walking the aisles of the “E3” show this May, it was a non-stop, “kid-in-the-world’s-greatest-(eye & ear)-candy-store” moment for me. (My complete review of this year’s show can be found here.
But, after the news set in–and after I had time to kill the pain by getting on XBOX Live and kicking a good friend’s butt in a heated match of “NCAA Football 2007”!–I started thinking more rationally about the economics of trade shows. Specifically, why do industries host trade shows at all? Is it really worth it for them?
Continue reading →
I’ve been out in Los Angeles this week attending “E3,” the video game industry’s annual trade show. It’s the first time I’ve been able to attend the show and I am finding it very interesting. Indeed, as I walk the halls of the L.A. convention center and chat with gaming companies and gamers themselves, I am struck by several things:
(1)
This is one heck of an innovative industry. There are some remarkably creative minds working in the electronic gaming sector. As a life-long gamer who was part of the “Pong” and “Pac-Mac” generation, I am just flabbergasted by how much more highly developed games are today (in terms of graphics, narrative and gameplay) than they were 30 years ago when I first started gaming. There was a moment in my life when I thought that games just couldn’t get much more sophisticated than Activision’s “Pitfall” or Atari’s “Adventure.” What a fool I was! Some of the massive multi-player online roll-playing games (“MMORPGs”) I saw at the show were just jaw-dropping in terms of their graphical detail and narrative sophistication. And all of the new high-definition titles for the X-Box 360 and PlayStation 3 are nothing short of stunning. Old favorites of mine like “Madden” football and “Gran Turismo” are now rendered in ultra-crisp 1080p HD resolution. There are moments during those games when you really think you’re watching a live feed from a real football game or road race.
And even the games which featured a more simple premise were exciting. Consider “Table Tennis” by Rock Star Games. The same company that brought us the infamous “Grand Theft Auto” is now producing a decidedly less controversial title based on the classic game of Ping Pong! If you think it sounds silly, wait till you play it. It is addicting in a “Tetris-like” fashion. I hope they eventually make it for my PlayStation Portable!
Continue reading →
In my recent paper on “Fact and Fiction in the Debate over Video Games,” I pointed out that one of the reasons that many lawmakers were stepping-up efforts to regulate video games was because of the supposed failure of the industry’s voluntary ratings system. In particular, many critics claim that the ratings system is not enforced effectively at the point-of-sale.
As a result, Senators Hillary Clinton, Joseph Lieberman and Even Bayh argue that federal legislation like their proposed “Family Entertainment Protection Act” is needed to “put teeth in the enforcement of video game ratings” because “young people are able to purchase these games with relative ease.”
Good news: A new survey out by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) today shows that the enforcement system is working better than ever before and that it’s not so easy for kids to buy games on their own.
Continue reading →
Unfortunately, as I predicted would be the case in my National Review editorial earlier this morning, today’s hearing on video games in the Senate Judiciary Committee turned out to be quite a one-sided show trial.
Senator Sam Brownback called the hearing to blast the game industry for what he called “graphic,” “horrific,” and even “barbaric” level of violence we supposedly see in games today. Violent video games, he argued, are becoming “simulators” that train kids to behave violently and even kill cops.
And his proof? As I suspected would be the case (and, again, predicted in my editorial) it largely came down to two key games: “Grand Theft Auto” and “25 to Life.” Sen. Brownback decided to show a few clips from these games and one other title (“Postal”) to supposedly illustrate just how violent games are today. Now make no doubt about it, these games do contain some truly sickening, despicable acts of simulated violence. I don’t know why a game developer feels compelled to show thugs beating prostitutes with a baseball bat, or a criminal shooting cops with a sniper rifle, or someone torching a dead corpse and then urinating on it to put out the fire. It’s all very sick and it’s quite sad that someone is squandering their creative talents on the depiction of such disgusting, disrespectful acts of violence.
But let’s get back to the key point and ask a question that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE EVEN BOTHERED DISCUSSING AT THE HEARING. Namely: Are these games indicative of all video games out there today?
Continue reading →
I’ve just released a new paper entitled “Fact and Fiction in the Debate over Video Game Regulation.” At the state and local level, over 75 measures have been proposed that would regulate the electronic gaming sector in same fashion. More importantly, another new federal bill was introduced recently that would establish a federal enforcement regime for video games sales and require ongoing regulatory scrutiny of industry practices. S. 2126, the “Family Entertainment Protection Act” (FEPA), was introduced last December by Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), and Evan Bayh (D-IN) to limit the exposure of children to violent video games.
In my essay, I address several of the most common myths or misperceptions that are driving this push to regulate the electronic gaming sector. My general conclusions are as follows:
>> The industry’s ratings system is the most sophisticated, descriptive, and effective ratings system ever devised by any major media sector in America.
>> The vast majority of video games sold each year do not contain intense violence or sexual themes.
>> Just as every state law attempting to regulate video games so far has been struck down as unconstitutional, so too will the FEPA.
>> The FEPA could derail the industry’s voluntary ratings system and necessitate the adoption of a federally mandated regulatory regime / ratings system.
>> No correlation between video games and aggressive behavior has been proven. Moreover, almost every social / cultural indicator of importance has been improving in recent years and decades even as media exposure and video game use among youth has increased.
>> Video games might have some beneficial effects–especially of a cathartic nature–that critics often overlook. And, contrary to what some critics claim, violent themes and images have been part of literature and media for centuries.
I encourage you to read the entire paper for more details. It can be found online here: http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop13.7videogames.pdf
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) proposed new legislation on Thursday that would make it a federal offense for retailers to sell a minor a video game that includes violent or sexual themes. Her bill would impose a $5000 fine on any retailer that sold a youngster a game that was classified as mature or violent under the video game industry’s voluntary ratings system.
The Clinton bill might best be thought of as a “hanging the industry with its own rope” regulatory scheme. That is, her bill would hijack the industry’s voluntary ratings system and then use it against them (and retailers) should someone choose to sell a game with mature or violent themes to someone under the age of 18.
Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.