Amen.
When are people gonna learn that adults play the games too?

:: Looks over at Zippy ::
Hmmm.... I wonder if Mr. Bogost lurks in the GP Forums. Most notably in the ESRB discussion area.

Nightwng2000
NW2K software

Being that both the XBox360 and PS2, PS3 are perfectly capable of playing porn (via their DVD playback functionality). The Argument that Microsoft and Sony don't want to be seen as a porn playing device seems rather weak.

I have no problem with retailers who don't want to stock certain titles, at least I have the option of buying an AO title online if it will at least play on the console. Sony and Microsoft are helping perpetuate the myth that AO video games are porn by banning them.

Sony and MS point their fingers at the retail chains, saying "They wont stock AO titles anyway". Whereas the retail chains point their fingers Sony and MS and say "They don't allow AO titles to be licensed anyway". So they have locked themselves in a circle of inaction.

@MRK


Aren't you forgetting a console maker there?

"In fact it is largely a youth culture medium, notwithstanding the industry’s claim that the average gamer is 33. (is it sacrilege to say I have a hard time buying that one?)."

I think that average age [33] is not the average game player, because how would the ESA calculate that? I'd bet that 33 is the average age of the game purchaser. Which is far easier to calculate.

I'd bet that the average game player's age lie somewhere in the 18-25 demographic. (I base this off of my personal experience as a gamer, and off of my 2 retail years.)

One question.

Isn't the median age more important in this case?

I'm intrigued by the idea of discarding the 'videogame' title, I think we should begin brainstorming for alternatives.

Over here in the UK I've been calling them computer games for years, not really much better but if the idea is to break away from the misconceptions of the current title anything new would benefit. though it would be better to lose the 'game' part.

Interactice media?
Interactive entertainment?

the interactive thing is easier to swallow and its been used vaguely in debates.

i dont know if people could ever just drop the videogame title in an instant but it would be a good start in getting the ignorant masses to realise these games arent for kids, when that message permiates into mainstream culture, I see the videogame controversy dying out soon.

@brokenscope

I intentionally left Nintendo out because the Wii does not play DVDs, since the crux of my argument is that the other two major consoles are already capable for playing NC-17 DVDs.

It's "time to start the dialogue?" I started it six years ago on 60 Minutes, and now the rest of you are catching up.

Here's the main rebuttal to this guy's allegation of "censorship." Pay attention:

In a free society, people are free, in every sense of the word, NOT to participate in something. The "something" here is the distribution of AO games. If Sony and Nintendo don't want that crap on their game consoles, then they are FREE not to have it.

"Freedom" is not defined as anarchism. Freedom is in fact the right of people to do or NOT do things, and only an intolerant anarcho-ideologue like this guy would suggest that Sony and Nintendo do not have the freedom--the right--to reject products for play on their systems.

Freedom, put another way, is what people choose to exercise whether game-obsessed people like that free choice or not. Only in the "gaming community" would somebody have the ridiculous position that gamers have a right to demand that Sony make a free choice that has only one choice--give us what we demand.

This guy needs to go back to school to be taught what freedom really is--it's the ability to choose what you want, not what somebody else tells you you have to do.

It's called a free society. Deal with it, dude. Jack Thompson

@ MRK

I believe the reason that the PS2, PS3, X Box, and 360 are all capable of playing porn is less sinister than that. They are capable of playing DVDs. Most DVDs are rated by the MPAA. Porno is not. The MPAA set themselves up so they could (after the porn industry started), but those making it felt that paying the MPAA to give them a 'X' rating was ridiculous and skipped that step (its voluntary, just like the ESRB) and slapped there own 'XXX' on their products.

Allow me to share a story I read in a magazine once. Sorry, its not word for word as I read it a few years ago.

A couple had used their PS2 to play multiple DVDs. On every DVD, they had to unlock the parental controls to allow the DVD to be played. Eventually, they bite the bullet and decided to play a porno, but it started right up without any problem. The explanation from the magazine was, that many porn DVDs have no ratings programmed in and such don't trigger the locks on the system.

So, its not that Sony or Microsoft allow porn to be played on their systems as much as it is that porn falls outside of the original design concepts. They could probably fix it by setting it so that unrated DVDs kick off the security system, too.

You should be able to use the ps3 and 360 however you wish, they are already able to play porn from DVDs so they already are porn machines. Its not even a solid argument there. Sure they might not want it to be used for porn, but it already can be so well there isn't much they can do besides be sure you can't interact with porn in the form of the game.

I just can't get behind the idea that you must regulate yourself so the government doesn't regulate you. It kind of defeats the purpose of not having the government regulate you. I'm under the impression that the main reason we are doing it is because we fear the government doing it since thats the most popular reason I hear for people wanting to keep the ESRB. Fearing the government in that way is not the right way to look at the issue. We should do what we want to do not because we are afraid the government might step in but because we feel the need to do it. I personally don't think regulation is ever the answer to any problems.

Yes its mainly the big three and retailers, but you can't just leave out the ESRB. We would be just fine without it, just have companies label their own products and get over it. No need for the game industry to censor itself.

But I also should have added that on the original 360 box it was rated E

"You should be able to use the ps3 and 360 however you wish, they are already able to play porn from DVDs so they already are porn machines."

Indeed. You can even play, *gasp*, UNRATED movies!

@~the1jeffy

"I think that average age [33] is not the average game player, because how would the ESA calculate that? I’d bet that 33 is the average age of the game purchaser. Which is far easier to calculate."

I'd say that 33 is about correct, but that encompasses the entire spectrum of gamers. The number is skewed by the casual market (Popcap, RealArcade, Pogo, etc.) where the average player is much older, and the primary method of distribution is through the internet. My assumption is that if only console gamers were counted, then the average would drop drastically into the high teens or low twenties as you have noted.

I thought the average game purchaser was 40....

@DeusPayne


while manhunt isnt exactly an artistic game, should that prevent us from supporting it as free speech, free speech by definition is unhindered, even if we dont like whats being said they still have a right to say it. The same goes for manhunt 2, even if its objectionable, they should still have the right to have it made. Not defending any one game because of content is just part of the slippery slope.

"For their part, the console makers don’t want to be accused of licensing porn on a machine that’s sold at Toys’R'Us. The major game publishers are largely public corporations that don’t want to be seen as being in the porn creation business, either. Developers have largely adapted to these parameters, although some are clearly frustrated."

I find this comment a little off considering you can already play porn movies and surf the internet with some of these consoles where you can also access this content. There are parental controls on the systems for a reason. If they have no intention of having AO games then remove the option to restrict just AO games.

That analogy doesn't make sense. How is the ESRB's rating system protecting my life. Seatbelts protect everyone, the ESRB protects children and parents. Enough said, end of story. Sure you could argue the ESRB was around we would have government intervention but ya know what... Thats a fight which people are willing to fight. Its a violation of our constitutional rights and really I wouldn't find it difficult to get people involved in it. We would have a legal case against them... enough said.

@ Ian

Thanks for coming in a skeaking up.

I always thought of the ECA as more than a lobbyist organization. You can't be for the consumer and not take industry issues to the console manufacturers, the retailers and the ESRB. There is just no way around it. Consumers need a voice in every direction.

As for first-party licensing, that is the first step we need to take. If we can get the console manufacturers to be more open about licensing, then the retailers will eventually follow in step. Consoles need to change first.

AO = Adults Only = Porn ? and that is GPs problem with the rating... the name?

Because it links itself to porn yet many AO games contain "porn" and gratuitous violence so what should it be called then? M-17? M-21 ?

The ESRB's job-one is to inform parents not confuse them and the points made by Bogost and GP regarding the complexities are valid here. The console makers and the retailers play more of a hand and rightly so, its their bread and butter.

Video Games ARE toys and no amount of renaming or justification will change that. You can not go back in time. Pondering and lamenting the name and the context is a waste of time unless you're suggesting that a console maker come forward and make a console just for adults and only sell it to adults and call it some sort of "Interactive Experience Machine". What then? How will this change anything? We have one of those machines already, its a called a PC. [or a Mac if you're me].

I think that the ESRB is doing a fine job given the time frame and circumstances and yes they need to develop and expand and add more transparency but they are not and should not be the focus of where the most change in the industry is needed.

Developers who want to expand the limits of content that include adult themes need to be prepared to sell their wares on the PC and if they're complaining that shrinks their market unfairly then maybe they should consider making another kind of game. Movies adjust their content all the time and as it turns out the most popular movies are in the PG to PG13 range in any genre. the Majority of people want their entertainment in an easily accessible format and the only game/console makers that seem to understand this is Nintendo.

if you want your games edgier... go play it on a PC and leave the MAJORITY of people to their games please.

-mw

I'm sorry but I just can't agree with any policy which holds the parent's opinions higher than any others. If the ESRB is to exist it should look after all of us, not just the ones with children.

You shouldn't fear your government, your government should fear you. And they aren't ever going to fear us if we are willing to roll over and die before we are even decide if we are willing to fight or not. Have you any idea how weak that we look? If I was a politician the game industry would be a deer stuck in my headlights. Scared, confused and dumbfounded. We'd rather do the same thing the government would do except less restrictive instead of standing up for the problem itself which would be to end all censorship of art, in this case video games.

I know thats stepping on a lot of people's toes but dude we look weak. We are bending to the will of parents and ignoring the desire to have access to games where developers can express themselves openly and freely. Its not a balancing act, we should stand up for freedom and let the parents do their jobs, which is to parent and teach their child right from wrong. The game industry isn't supposed to be their parents and either is the government.

@ Tom

How does the analogy not make sense?

The ESRB is the safety net for the industry. Are you willing to drive full speed in a busy highway without you seat belt on and the air bags turned off? I doubt it. Sure the majority of the time, you don't see the need for the ESRB, but when we have cases like Hot Coffee and Manhunt 2 (not singling out R* just using these infamous examples) it is nice to know that the industry will survive. I would rather see the industry come away limping from these events than see it come away in a body bag.

If you don't want the ESRB, why don't you take the stand yourself and not buy any game that is rated by the ESRB.

@chris: I wasn't saying don't support manhunt 2. I'm just saying that they've pushed the envelope far enough this round. And it's not even a clear win. So why risk it right now over something not worth it. About the only thing that could be worse than pushing the industry right now is if R* or TT wrote a book titled "If we marketed towards kids".

Oh, and at all the people who don't think the average age is 33. Think about how much money you have as a kid. Now think of how much money an average gamer makes once they have a full time job. Where do you think all that disposable income goes. Plus, you need to take into account the fact that while time wise, kids 'may' make up a majority of game hours, that's not what's being measured. If a 40 year old has tetris on his cell phone, and they actually play it more than once a year, I'd consider them a gamer. Just because adults tend to have more responsibilities and less time to 'devote' to video games, or get engrossed in them, doesn't mean they aren't gamers any more. While I personally haven't slowed down a whole ton, I am rapidly approaching the point in my life where I just don't have time to play all the games I want. Eventually I'll be cutting back, and only playing the ones I REALLY want, and I can see at some point being restricted to only a few hours a week tops.

Think of TV. What's the average age of the TV watcher. Now what is the average age of TV watchers that watch over 2 hours at a time. I'm sure the age drops a whole ton. But that doesn't mean that primetime TV isn't largely watched by 30-40somethings. Throw in the fact that playing video games costs a lot more than watching TV, and you can see why a disposable income makes the gaming age sky rocket.

@ Tom

Do you have kids? From you comments, I hope not and hope you never will.

As a father of two soon to be three, I find the ESRB to be very helpful. If I did not have the ESRB rating to look at, then I would have to pre approve every game before I let it in my house. That would require hours of time I do not have. It would be so much easier to take 5 seconds to look at the rating and flip it over to see content descriptors.

Your plan is very biased against parents. So who do we choose to side with. The people with kids who want to choose what content enters their home or people like you who seem to be anti-parent and anti-child?

I'm not Anti-parent and anti-child. I think, upon having children, you should be responsible enough to parent them. Yea its not easy but no one said it would be. Being a parent is tough but its something you should deal with yourself. You shouldn't have to require the ESRB or government to infringe on my freedom so its easier for you to parent your children.

Who's infringing on your freedom. Do we deny you the right to play games because you don't have children? You may not be able to get all the AO games you want, but there are way for you to get them.

I stand by my suggestion for you. Only play games that don't have an ESRB rating, don't come out on one of the big three consoles, and aren't sold in stores and leave my industry alone.

I guess according to E. Zachary Knight there just isn't any room in the industry for a Libertarian that isn't afraid of speaking his mind. Your going to have to put up with me cause I'm here to stay for a long, long time. Perhaps not on this website for that entire time but like it or not I'm going to be in the industry to stay.

I do not blame others. itake full responsibility for my children. I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. If they eventually decide to stray from that, I will hold them responsible for teir decision while expressing my dipleasure with their decision.

The ESRB is there to make a parents job easier. Whether you like it or not does not matter in this aspect. We cannot play every game that is out. But we can look at every game's rating.

I have no problem with speaking on touchy issues. I have no problem with AO games. What I have a problem with is people who think that we should simply let everyone run wild and rampant.

Regarding the comment about "the average age of video gamers:"

I have no doubts about the number 33, but I do have doubts about how the numbers are cooked. Games like Bejeweled, the Sims, etc, tended to appeal to older players. Brain Age is being specifically marketed to them. If you factor in those players, then yeah, the average gamer's age could be 33.

But those players aren't going out and buying violent shooters and stalker games. Those gamers probably trend down to an average age of 22-27.

Tom,

Have a kid or two and come back to this page. You'll laugh at yourself. The ESRB is providing the group of people who purchase the most games (either directly or indirectly through allowance, etc.) a service they asked for. It's really that simple. Now, I'm all for the ESRB becoming transparent and improving itself. You are ignoring the needs for such a system, whether out of idealistic naivety, or willfully thumbing your nose at it, I know not. I'm simply making an observation.

Cheers,
~Jeff

I'll have children when I'm ready, I plan to be responsible about creating life and I don't want to do that until I know I'm ready to parent a child and currently I don't wish to nor do I have the time to so its out of the question. I'm pretty sure things won't change when I have a child. I know enough about things to decide if I should allow it in the house or not. I don't want others to parent my children for me, sorry but that will be my job.

Tom, you're really distorting the argument here. The point is, NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU FROM SPEAKING YOUR MIND! If you want to make a video game that doesn't get rated, fine, you just can't sell it in major stores. It's the same thing with pretty much any industry that's in the public eye. It's not censorship if it's a voluntary decision to do these things. The developers have the option of releasing AO, or unrated games. It's just harder to push them, therefor much less likely for profit. But nowhere other than the consoles and the stores, is there an actual law, or prevention of being able to make these games.

Learn the difference between censorship and holding your tongue before commenting further. There's a HUGE difference. How you were able to twist everyone's comments into an argument that supporting a self-regulated industry is somehow related to dismissing the first amendment, is beyond me. There's two very unrelated subjects.

I and others here have said this before, the console makers are the first layer of censorship in games today.

The ECA should be working for the consumer rather than pointing at politicians and their laws that never seem to pass. I have never seen an instance in which the ECA has stood up for consumer rights in the face of the console makers or retailers. I can't think a single one.

Red rings of death? no.

Game content being censored to fit the ESRB's classification of '17'? no.
(and don't think manhunt is the only game to have had made concessions.)

The ECA seems more like: 'we'll stand up against ineffectual politics, and stand up for the consumer! (as long as its ok with console makers or retailers).'

I'm not saying the ECA is a sham organization solely to rally consumer support around the interest of console makers and retailers, against lame politicians and unemployed lawyers... but, well I've never seen the ECA stand up for a consumer issue that wasn't also perfectly inline with the interests of retailers.. or console makers...

Sorry but I can't agree with anything you guys are saying. I'm pretty sure the feeling is mutual.

Oh I know what freedom is. I am free to complain about the policies the companies have set in place. They can ignore it and disagree with it. They are free to only release T rated games if they want. But I have the right to say thats a bad policy. I'm not saying they don't have the right to do it, I'm just saying its not a good policy. Where did all this crap of me saying the companies don't have the right to do something come from? Certainly not from my mouth because I've stated many times that I'm just disagreeing with their policy.

@ Tom

In your disagreements of these policies, you have made it very clear that you are calling for change. You are calling for them to change their policies regarding the ESRB and the AO rating. You are calling for change, whether you like to believe that or not.

@Alex

There is a little link in the side panel that says 'Contact Us' the address is there.

Actually Tom you've repeated said that you want the ESRB trashed because you feel that its censorship.

As has been stated, numerous times, nothing could be further from the truth. Companies are free to release AO rated material, however console manufacturers and retailers also have the right to refuse to sell that material. I'll grant that there is a double standard when it comes to movies but there isn't one when it comes to printed material.

A minor can't go and buy a playboy magazine and no one takes issue with that, its the same way with games and it should be the same. There are some things that minors are not prepared to deal with. Extreme violence and sexual imagery are two of those things.

That's why I support the ESRB. As I've said before, I used to work retail and I can't count the number of parents who didn't know about the ESRB and were thankful after having it explained to them. It gives them a tool to help them purchase age appropriate material for their kids and teenagers.

I'd also rather have the voluntary organization that is the ESRB than lawsuit after lawsuit that would be the inevitable outcome of government regulation.

People need to understand the difference between censorship and profitng. As console manufacturers, they have the right to not allow a game to be published. That's the whole concept of being able to prevent games like custard's revenge from being released on your system. This is part of the reason why console manufacturers are so reluctant to accept the homebrew community. It has so much potential for 'unagreeable' content since it doesn't require any rating. Basically, since video games have become such a hot topic in the public eye, developers have toned things down. But there is nothing actually preventing them from making these games. Look at leisure suit larry. Yes, they toned down one of their packs to get an M rating, but they still have AO games. They just don't make much money because there's not an 'easy' way to push them. Console manufacturers give developers and easy path to release their games. To say that the consumer has full control over it is absurd. Sony, Nintendo, and M$ invest lots of money into these consoles to create an environment for developers that is standardized, and easier to program for than a general PC. To NOT allow them to control what does and doesn't make it on their system would remove SO much power, that I can't see companies making consoles any more. It's too much liability without enough control.

This isn't just an argument of "oh this game is inappropriate for minors". There are PLENTY of games out there that aren't console worthy for many reasons. From racism, to nudity, to just plain poor programming. Sony, Nintendo, and M$ don't want to have to deal with the hassle of lawsuits (whether they're valid or not) and whatnot.

Too many people claim that developers opting out of things is censorship. IMO, this is just not true. They are in it for the money, and if they can't make money, they won't do it that way. Consoles are THE PRIME source of income for game developers. The amount of time and resources needed to program for a console is significantly less, and they can reach a much larger audience. It's all about profits, not censorship. If any one of these companies like EA or TT or Activision had the balls to invest money into a non-console game that wasn't restricted by the console 'laws', none of these arguments would even happen. But the sad fact of the matter is that game developers (for the most part) are in it for the money, not for the games. They want to make a product that can earn money, and releasing a limited edition AO game that isn't accessible on the 3 major consoles is just too much of a risk for them. It's not censorship, it's profiting.

@ Pencil Poser

JT's comments get flagged by Gamepolitics, as there have been many fake Jacks trying to make him to be worse than he is. So Dennis Flags them, makes sure they are from him and then opens them for publishing in the commetns section. So they often show up late and near the top.

Scroll up and you will see his comments.

"In a free society, people are free, in every sense of the word, NOT to participate in something. The “something” here is the distribution of AO games. If Sony and Nintendo don’t want that crap on their game consoles, then they are FREE not to have it."


For once Jack you are correct. And no one is saying that they don't have this right. Point out where someone is saying that. But we also have these rights Jack, to not participate in the buying of these games. And I bet you if we can hit Sony and Nintendo where it hurts, in their pocket books they will change their tune really damn fast on AO games.

The wallet is the greatest voting device conceived in a capitalist system.


"Only in the “gaming community” would somebody have the ridiculous position that gamers have a right to demand that Sony make a free choice that has only one choice–give us what we demand."

Yes, actually, they do have to give us what we demand. That is how the industry/customer relationship works. And if they don't give us what they demand they might find themselves in some financial trouble.

I think the easiest thing for me to do is repost my two posts from the Forum. As I said before here, in some way, they are similar to what Mr. Bogost said in the article, though I hadn't seen the article til today.
----------------------------------------
Nightwng2000, 27Aug2007 7:19PM EST

use the ESRB only when I'm in the store. And usually that's just the beginning. It depends on what mood I'm in, but I can sometimes get an idea of how deep a game is from a rating and the descriptors.

A lot of factors go into making a final decision, whether it's for me or my son. I don't even have as much a problem with buying a higher rated game for him as much as I have a problem buying a game that might be too complex or frustrating for him. More often than not, it's trial and error, but sometimes, the rating with descriptors can help.

Quite frankly, i pay less attention to the TV Ratings than I do the ESRB or MPAA ratings.

The only real problem I have with the ESRB ratings is that retailers take them to heart. Personally, I'd rather walk into a store and buy a game than have to order it online because it grabbed an AO rating. I suppose the biggest problem is that not only do general retailers such as Wal-Mart, Circuit City, and Best Buy not cary AO games, but even specialty stores like EB Games don't carry them. Whereas, while stores like Wal-Mart will carry UnRated movies, they won't carry NC-17 movies, but specialty stores, like SunCoast, DO carry the equivilant of NC-17 movies (like Playboy Video Calendar or movies like late night Cinemax would show). There seems to be a lack of consistancy. Not to mention that the consoles won't allow AO rated games on their systems.

Of course, that isn't the fault of the ESRB but rather the retailers and the console makers.
---------------------------------------------------------

Nightwng2000, 27Aug2007, 9:43PM EST

Great Wikipedia article on the MPAA and, moreover, it's evolution of their ratings, as well as an interesting writeup of NC-17.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA_fi...ng_is_replaced

The thing about video games is that they truly were viewed (maybe because of calling them "games" rather than "interactive entertainment" from the beginning?) as "for kids" in the beginning.

But as video games evolved, so, too, did the interest of older persons. Especially as those who were kids when video games first appeared continued to enjoy the evolving medium.

Moving pictures didn't start out solely being of interest to children. Even comedy was portrayed in a fashion that adults could easily connect with.

When the MPAA appeared on the scene, movies were well established being of interest to a very wide age range. So it was working with a medium that was recognizing adult interest without being "Porn" Adult. They could more reasonably segregate catagories by an age range. True, they still evolved and changed their system. But the overall medium was clearly meant for all ages to enjoy.

Video games, despite even the T or M ratings, are still viewed as "kid's toys" irregardless of the statistics about the older age of gamers. The fact is, despite the truth of video games being as much for all ages to enjoy, the ratings are viewed as being applied solely to children.

I don't know if I'm making what I feel quite clear. But it feels like, when it comes to movies, the MPAA ratings, from the perspective of society, is to focus on the movie and rate it. But for video games, the ESRB ratings, from the perspective of society, is to say a child will be playing it and we should rate the game based on that fact, irregardless of whether it really is a child or an adult who will be playing it.

Now, personally, I treat the ratings, all the ratings, as merely flashcard info. Is it the ESRB's fault or the MPAA's fault why retailers treat certain ratings negatively? No. In all honesty, from a neutral point of view, an AO or NC-17 rating, despite the stigma society places on them, is not truly a "bad" rating. Frankly, I think retailers need to be more consistant with how they treat industry rated (or even Unrated) material. I also think that console makers, at the least, should offer a version of their console that DOES allow AO rated software to be run. Allow the consumer to make the choice whether THEY want a console that will run AO rated material or not. Movie player hardware, to my knowledge, doesn't deny higher rated movies from being played on their systems. So, in a sense, the console makers are actually at fault, in part anyway, for video games continuing to appear to be a "kid's toy" because of not allowing adults to make full use of the equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Don't forget the Wii and PS3 have a browser. You can look up porn on it. OOPS better make the Wii and PS3 AO rated for that. :P

@ everyone: by the way, retail "freedom" should not be confused with actual freedom

retail is capitalism, not democracy.

DENNIS that's not a HOME ADDRESS you silly old git!! Send me your home address so we can have tea

@Alex Thomas: dude, you're creeping me out. go take it elsewhere please.

unless that was sarcasm in which case...

"haha" ????

@ Central Scrutinizer

He creeps me out too. Dennis made a comment in his post telling him where the address was. But yeah, he is very creepy.

so Deus,

When Nintendo orders a game from a developer, and then says 'opps we didn't know manhunt2 was going to be violent, you have to take out all the offensive content or we won't release it. And if we won't release it your company is going to take a major financial loss, this is your problem. All the money and time your company invested in the development of this title is gone. You can release it on PC but still take a major loss, or you can do what we tell you and recuperate your investments.'

So because the threat is a financial one its not censorship?

There are numerous cases of television programs 'removing content' under the threat of advertisers pulling their ads from the program, and its the same threat, 'remove that content or lose millions' and yet this is still considered censorship...

The only reason "Adult Only" makes everyone think of porn is that you already get nearly all the violence with an M rating, but clearly nothing sexually, not even a nipple. Just what went wrong in the US about sexuality? At least concerning the media. Just what the hell went wrong? There is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with nudity and sexuality. Nothing! This rating is just plain stupid. But everyone here will probably already know that. Maybe at some point there is a second rating system coming up, just for sexual content alone. Bah.

@tempo, your example is WAY off. Nintendo doesn't approach the developer, the developer approaches Nintendo. Nintendo did no commission, nor has any say in who, when or what makes its way into Manhunt 2. The ONLY position they have is the ability to sell the developers development consoles, and provide an interface for their media to see the mass market. If Nintendo did approach the company to make it, and then censor it, that'd be different. But I don't see any Nintendo first party titles pushing that envelope.

They're not being threatened with pulling advertisement, or pulling out investment dollars. The investment has already been made. They're working to make money off of it now. They are going into the medium with the intent of profit, not with the intent of creating art.

You know what would solve this? If the big 3 actually played any of the 'porn' games. With such an embarrasing game, many people are just turned off from buying them in retail stores anyways. Let alone the fact that almost all of the porn games now are so terrible, it's just funny. Seriously, why would anyone be paying $60 to play pixelated porn, when for $5, you can buy a magazine, or go online and click "Yes I am 18" for free. It's like people think that the porn industry is going to all of a sudden be making these big production games with lots of flash and flare. Ever watch a porno, they can't get decent actors for that. I can only imagine what porno voice acting would be like.

(Note: there is a LARGE amount of sarcasm here, don't get all pissy)

I think the whole "Adult Only" should be abandoned in favor of another rating: For porn game use the label XX. The problem would be, what to do with games with over the top violence ?

Suggestions ?

The ESRB is the foot in the door. Because the ESRB places limits on what games can do, large retail stores can carry video games without unnecessary flak or expense (by having to independently rate games, for example).

While people complain about the limits that the ESRB imposes, it is those limits that enable national retail chains to easily sell videogames -- which is the real reason that video games are ubiquitous today.

Videogames are not special in this regard -- there are certain magazines, movies, and books that you will never find at a Target, Walmart, or Best Buy.

You can make whatever salty video game you want or you can put the game in a store. But you can't do both.

Good god, Jack-in-the-Box, don't you see the utter crap in what you just posted? Using your own logic, if people followed the way you describe the first amendment then you'd be opening up a Pandora's Box of stupid. If people actually thought that way, and sadly some of them do, then I could use my first amendment right to not treat you should you be assigned to me as a patient due to policy of not dealing with bottom-feeding massacre-chasers - I would still treat you though because I'm a good doctor. Fact is is that you're promoting censorship - again - and trying to hide it as a first amendment issue - again - and noone is buying it - again. Frankly I'm still trying to figure out why you think anyone here actually gives a flying rat's ass about what you think on these issues when we're really more curious about other issues; like how you comb your hair so the horns don't show, or why your footprints are always in the shape of hooves. Get with the program here!

Just ignore Thompson, at the end of the day, for all his claims that 'We can't get through the day without him', absolutely no-one forces him to his keyboard to type his trolling drivel. I think the poor man sits in front of his keyboard, googling his name and screaming for attention.

You know, if on September 4th he changes his name from Jack Thompson, Attorney, to Jack Thomspon, I will laugh SO hard.

Oh, and Alex Thomas, is, I think, a rebirth of our illustrious 'Doctor' who was posted obscenities and trying to get Dennis' address a few months ago.

I'm not interested in "figuring out" the enigma that is Jack Thompson. My question was rhetorical.

However, I am interested in reminding myself and others that these redundant debates are more entertainment than anything else.

That said, I do find some of on the non-JT related commentary to be insightful.

I do agree with Bogosts stance that the consumers should be dealing more with the availablity of content and the Industry should be dealing with the political side of things. We're all aware that the ESA is primarily based around Industry, but has the financial whack to stand against the government 9 times so far, the ECA doesn't have that kind of influence at a political level BUT consumers can, with a bit of organisation, put commercial pressure on products.

The problem is we are in a 'Somebody ought to do something about this' society, and it takes a hell of a lot to make us into a 'I'm going to do something about this' mindset.

Basically whilst manufacturers DO have every right to deny to supply AO games, we have an equal right to put pressure on those companies, but a few letters won't do anything, you need real and volumous pressure, not a few rants.

Certainly, less of a massive leap between T and M would do much to bridge the gap, much like the UK's 15 rating.

@Azradesh

AO should mean adults only, not porn as it seems to mean.

Try explaining that one to most parents. Seriously. The only thing kids aren't allowed to watch is porn, so if it's Adults Only, that means it's porn. In most people's heads anyway.

LOL I love that shlapping that Yee and Co. get ;)

Exactly, but in his comments, Thompson, by proxy, removes OUR right to Free Speech, basically, we have the very same rights to protest the companies stance as they have to enforce it. It may or may not produce change, that is between us, but for a third party to claim that ANY version of Free Speech is more important than any other simply strikes me as Hypocrisy.

Possibly because they don't own the IP of the game, releasing details without the developers consent is, strictly speaking, illegal. Remember the ESRB is NOT part of Rockstar, it's a seperate entity.

I can't speak for the ESRB, but the BBFC takes context into account, which is why their rating system isn't nearly as transparent as people think, basically, GTA would struggle more for a good rating than, say, Halo 3 because of the ethics of the main character, not because of the violent content of the game, so each game has to be reviewed on a one-one basis, it's very hard to provide a 'transparent' way to interpret that.

From Patricia Vance --
"Publishers submit game content to the ESRB on a confidential basis."

Like I said in an earlier story, it was Take 2 who made the AO rating public information. It's a publicity stunt, folks. It's "look, our game is ALMOST bad enough to get an AO rating!" stunt.

It's done with movies all the time. It's no surprise here.

And oh Jack you silly boy.

"Freedom, put another way, is what people choose to exercise whether game-obsessed people like that free choice or not. Only in the “gaming community” would somebody have the ridiculous position that gamers have a right to demand that Sony make a free choice that has only one choice–give us what we demand."

You wholey underestimate humanity. Especialy Americans. This kind of mentaly is present in all sorts of groups around the world, and has even been demonstrated by yourself on a number of occasions. I think you should be a bit more careful with your words when typing up your insults, especialy when they reflect you so well.

nightwng2000
*crawls up from hell*
I heard that!
LOL

But its true AO has been hijacked by porn and and the ESRB dose not see any trouble ignoring it.

I still say they need to treat games differently since they are being treated diffrently ,open up a NC17 level focusing on begin a hard R that or add a M15 level and then from there let M become a "real" R.

In any case waiting for the world to change is not a good thing for the ESRB...............

Everyone else calls him that, I don't see why not especially when he continues to support that name with his comments, letters and interviews.

@GoodRobotUs:

This is why I have stated, maybe not in this post but i do feel like a broken record today, that both parties need to be involved in the release of info. if only one side did, it wouldn't be credible anyway.

again... no one has given a good reason. I would be happy to reassess my position upon hearing an actual good reason why the process shouldn't be transparent.

My 2 cents, and I'll keep this polite and civil.

@Ian.

While I'm all for more of a sense of freedom, being one of the so called "hard liners" when it comes to the first amendment, as Jt calls us, I'm also a bit upset that we are attacking the console manufactures of the console. If anything, we should be going after the ESRB. 3 things needs to end. The first is the exsistance of the AO rating in the first place. I think an 18 plus rating, that is heavily enforced and still playable on all consoles would be a good thing. Secondly, I think that a large part of the problem is that the industry has not been more proactive in promoting games as a mature medium. While there has been some progress on this, the masses still percive games as a "Kids Medium". Thats a major part of the problem.

Also, The Eca is a good thing, I love it's goals ,but I don't think it's doing enough. Aside from it's grass roots support for the industry consumers, which I think is great, it needs to be more active and vocal. I applaud Hal for trying hard to get the word out on many issues, but he's been quiet on others, or at least, not vocal enough. While he's spoken out against certain things, such as Goverment regulation and other issues, He needs to be more vocal for consumer rights. The recent ICE mod chip raid being a good example. Here we have government being used as a tool for big bussines to attack people, and then we have them altering a well known internet encyclopedia in wikipedia to try and Justify there actions, and Hal was silent through both events. I find that disturbing.

We have a group thats Supposed to represent consumer rights. They should be more active in doing so. As a member, I'm expecting big things from hal and has group. Hopefully I won't be disapointed.

@ Jack Thompson

Mr. Thompson, your claim that you started a dialog six years ago is nothing but a blatant lie. What you started was a series of lies, falsifications and shouting about anything you didn't like to justify your personal beef with a game company. You never started anything but a personal, selfish, self serving crusade.

Were your attacks on hal, Doug Lowenstein, dennis, and others part of a dialog? How bout the metal gear suicide thing? Was that part of a dialog? Or here, how bout reviewing your own words.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson

IS that what you call a Dialog?

Your actions, words, and deeds speak the truth you yourself deny. Your a pathetic, reprehensible excuse for a human being, and the only thing you've done is create misconception, ignorance, and hate.

I hope the industry gets you disbarred. it would be fitting justice for all the slander you spewed over the years.

@Yuki

"I’m also a bit upset that we are attacking the console manufactures of the console."

Agreed, but I still think we should be allowed to complain. They allow unrated and NC-17 movies to be played on the consoles, but they don't allow AO games to be played or even licensed.

Yeah I shouldn't be able to sue them to "force" them to allow AO games, but I can sure as hell vent about it as a consumer, just like I get pissed off when they force me to sit through those commercials at the start of DVDs and refuse to acknowledge me hitting FF to skip them.

@Jaber

Hey, no argument there buddy, I for one think it would be a good idea for all the major game publishers to band together and put pressure on the ESA to force the ESRB to be revised or to at least revisit the AO rating and replace it with an Actual rating rather then the current AO rated ban hammer that it is.

Im simply stating that not all blame should be on the console guys. They have to appeal to as broad an audience as possible, and so that means not scaring off or ostrichzing kids or adults. Finding that balance is a tough one and I think that if the ESRB was a bit better designed, then it would be fine.

Thats just how i think things could be made better. Get rid of ao, replace it with an M 18 or something, and make sure all retailers and console makers support it.

Problem solved.

@Yuki:

The gang over the website I've linked is already planning a kegger if^H^Hfor when it happens. :P

Thompson is technically correct...Sony, Nintendo, and MS don't NEED to allow AO rated games on their consoles. However, that doesn't make him any less of a mean spirited, pompous jerk.

The ESRB is a industry pillar thats fallen to stagnation only its happen faster than the MPAA but at least it has not lost all of its reputation.

I think the ESRB should change how it is doing things it IS NOT 100% blameless in this its ignoring issues.

First off send a message to the console makers that their version of censorship is no better than anyone else's by dissolving AO and tell them that they can ban the approval of "unrated" games on the consoles all they want and when they are ready to not blindly ban titles they will leave AO in the "unrated thus baned" category,this will of corse not effect 18+ PC titles they will merely receive a NOT RATED mark and the ESRB discriptors.

Secondly Ignore politicians and the Game industry its job is rating games to their appropriate levels not coddle whoever has money whines endlessly.

Third Add M or T 15+ to the teen end of the ratings levels much like E10 a 15+ level is needed and it would then take the brunt of M titles that are lite R or hard PG13 (Sudeiki,Castvinla,ect) leaving M for true R level games like "G"OW,most harder FPSs and games like Manhunt and prehaps in time it can harden some more but for now it needs to be more solid and inline with films.

@Yuki

If you just replace AO with M18, it could still carry the "porno" stigma that AO carries now, because pornographic games would still be lumped in with it. I used to be against the idea, but the more I hear people talk about the AO rating, the more I begin to agree, leave pornographic games to the AO rating, and create an 18+ rating, which M18 would be great for. And that would still only be half the battle.

Like Dennis said, part of the reason why nobody wants to license a game with a rating that's the equivalent of NC-17 is because the general public's view on videogames is that it's still "just for kids".

What needs to happen is this. First, the ESRB needs to create a new 18+ rating for games that would be too graphic for an M rating, but would not be considered pornographic. The ESRB then needs to get the word out, in a really big way, that the new 18+ rating is NOT for porno, and that the AO rating has been relegated for porn games only. Second, the adult gaming demographic really needs to show just how big of a group they are. Public opinion won't be moved until the general public sees just how many adults do play videogames. Once that happens, that same group needs to show a big interest in games that would carry the new 18+ rating.

It's quite ironic, Jack Thompson wants to suppress the freedom of a company to do what they choose and the freedom of a comsumer to choose what they purchase, to defend freedom?

Isn't that like the current police state in the US? Strip away freedom so the government can stop the terrorists from taking away freedom?

@Zippy

It's not the ESRB's job to police what console manufacturers decide to license. If the ESRB's hands were that far into the gaming industry, there would be a conflict of interests, which would give the politicians a nice big box of ammunition against the gaming industry.

Basically, all we can do is raise awareness, try to counter the lies where we can and, in the case of US citizens, work with companies like the ECA to see what collective action can be taken.

One thing is for certain, collective action IS the answer, I just wish there were a way that non-American gamers could air their concerns over the international chilling effect of American censorship.

Sorry to drift off topic, but I thought I'd draw GP's attention to this 'Alex Thomas' character.

I don't know if you recall, but a few months ago there was a really 'affected' person posting threats and insults on here and trying to get GP's home address, he got banned after a few days.

I have a strong suspicion that the name was very similar to Alex Thomas, and the behaviour, though not the language (yet) is eerily similar enough to make me suspicious.

Just to give you a heads up Dennis :)

Hilarious, typical gamers are truly hilarious. First they start a debate on two opinions, it lasts for a few hours, then somebody from the opposing side presents something valid and thought provoking, albeit contrary to the opposition, and it turns into adults acting like infants fighting amongst themselves over a sand-bucket in the playground's sandbox.

You people are pathetic, you attack somebody just because of who they are and you don't take any time to actually read what they say; I am referring to Mr. Jack Thompson. He actually, and I'll admit I NEVER thought I'd say this, has a valid point in his posting. If the retailers don't want to sell it, they have the choice not to, if the developers want to make it, they have the choice to make it, both will have to simply deal with the consequences of their said actions; and I believe that's the whole idea of freedom, you have the choice to do WHATEVER you want, but it may conflict with others opinions and/or laws and you'll have to deal with the consequences.

Also, games.. *Gasp.* are NOT an art form. They are, games. Things to entertain yourself with. NOW, am I saying that there are no artistic games? No, there are many artistic games, the Xenosaga series, the Kingdom Hearts series, Twilight Princess, Okami, Majora's Mask, Guild Wars, those are all very artistic games. But, to say that all games are art is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY wrong, and that is what you do by saying that games are an art form.

Simply put. I play video games, I don't play art; conversely, I make art, I don't make games. If you want to play an adult game, then google it, I'm more than positive that you'll find something to suit your sick desires. As for me, I'm going to be perfectly content playing my "kiddie" video games, because they're fun. If I wanted to play a game that was poorly made by an uninformed 12 year old, where the men's penises were all one foot long and the women's breasts were all gigantic, then I'd go and google it.. wait... I don't want to, because it's garbage. It's premise is garbage, and it's core gameplay is garbage.

You can't go buy a Playboy at Wal*Mart, why should you be able to buy "Let's go screw some hoes 45" at one in the future?

But, that's it for me. I'm going to go play some Yoshie's Island, or maybe Poke'mon, I 'dunno. I'm not gonna pay attention to these "forums" or "comments" where "debates" take place. Whether you want to admit it or not, a 17 year old has just displayed more maturity and wisdom than has already been able to be seen in this place. Pathetic.. truly pathetic.

Ooops... understand is the wrong word there... it should be articulate.

"when even you, someone who is deeply involved in the politics of gaming, can’t seem to articulate the issues involved, how do you expect outsiders to understand them?"


Not meaning to say you have no idea ;)

I think the problem is partly in presentation, and partly to do with the fact that some people cannnot, and simply will not, ever understand why someone would work as a Phsychologist all day, for example, and then go home and relax by pretending to save the Universe, or by hunting pretend orcs, or even pretending to be a thief or an assassin. Until Lord of the Rings, even movies suffered from this stigma to a degree, though not as badly since films like Leon etc were undoubtedly aimed at adults.

Like Dennis, Black Manta and others here, I grew up to see the arrival of the Binatone and Space Invaders etc, my first console was an Atari 2600, which was only called 'The Atari' then because the Binatone was the only other console. So, for many of us, our early lives included Video Games. I played Doom 1 at 18 not because of the violence, but because that was when it was released.

I think it's also down to perception a bit, I look at a 22 year old as being 'young' these days, despite being perfectly entitled to do anything that I can.

Amazing Sladgen, simply amazing, rarely have a seen an artist with such a closed mind.

So only the types of games YOU choose are artistic? YOU alone have the right to declare what is art and what is not? I personally agree that Jack is right about the console makers rights to not release games of a certain rating, but I have also stated 3 times that we have an equal right to question that choice, though personally I suspect it would have no effect whatsoever.

Had you actually been paying attention to the conversation, the problem was more about seperating pornography from games that are equally, not more, violent than Hostel or Saw.

Now, same as you, as I've always upheld, I'd rather buy a game about building a city than destroying one, but the people on here aren't talking about 'Let's go screw some Hoes' or 'Men with one foot long penises', what they are talking about is seperating that in order to stop them being classed in the same category as those sort of game.

You make the same mistake as they do, you select what suits you and comment only on that, and over-generalise with it. The only difference is, they don't try to take a moral high-ground whilst doing so.

"Here’s something else Dennis McCauley doesn’t want you to know:

Teenagers often get as little as four hours of sleep a night because they secretly play video games or watch TV until the early hours. "

wow, you think we dont actualy know that Jack? What, do you think we all were born at the age we are now and didnt ever grow up ourselves? Hell I did that /before/ I was ever into games. I used to stay up secretly and watch Adam West play batman. Its completely normal. Aside from that im sure that kids also stayed up reading as well.

the shock
the scandal
thank you for letting in on one of the worlds best known 'secrets' that has persisted and been around for decades if not centuries.



I wonder if lil Jack used to stay up at night, hidden away under his sheets with a flash light and some case files.

Good man, penthouse is way dirtier anyways.

@DeusPayne

LOL




....I know nuuuthing.....

Mr. Thompson... i have two things to say to you.

1. You somehow have never heard the phrase "The customer is always right." Sony has the free will to not do something certain fans want, but most likely, they want more money, like every other company and PERSON out there.

2. You need to learn the difference between a STATISTIC and a STATEMENT. Saying 'teenagers don't get enough sleep.' is a STATEMENT, not a statistic. You're effectively saying that every teenager on this planet doesn't get enough sleep. No numbers, no percentages, just lumping them all up into one group. That, my friend, is bullshit. And i would know. I read up on it. Yes. Gamers read books. SHOCKING, NO? "On Bullshit" by Harry G Frankfurt.

@Sladgen

You realize that your entire argument is predicated on the idea that you alone get to determine what is and is not considered to be art? That you alone get to determine whether a book, movie, picture, or piece of music gets to be called art?

Personally I say that if pop music gets to be considered an art form, and something like this: http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pimage?55760+0+0 gets called art and put in a gallery, then video games get to be called an art form as well.

That doesn't mean a give piece is good art. But being a piece of shit doesn't mean it's any less art. By the way, that last sentence is literal:
http://www.pieromanzoni.org/EN/works_shit.htm

Not to mention all of the other points have already been covered. If you're going to whine Sladgen, at least whine specifically. I hate general whining.

Anyways, ignoring most of the debate here, my thoughts on the matter of the AO rating is that the ESRB needs to change things like the MPAA did with their ratings (see http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_history1.asp to see how the MPAA ratings evolved and changed as recently as 1990).

They probably ought to split the M rating into a mid teens rating like M15+ or M16+, and an M18+. Then leave the AO rating to become the sexual content rating that everyone already seems to assume it's got. Violence and gambling could get the M18+ rating instead. It ain't perfect, but it'd be a start.

@ Terrible Tom: Do you really think the console makers would just say anything goes if there was no rating system? They'd still try to ban particularly offensive content, it would jest be more complicated and arbitrary. Read up on Nintendo pre ESRB. I don't usually like using this line of argument, but you're clearly a kid who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Slagden is equivalent to uninformed, childish, spam.

"The Sleep Council warned that its results showed parents were being too lenient compared to previous generations by failing to impose a strict “lights out”

Funny, how the sleeping problems of teenagers would be solved by parents enforcing stricter "lights out" rules.
for instance, if the teen stays up late on a school night watching tv or playing video games, then the parent should take away the TV for a week...

once again, another problem that could be solved through the power of PARENTING!

On another note, Jack's right that Sony and co have every right to dictate what ratings are allowed to be play on their devices. What he doesn't want to accept however, is that is censorship on the console makers part, and gamers have every right to demand that Sony and co cut it out. Then Sony has every right to ignore those demands. Saying that we can't express our displeasure with console makers and retailers playing the role of censor is denying us some of our rights to freedom of expression.

@ Jack Thompson

If any of us gamers wanted to, we could make a game way more brutal than Manhunt 2 or any other game already out by simply making a game off a blank computer disc.

Where I am trying to get at is that getting rid of Manhunt 2 will not solve anything when kids can simply view way worse games from some (what you would call a sociopath) gamer creating a game from a blank disc.

This is a waste of time Jack to try to ruin Manhunt 2 when there is far worse situations other then violent games to deal with.

@Jack Thompson

As my wife and I are parents of a 14yo high school student who has to start his day at 6am, we are very well informed about the sleep deprivation that teens go through.

We DO enforce a strict lights out policy. We also impose strict rules regarding usage of media and guess what... our son is an honor student and a serious musician... oh, and he was just confirmed last spring by a BISHOP.

We PLAY videogames too... together... imagine that Jack... parents who make their own rules and don't listen to YOU or anyone else who would tell us how to raise our son because we happen to believe no one knows better than we do... what a concept eh Jacky?

I'd also like to point out that none of the studies regarding teens and sleep EVER refer to video games. I've yet to hear one, but ya know what? If a parent decides to let their kid stay up, what do YOU think you're going to do about it?

Who the hell do you think you are telling people how to raise their kids?

You hypocrite.

You poor excuse for a Christian.

You waste of a law degree.

-mw

I have posted on a few occasions here at GP about the same issues almost exactly. I believe retailers and console makers share a large part of the blame for game censorship. The funny part is I could easily head of to Wal Mart and pick up an Unrated film, pop it in the 360, and blamo, nudity. Hypocrisy is prevalent there. I do disagree that the ECA and GP focus solely on Washington, as their content shows otherwise.

Leland Yee is ridiculous. It bothers me that we associate with the same political party. Anybody know who this guy was a few months ago. I'll put a couple of dollars down he runs for Congress now.

As I suggested earlier I believe an emphasis on age for ratings labels would be clearer for parents.

E for Everyone (no change)
13+ instead of T for Teen
17+ instead of M for Mature
18+ instead of Adults-Only

Its clear, its not cryptic, and quite frankly it shows the minimal difference between M and AO. At the very least the the ages should be better incorporated. I'm bored and going to fire up Photoshop right now and play around with a few ideas.

Sorry for double posting here, that should read "quick little" not quite...

LOL

Seriously though, they kinda remind me of the PEGI ratings, the actual ratings themselves look fine, it's the silly content symbols the screw up the PEGI system...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEGI

# Jack Thompson, Attorney Says:
August 28th, 2007 at 10:15 am

"It’s “time to start the dialogue?” I started it six years ago on 60 Minutes, and now the rest of you are catching up.

Here’s the main rebuttal to this guy’s allegation of “censorship.” Pay attention:

In a free society, people are free, in every sense of the word, NOT to participate in something. The “something” here is the distribution of AO games. If Sony and Nintendo don’t want that crap on their game consoles, then they are FREE not to have it.

“Freedom” is not defined as anarchism. Freedom is in fact the right of people to do or NOT do things, and only an intolerant anarcho-ideologue like this guy would suggest that Sony and Nintendo do not have the freedom–the right–to reject products for play on their systems.

Freedom, put another way, is what people choose to exercise whether game-obsessed people like that free choice or not. Only in the “gaming community” would somebody have the ridiculous position that gamers have a right to demand that Sony make a free choice that has only one choice–give us what we demand.

This guy needs to go back to school to be taught what freedom really is–it’s the ability to choose what you want, not what somebody else tells you you have to do.

It’s called a free society. Deal with it, dude. Jack Thompson"




Phoenix:

You know, once you look past all those immature personal attacks, I have to say Jack does have a point here. Sony and Microsoft do have the freedom of choice not to have those on their system. Gotta hand it to you Jackie boy, good thing to point out. I also like the fact that you've replaced "hooah" with "Deal with it, dude". Seriously, no sarcasm here, absolute truth.

John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law

1172 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 111

Coral Gables, Florida 33146

305-666-4366

amendmentone@comcast.net



August 29, 2007



Bar President Frank Angones and All Florida Bar Governors Via Faxes and e-mails



Re: Demand to Appear Before Bar Governors October 3 to 6, in Coconut Grove, FL



Dear Frank and Bar Governors:



As you all know or should know, I have repeatedly asked, over the last two years, to address the Board of Governors with my concerns that The Bar’s use of “discipline” against me at the behest of SLAPP Bar complainants within the entertainment industry is violative of the United States and Florida constitutions.



YesterdayThe Bar’s able trial counsel, Greenberg Traurig, provided to Judge Jordan, who is presiding over my federal lawsuit for injunctive and declaratory relief, a wonderful case. It is the 2005-2006 case Mason v. The Florida Bar. Greenberg was record counsel.



I’m not sure why Greenberg Traurig cited this case to the court, because it reasoning supports the relief I am seeking. Beyond that, in section 6 of the magistrate’s recommendation, which the court adopts and reduces to an order, it is stated as follows:



“Nothing prohibits Mason from petitioning the Board of Governors to dismiss the disciplinary action on constitutional grounds …”



I sat with my lawyer in Greenberg Traurig’s lovely offices in Tallahassee on May 16, 2006, and Hank Coxe, Paul Hill, Alan Bookman, Jack Harkness, and Barry Richard all told me that “the Bar Governors cannot get involved in discipline and will not hear you on these matters.” I specifically said I wanted to address The Bar Governors on constitutional issues.



Therefore, armed with Mason, I demand that I be allowed to appear before you to point out the unconstitutionality of what The Bar continues to do to me at the behest of two companies that distribute pornography to children. A good time and place, it seems to me, is your meeting at the Ritz Carlton in Coconut Grove scheduled for October 3 through 6. If there is another time, let me know. Mason says it should be before my trial.



Regards, Jack Thompson



Copy: U.S. District Court File, 07-21256

@Phoenix

You're right to a certain degree, that's why most people haven't attacked Jack over his comments, merely pointed out that we, as consumers, have an equal right to question that position, regardless of whether or not it has an effect, that's the fact that Jack has omitted from his post.

"First, you have to understand that freedom has to be earnt. Freedom doesn’t just happen, and with video games, our freedom is being compromised."

What? Video games are made by a developer for a publisher and then released and sold by retailers. You can buy/rent one and play it if you so wish. Video games aren't your thing? Don't buy or play them! You are under no pressure to buy/play them yourself, nor are your children.

"With a game like GTAIV, our freedoms are limited in that a company feels the need to compromise our freedoms by deciding what is or isn’t good enough for our children to play."

Again, what? You, just like every other politician and video game critic fail to realise that games are not just a child's toy. Just as there are movies and books that are for an older audience (Quentin Tarantino, Stephen King), so too there are games. GTA IV will NOT be a game for children to play, just as every game in the series so far has not been. Should it get into the hands of children, then blame the parents for lack of diligence in raising their kid, or blame the kid. If you were to find a pornographic magazine under your son's bed, would you then go and complain about the magazine publishers? No, you would chastise and perhaps punish the child for having this magazine when they know it's not for them.

Rockstar have not decided that this game is "good enough for children to play". They have decided that this game they have made for late teens/adults is good enough for that audience to play, and have released it. That does not curtail your freedom in any way. It seems like what you are saying is that all media should be suitable for children, otherwise it is "limiting our freedom".
Should Quentin Tarantino not release his movies because they are unsuitable for children? Should Stephen King not release his next horror story because it's content is not suitable for children? Now we're starting to talk about REAL limiting of freedom.

"The ESRB are declining all attempts at contractual obligation to deliver upon our freedoms - when they decide to invalidate the terms of such an agreement, where are we left?"

What the hell? The ESRB has no contractual obligation to deliver on a "freedom"! Their job is to review content of new games and assign a rating based on that content which combined with their content descriptors is intended to allow parents and individuals to make an educated decision when purchasing videogames about their suitability or lack thereof. To date, they have done a great job of it, and their system is used by many responsible parents.

What are the terms of the "argument" you refer to? Even harder to understand, what "freedom" are they contractually obliged to deliver?

"Our children are being threatened by this cause."

No. You perceive that children are being threatened when in fact the opposite is true. The ESRB is there to protect children by giving their parents information regarding the content and appropriate age for video games. If a parent doesn't give a damn or is too stupid to read the back of GTA (Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs) when their kid brings it to them in the store, then that kid is being threatened by lax parenting.

Sorry, meant to say his name wasn't all capitals as he usually likes to do it.

I suppose typing his name in all capitals (i.e. JACK THOMPSON) somehow makes him feel superior to everyone else.

@ "JACK THOMPSON"

Yeah, right, I don't even believe you're Jack Thompson whom ever you are, he usually as "ATTORNEY AND YOU'RE NOT" or something like that, and I don't waste my time impersonating washed up attorney hacks, sorry.

Jack, that memo has nothing to do with the current topic of discussion. Please stay on topic.

"Teenagers often get as little as four hours of sleep a night because they secretly play video games or watch TV until the early hours.

One in three secondary school pupils survives on short bursts of “junk sleep” and turns up exhausted for lessons the next day, according to a survey.

The Sleep Council warned that its results showed parents were being too lenient compared to previous generations by failing to impose a strict “lights out”.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23409968-details/Teenagers+hooked+on+TV+and++computer+games+only+get+four+hours’+'junk+sleep’+a+night/article.do
"


gotta love Jackie boy, using a article from a UK paper and trying to make it look like it's about americans, when the two are actually different cultures.

Yeah, just like when he tried to use the WWE reference from 2 years ago.

LOL @ JT

Sladgen,
"You people are pathetic, you attack somebody just because of who they are and you don’t take any time to actually read what they say;"

"... typical gamers ..."

Seems to be a bit of hilarity in your own comment as you are accusing people of stereotyping the opposition without reading their posts while you, at the same time, blindly stereotype gamers.

"Also, games.. *Gasp.* are NOT an art form. They are, games. "

"No, there are many artistic games, the Xenosaga series, the Kingdom Hearts series, Twilight Princess, Okami, Majora’s Mask, Guild Wars, those are all very artistic games."

Thank you. Your contridiction has proven my prior claims that art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. What one person calls "art", another may call bland nonsense. What one calls "art", another may call offensive religious bigotry. What one calls "art", another may call "art" for reasons other than the first person.

"If you want to play an adult game, then google it, I’m more than positive that you’ll find something to suit your sick desires."

Same thing. What you call "sick desires" may be seen by others merely as "something other than 'Cute Fluffy Bunny Learns His ABC's". What you are doing is EXACTLY what John Bruce and Leland Yee, among others, are doing:
Passing off your own personal, religious, and/or political beliefs as being superior, morally or otherwise, to everyone else's and therefore everyone else must abide by it through a legislative dictatorship.

"You can’t go buy a Playboy at Wal*Mart, why should you be able to buy “Let’s go screw some hoes 45? at one in the future?"

But you can buy "Saw III, Unrated", http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_constraint=4096&search... , and "American Pie, Unrated", http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_constraint=4096&search... , at Wal Mart (note the "also in many stores" logo). You can also buy a variety of Playboy videos in a specialty (non "Adult Porn") video store like Suncoast (see suncoast.com and search for "playboy"). And, yes, I mean the brick and mortar stores, not just online. And this has been true for YEARS.

"But, that’s it for me. I’m going to go play some Yoshie’s Island, or maybe Poke’mon, I ‘dunno. I’m not gonna pay attention to these “forums” or “comments” where “debates” take place. "

What was that about us not reading the posts of the "opposition" and merely passing judgment on the speaker?

Now THAT is "truly pathetic".

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Well, he already did say he was going to ignore our comments. But, I figure it's still good form for us to intelligently comment back, for the sake of lurkers who might be watching how we react as opposed to silently waving such individuals off and letting their comments be the only thing seen.

Everyone who did respond to that post did a fine job. Just thought I'd throw my own comments into the pool. :)

Nightwng2000
NW2K software

@ E. Zachary

"I will use the same analogy I used with Tom here:

Sure we could do with outthe ESRB, just as we can do without seat belts in our cars. We can get along just fine without them. But the moment we get in a wreck and we are flying through our windshield, we will wish we had something to hold us in the car.

The same goes for the ESRB. Sure we could get along fine without it, but the momet another ‘Hot Coffee’ happens or something similar, we will wish we had it.

The ESRB is the seatbelt. It is what prevents this industry from being splattered all over the pavement. Sure we will have wrecks (Hot Coffee is an example of this) but if we did not have the ESRB, the damage would have been far worse.

For you I would add this:

Sure if you get in a wreck, the seatbelt may break a couple of ribs, but at least yu are still alive."

I did not say get rid of the ESRB, I said take them to task for being ineffective and revamp the system.

Your post makes it seem like I want to get rid of it completely - I'd appreciate you not put words into my mouth.

However, I do like the "Entertainment Software" title you mentioned - it would be a nice replacement.

Also,

@ Jack Thompson

You didn't start a dialogue, you just shouted at us.

Man, just re-read what I wrote last night, really lost my temper. Sorry everyone.

Kind of interesting given Jack's latest post. He himself sees how a loss of rights is so stressfull and unconstitutional yet he would seek to tell ME and dictate to ME my parental rights.

very interesting.

I'm also wondering why his OFF TOPIC posts are allowed to stand here. Its one thing to have him comment on topic, I agree he has the right to do this as long as he obeys the rules but, aren't there rules here, even if unwritten, regarding on topic posts? Is anyone allowed to just start spouting off about whatever they want, airing their dirty laundry here? Can I post my grocery shopping lists every day? How about my personal e-mails or correspondence with business associates? That's what Jack is doing everytime he posts a letter he sends... it has NOTHING to do with THIS topic. Why can't he post it in the topics regarding his disbarrment? That would be ON TOPIC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA8oJ3YYShQ

Here is a interesting piece from NES past I just came across.

http://www.seanbaby.com/nes/naughty07.htm

So just because you don't like a game means it shouldn't be made?

GoodRobotUs -

Thats why some people like playing them. Because its funny and sad. Thats why some gore flicks are so fun to watch. So cheesy its actually humorous. Its just fun. And even if it was a serious hardcore 3D porn game like Virtual Hottie I'm sure some people would find that funny and sad enough to want to play it. That should be ok, in fact it should be ok for some people to hold it as high as high art if thats how they feel about it. Its really not for me to decide how good or bad a game is and it shouldn't matter if its a bad game. It should be released for anyone who wishes to pay for it.

If someone considers these games high art they have every right to. If it brings them more joy than looking at a fine painting then perhaps to them the little pornographic video game is the finer work of art.

Its definitely not in the same ball park as classical work but it does have its place in modern digital times and overall in the history of art.

Anyway the point I was trying to make is that I don't think anyone can judge what would happen in a world without video game regulation. I mean Ace of Stevens seems to think he knows what would happen based on pre-esrb Nintendo but I'm sure some individuals may have found Bubble Bath Babes released on the NES as particularly offensive even though it was just exposed breasts in a Tetris style game.

That being said I'm not so sure what to think of Ace of Stevens theory. I mean based on pre-esrb Nintendo that game happened to slip through the cracks. It seems like he is saying things would be worse in terms of potentially offensive content being available but really considering how society becomes more tolerant of violent and sexual imagery as time goes on I can't say that is the case especially when pre-esrb there was games such as the ones I listed that existed. I mean sure they don't look that bad because the graphics are pretty terrible but dude the technology wasn't there to make them look realistic.

But then again I'm just a kid that clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. And he is probably right, despite the advancements in extremely offensive content being shown in a more realistic fashion year by year things would get a lot worse in terms of censorship because that progress means absolutely nothing when it comes to video games.

@Zippy

All the ESRB does is rate games, period. It doesn't set any rules as to stores what can and can't sell and what console manufacturers can and can't license. They don't even have a say in the sales policies stores use when it comes to M and AO rated games. The ESRB can make STRONG SUGGESTIONS, but that's it. If WalMart decided to change their policies, and sell M rated games to whoever brought one to the checkout counter, the ESRB wouldn't be able to do much about it.

Everything about the ESRB is voluntary. There has never been a point where the ESRB themselves forced a game maker or publisher to submit a game for review. The reason why everyone voluntarily submits their games for review is because the console manufacturers won't license unrated games. This isn't a policy between the ESRB and the console manufacturers, this is a policy the console manufacturers came up with on their own.

@ Jack

Your Dialouge is more like "Do as I say, or I'll insult, whine, belittle, intimidate, lie and imply nasty things about you and your gamer ilk until I get my way.

Tell you what, stop trying to destroy games "For the Children" and let me raise my kids MY way. And then let me play my games for myself.

I'm 29 years old and pleanty able to make my own decisions based on the freedoms and libertys under the laws of my country. That goes doubly for the decisions I'll make for my children.

And yes, I also understand that others, including companys have the same freedoms and libertys (and responsibilitys) under the law. And if they break the law the deserve to get caught and pay the price.

I gess the best way I can say this Jack, in a way you might understand is.

Get off my lawn you punk!

@ Rob

yeah, your right, there's no way that's jack thompson, JT doesn't reply to comments.

Something shouldn't have to be successful to be allowed to exist nor should they have to be successful for me to include them in a argument. The fact they exist is more than enough. Thats kind goes well into my personal beliefs that the minority, in this case unpopular artistic productions, should have the same rights as the majority.

I mean it sounds like your saying implying that AO games should exist but only of they are popular and sell well. No matter the rating, the industry NEEDS crappy games. Why? Well for one the people that like those crappy games and make them would be left out and two those crappy games make the good games look good. How do you know a game is good? Because it doesn't suck like this other game. Crappy games produce progress. If a game bombs because the game is terrible then perhaps the people that made it would think to themselves "this sucks we need to do a hell of a lot better next time." and others think "lets avoid making something that would be on the level of that terrible game." Now if a crappy game sells well I'm sure a lot of people will feel ripped off, so now that developer has to try really hard to not screw you over like that again. The industry wouldn't be nearly as interesting without all the bad games we've all played. But whats bad to us may very well be good to someone else. Case and point: Death Metal. Some people absolutely hate it and I think they have valid reasons for hating it. Me? I dig it, its delicious.