way to go, Hal!

we as consumers do need to nip this whole thing in the bud and press the Big Three's collective hand.

Give 'em hell, Hal!

Tell me who I can call or write to and they'll hear no end from me!

I just wrote my ideas, and e-mailed them to him, i hope others do the same, even if they don't share my ideas, if one of them gets rolling i'll probably support it even if it's not my own.

I couldn't agree more with Hal. It seems like there is a big contradiction in the way that the video game industry presents itself. On the one hand, they take every opportunity to remind people that their main demographic is adults in the their early to late 20's, and try desperately to shake the notion that games are kids' toys, but at the same time the big three will not release games specifically made for adults because they don't want to be associated with that kind of content.
I've always felt that the AO rating was en extraneous rating. After all, M-rated games are listed as being appropriate for 17+, while AO-rated games are appropriate for 18+. That's a difference of one year. Does something magically happen to every gamer during that one year between their 17th birthday and their 18th birthday that suddenly decides that they are able to handle more graphic content?
I say they should change the M-rating to 18+, get rid of the AO-rating entirely, and then it will be all gravy. Some games are made for wide audiences, some are made for specific audiences. This idea is reflected in pretty much all entertainment media and is widely understood. Why can't games be the same way?

I sent an email about having AO games being released as unrated and how the big 3 and retail chains should let us decide what we want to buy.

Not to be argumentative, but just playing a little "Devil's Advocate",

how does this issue get to the top of the heap as a "consumer" issue.

I see its relevance but its certainly more of a concern to developers and publishers, which are industry.

As a consumer, yes I'm concerned with ratings and how they are percieved by consumers and I DO want the most choices possible when it comes to games available, but, I have other more pressing concerns as a consumer.

One of them happens to be the trend in increasing the price of new games but shortening the overall game play hours for single player adventures.

this to me is a "consumer" concern.

I think they should allow unrated games, or provide a patch for the unrated version. That gets around the AO issue.

GP,
Apologies for drifting OT a wee tad, but in a prior article, you-know-who posted a comment claiming that he was willing to debate Mr. Halpin anytime anywhere.

I was just curious if there was anything regarding that being discussed any further or not.
Thanks in advance.

Nightwng2000
NW2K software

They should just bring in a bunch of game boxes and a bunch of DVD cases and just compare them.

Games have the big honkin' age thing right on the front on every single game in the same spot every single time.

Movies? Outside of the big splash of 'Unrated' there's nothing on the front.

On the back, again, always in the same spot for videogames with generalized descriptions about what's in the game. Movies? I can't even find it half the time.

@ ~the1jeffy

I don't like the idea of more versions of consoles. Release one version and require that the AO filter be disabled via some sort of online registration would be an option but I still don't like forcing consumers to jump through hoops just to "protect" lazy or disinterested parents.

@Kadamon

Movies? Outside of the big splash of ‘Unrated’ there’s nothing on the front.

If that. I've found movies that had "unrated" written in tiny letters on the back.

@Paul

So GP can't mention the ECA's comments in the current discussion? He's covered opinions from all sides of this issue, so clearly he's not showing any "bias" by offering up Hal's comments...

@ Paul Rice

"FULL DISCLOSURE DEPT: The Entertainment Consumers Association is the parent company of GamePolitics."

Maybe you missed the disclaimer.

Mr. Rice,
Quite frankly, your argument makes little sense to me.

Mr. Halpin has a column at EGM. Part of that column addresses, as you say, an issue which has been heavily discussed all over the internet.

Part of his column addresses the issue from his (and therefore the ECA's) perspective.

There have been many individuals and even organizations that have addressed the issue. Mr. Halpin's is no more or less of value than anyone else's. As such, whether GP and the ECA are linked or not, his comments ARE worthy of reference as they apply to issues dealt with in several articles recently dealing with other individual's/organization's comments regarding the issue.

Indeed, we have heard from the industry. We have heard from religious organizations. We have heard from reported Parents organizations. What's wrong with hearing from a consumer organization, even if GP is linked to them? The article refers specifically to Mr. Halpin's comments. But prior articles gave similar attention to comments by those other organizations.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Tom,

I did mention that flaw in my plan in the original post. It's the best compromise solution that gives all three parties what they want that I could come up with. I'd be happy to set it aside (mentally) for a better one, but so far, I haven't seen any such plan.

So now what needs to be done,frist off a T15 level is needed to shift teens away from M17,with a wider audience to sale to the indutry should eat it up, after than M can be polished into more of a R setup, because games like Castlvina,Halo and most of the MGS games are somewhere in between a PG13 and a R.


With T15 helping to keep harder content away from kids, M17 can grow into a more solid rating that can be a equal to a R.

@Jabr

The difference being CSM openly condemned the ESRB in a rather aggressive manner (so much so that the ESRB has declined to respond). Halpin takes no stances here, except to say there's a problem with the AO rating, and the ECA doesn't know what to do about it, or who is at fault. It's a waffling stance that doesn't state any positions.

@ ~the1jiffy

Fair enough :)

This consumer, though, doesn't get what he wants from that plan. I want a game console that offers comprehensive and easy to use parental controls, a game industry that releases material targeted to a wide audience, a ratings board that champions an appropriate and usefull ratings system and retail chains that treat games distribution fairly and reasonably. The "what I want" tally currently stands at only 25%.

Funny how you ask a question and people answer it by telling you what you already pointed out in your question as being known...

I'm a "consumer", I DO care about the issue of AO and consoles locking that out AS a consumer, however, my question remains, how does this particualr issue get to be at the top of the heap of CONSUMER concerns via the ECA?

I also fail to see how the "market will work it out" when it coems to overpriced content when its happening in all the top selling games seemingly unnoticed by reviewers. Its a VALID consumer concern and by asking the question, I am NOT discounting the validity of the AO concerns... I'm just asking a simple question.

@Paul Rice...

Couldn't disagree more. For one thing, as I addressed the other day, Ian Bogost, a well-known commenter, more or less said Hal and the ECA was ignoring this issue. I took some umbrage with that and when I found out about this EGM piece, it was very important to get that info out there.

Yes, GP is owned by ECA. So does that mean we can't cover ECA on important topics. Everyone else is talking about this topic - gamers, developers, publishers, Leland Yee... But I can't print what Hal wrote about it?

Yes, he is supposed to representing us in a polite manner but by no means are consumers obligated to be polite when they feel they are being treated poorly. So I think honestly the industry deserves most of the comments here many may perceive as 'negative' comments.

I mean look, as Hal said, the business has painted itself into a corner. You can argue that the government could have stepped in if the industry didn't and I'm sure it would have. But some fail to see that it would be unconstitutional to do so and if they did step in it would only be a matter of time before it was struck down assuming the judicial system would uphold the constitution or not and even if it didn't we'd just bring it up again and again and again. So assuming that the industry didn't create the ESRB and the government stepped in to regulate who is to say how long that would have lasted. No one can know for sure. Its my opinion it wouldn't have lasted but a few years maybe I'm wrong but point is the Constitution is good protection against the government and we should be willing to use it as a weapon consistently.

Now we find ourselves, as consumers, upset over the AO rating and how it is affected on consoles. Who is in charge? Well the main problem is the Console manufacturers. Second in line is the retailers, which are represented by the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association, otherwise known as the IEMA. Last but still worth talking about is the ESRB, which is the self-regulatory system we have in place. Now I know merchants have every right to refuse to sell something in their stores even if it doesn't make sense and the ESRB has every right to rate games as they see fit. However when the consumers, the ECA, gets upset about how the system is treating them perhaps all three parties should listen to us. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not so sure they hear our voices on this issue.

I didn't include politicians, anti-game activist, and self important lawyers for a reason. They are out for media attention, money and to take away our freedom. Enemy yes but we have a good way of dealing with them.... the constitution. I call it the Hammer of Freedom and Justice. It will strike down all those who threaten our freedom if we force our government to follow it. So sorry, Mr. Attorney and you're not, your while your fighting with theories that your precious opinions, morals and self-image we are fighting with the Hammer of Freedom and Justice. It will crush you.

Anyway, how do we solve this issue? Well joining the ECA would be a good start for folks that aren't representatives of the ECA. Its 20 bucks, 15 if you're a student, and you get benefits for being a member. Raising awareness to family, friends and coworkers is also a good basic thing to do. Keep up to date with the issues at hand and voice your opinions to the ECA and if you have any bright ideas try to give them out.

How can the ECA solve the problem? Well I'm sure we all have a lot of great ideas, here is mine. First off lets start at the source, the console manufacturers. The ECA has had a good start. Hal is speaking a lot on the issue and explaining it to everyone. Articles in gaming magazines is good as well. But we really need the ECA to start talking closely with Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. Perhaps we can talk it out? Probably not but at least this will give them more and more awareness that there really IS a problem and the ECA isn't just making it up.

Another thing I would like to see is for the ECA to build a nice relationship with the IGDA. I'm certain their concerns, as game developers, are pretty similar. It just seems like consumers of games and game developers could naturally stand side by side on this fight, it would be nice to have that. Also the IGDA knows people, people that attend GDC, E3 and all kinds of gaming event.

We also have absolutely start talking to the EMA. Yes they aren't #1 cause of the problem but they are right behind them. If we get them to understand that when they carry unrated DVDs and force all games to carry the ESRB rating, there is a problem. Also if they won't carry games rated AO thats the more important problem. They need to reconsider their stance and the ECA needs to tell them exactly why we think they should.

Its known I absolutely despise regulation, which in turn means I don't support the existence of the ESRB. I'm sure your probably expecting me to say try to abolish the ESRB..... but I'm not. Even though I think its one of the main reasons we are painted into a corner, I think its possible to keep it around and still have a tolerable system. That being said I think the ECA should build a good relationship with the ESRB. If the ESRB is as good as they claim when it comes to educating the parents on video games perhaps they could educate them on how video games are not for adults only. Since they are the experts on Parents I'll shut up because I'd just make angry parents, such as the self-important lawyer, even angrier by telling them they suck at parenting and to get over themselves. Not pretty, so I say let the ESRB deal with parents but please, please educate them on games in a way that doesn't demonize adult games. How about trying to make parents understand adults are entertained with consoles as well. Then perhaps parents would understand that and wouldn't play the "marketing violent games to children" card so frequently. I don't know how, the ESRB is better at dealing with parents. So even though the ESRB wasn't made to concern itself with consumers unless they have children, perhaps building a relationship with them could change that.

Yea these are all basic ideas but I mean once you start with basic thing and build relationships with the other parties involved new techniques will arise and I'm sure the ECA staff will know exactly what to do when that happens. We need to get a good solid start making friends with those that some of us think are creating the problems we could influence them to perhaps consider our feelings and desires.

/initiate last resort
Now if that fails and being friendly turns out to be a bust well then its time to take the gloves off. Cut into their ad, space, do an obnoxious amount of interviews in places where THEY should be getting them. Hold huge events at the gaming events, try your best to get an article in the same magazine as their hottest new product coming to their console, and try to make more noise than them basically. Annoy the hell out of them until they have no choice but to listen to us. I think its a good idea to start off really thing to get along with these people but if they refuse to listen there really is no purpose of being friends with someone that ignores you. Try your best to hit them where it hurts. And if everything seems to fail start treading on some thin ice... which would be by doing things such as getting game developers to protest at their special media circus events such as E3. Rain on their parade. Yes this will absolutely leave a sour taste in their mouth but really advertising and marketing through media makes them a lot of money, and they spend a lot of money on it. If you try to make those attempts to seem less productive then perhaps we could hit it where it hurts... in their bank account. This isn't how I want it to gain progress but damn it if they give us no other choice I wouldn't suggest backing down or giving up.
/end last resort

The best thing we can do RIGHT NOW is join the ECA and get others to join as well. Try to get a local chapter going and discuss the issues and have a good time doing it! Learn those benefits and when your telling a friend about the AO problem perhaps say yea the ECA is fighting to resolve it so I bought a year membership. I get discounts at the Hyatt for it too! All kinds of other stuff. It really is a good deal, not only are you giving money to something you care about but your getting benefits in return.

@ Paul Rice

Do you think that no business should print its press releases on its own web site? Do you think that since the ECA is the parent company of GamePolitics that GP cannot report on the ECA?

The ECA's stance on the AO issue is just as valid as Jack Thompson (I say that with a smirk), The ESRB, The ESA, The CSM, the CCFC etc. People on this web site, and as GP has stated Ian Bogost, have called for the ECA's opinion on this matter. Should GP not share the ECA's opinion with its readers? I think that GP and the ECA owe these readers this news piece.

Like I mentioned before some type of "slipcase" like how some special editin DVDs have on the front of the case should be a warning adding on to AO rating. A double warning so parents have no one to blame but themselves. What kind of numb skull parent would by a game with a cover displaying ADULTS ONLY in red?

The blame would be entirely on them finally.

@Tom

I wasn't upset at people "coming after" me, I was upset that they pointed out things I already stated were a GIVEN in my question.

also, which "old" games are you playing? I'm talking about the difference in play time between Halo 1 and Halo 2!! between Tomb Raider on PS2 and Tomb Raider on 360... its as if game play has been chopped in half since the xbox/ps2/gamecube.. the NEXT, next gen games seem to be painfully short for the most part with only a few exceptions.

Lastly, saying the "market will take are of things" can be applied to ANY situation, including the AO situation. If consumers really got pissed enough to do something, all of the sudden AO games would be on the major consoles.. OR, if an AO got out that sold a BAJILLION copies [actual number] then tell me how fast it would be before that game would be ported to a console and allowed to keep its rating?

I'm NOT arguing the importance of the AO issue, I'm just asking how doe these issues get ranked and acted on by the ESA.. maybe I should get off my lazy ass and go to their site and read up on 'em more carefully, but I still think the question is valid.

-mw

Happy day
http://index.klopert.cn
index
Good site