Video Game Biz Does Well in FCC Report on Content Ratings

September 3, 2009 -

As GamePolitics noted last week, the Federal Communications Commission has floated the idea of a universal content rating system which would span various forms of media, including video games.

While lobbying group ESA quickly raised objections to the concept, the video game industry did quite well in an FCC report on parental controls issued to Congress on Monday. GameCulture has more:

Members of Congress who will receive the FCC's report will find almost nothing negative about the game industry's handling of parental control technology and ratings. Common Sense Media's concern about unrated online content and user-created content is noted but countered by the ESA, which points out that "no rating system or control device can anticipate the extemporaneous world of the Internet..."

While the FCC says it intends to launch a Notice of Inquiry specifically for games, this first round is a clear victory for the industry.  At this rate, even if regulators decide to pursue a "universal rating system," it could end up looking a lot like the system developed by the ESRB.


Comments

Re: Video Game Biz Does Well in FCC Report on Content ...

The real question is, does the FCC or even congress have the authority to implement such a system? Past attempts to force ratings on anything but public air waves have either been dropped or found unconstitutional.

Re: Video Game Biz Does Well in FCC Report on Content ...

Exactly.

While imposing a rating system on all media would doubtless be a regulatory wet dream come true for the FCC, they don't actually have the authority to impose such a rating system outside of broadcast media and cable TV no matter how brazenly they pretend that since the second C in FCC stands for "communications" they must surely have authority over all possible means of communication.

 

Re: Video Game Biz Does Well in FCC Report on Content ...

A general ratings system could be constitutional, but any attempts of legal enforcement wouldn't be, as that would be violating the First Amendment.  As for the FCC running it, I don't think that's legal, either, as they only have the ability to regulate broadcasting, of which video games are not a part of.  As for the FCC warning on your Xbox, that's there to warn of the possibility (no matter how slight) that the electronics could interfere with incoming or outgoing broadcasts, and that incoming or outgoing broadcasts could interfere with it as well.  To this point in time, that is the legal limit of the FCC's control on our beloved industry.

As I said above, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

---

He was dead when I got here.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: Video Game Biz Does Well in FCC Report on Content ...

I think there is a FCC regulation about electronic interference, but that applys to basicly anything that gets plugged in.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Re: Video Game Biz Does Well in FCC Report on Content ...

You're right, but it's strictly limited to the scope of the interference itself.

---

He was dead when I got here.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: Video Game Biz Does Well in FCC Report on Content ...

FCC, this brings up the old saw:  "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

---

He was dead when I got here.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: Video Game Biz Does Well in FCC Report on Content ...

At this rate, even if regulators decide to pursue a "universal rating system," it could end up looking a lot like the system developed by the ESRB.

Just because the ESBR ratings works for video games dosen;t mean it'll more for movies and tv.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
E. Zachary KnightMAtt, So, an online petition asking Target to stop selling GTAV is "bullying and threatening" but a petition and boycott of Intel to force them to stop advertising on Gamasutra is justified?07/28/2015 - 7:56pm
Andrew EisenTrue or not, what it came across as a bunch of people lashing out at a publication over an opinion piece.07/28/2015 - 7:56pm
MattsworknameTo be honest, I've never liked them, but mostly cause rather then being a game focused site, they felt to political for my taste07/28/2015 - 7:56pm
Andrew EisenAnd in the case of Gamasutra?07/28/2015 - 7:54pm
Mattsworknameour concerns about them were well founded.07/28/2015 - 7:50pm
MattsworknameDepends on who you ask, accountable fto it's audiance, accountablie for lies and half truths, accountible for disengenous statements, everyone had there own reasons for going after them. Although in the case of gawker, recent events seem to indicate that07/28/2015 - 7:50pm
Andrew EisenAccountable for... what, exactly?07/28/2015 - 7:48pm
MattsworknameI think the intent was to force some kind of accountabilty on them. Granted As I said ,i wasn't exactly big on the ideas of attacking advertisers but it's a common and well used tactic. Sadly, theres not many other ways of holding media sites acountable07/28/2015 - 7:47pm
MechaTama31With the goal of...? Getting those media outlets to fire or silence the "scum"? That's shitty.07/28/2015 - 7:44pm
Mattsworknamewarned about the scum there assoicating with. Looking at you GAWKER media07/28/2015 - 7:37pm
MattsworknameI think the only reason it was the first action was alot of people felt it was the only option that might have an actual impact. and to be honest, i don't see how they were exactly wrong. Plus, as recent events showed, soem times adverisers need to be07/28/2015 - 7:37pm
MattsworknameTo be honest, I was always kinda on edge about that, while I did not like that those news outlets had acted in the way theey did, i didn't like that we thought boycotting and advertiser attacks were the only recourse07/28/2015 - 7:36pm
MechaTama31And after AE questioned that same analogy, I described it as extreme hyperbole.07/28/2015 - 7:36pm
E. Zachary KnightMecha, The "bullying and threatening" thing is from an earlier shout by Matt. I asked you tht question because you compared the petition to someone threatening to shoot your child.07/28/2015 - 7:35pm
Andrew EisenBy the way, if anyone can see into alternate timelines, I've got $20 that says Target would have ignored the petition had it been presented at the game's launch instead of over a year later.07/28/2015 - 7:34pm
MechaTama31Write a "Gamers are Alive" article. Make a video highlighting positive things about games. Counter your opponent, don't try to silence them.07/28/2015 - 7:33pm
MechaTama31EZK: Who exactly are you quoting with "bullying and threatening"? But yes, I think attacking someone's livelihood because you disagree with their opinion is underhanded and damaging to discourse.07/28/2015 - 7:30pm
E. Zachary KnightOh no. A successful online petition could embolden people to do... what exactly? Do another online petition?07/28/2015 - 7:30pm
Andrew EisenToo bad the counter petition wasn't as popular. But again, yeah, it sucks. For the reasons I've stated over and over now.07/28/2015 - 7:29pm
MechaTama31otherwise want to.07/28/2015 - 7:27pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician