August 1, 2007 is a date that 32 American families are not likely to forget.

On that Wednesday, more than 100 federal agents from the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) service, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, executed search warrants on 32 homes in 16 states. The ICE agents, who were seeking mod chips for console systems, were acting in concert with employees of the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the trade association operated by US video game publishers.

Among the feds and the ESA, the raids were code-named "Operation Tangled Web." The mod chip investigation began in the ICE field office in Cleveland and the case continues to be coordinated by the U.S. Attorney's office there. The raids generated a fair amount of publicity as well as criticism from some quarters.

In the more than 11 months since Operation Tangled Web, GamePolitics has been attempting to find out what happened to the 32 mod chip suspects who were targeted in the raid. In that time the feds have made no announcements concerning arrests or indictments. Although we've been in contact with ICE several times we have received no information so far.

Our search of publicly-accessible federal court records has turned up only one of the 32 search warrants. That's an indication that the others are still sealed. And in the one we did manage to locate, the probable cause section is not available, so we don't know the basis for the investigation, what the agents uncovered, etc.

But an April 7th website post may yield some clues as to the investigation's status. The author reveals that he received a target letter from the Department of Justice in relation to the raid on his home. The DOJ letter, as described by the author, seems to encourage a quick guilty plea in lieu of a full-blown indictment and federal court trial :

A few days ago I received a letter from the Department of Justice. The letter stated that I was the target of an investigation by Homeland Security (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). In the letter, they inform me, that the potential violations are:

 

1. Title 17 US Code, Section 1201 (in connection with the sale and installation of modification chips)
2. Title 18 US Code, Section 545 (relating to the importation or smuggling of modification chips)
3. Title 18 US Code, Section 1956 (money laundering)

 

The letter goes on to say that if I want to resolve the matter before I am indicted, they suggest I obtain a defense counsel. It also states that defense counsel will be in a much better position to explain the advantages of a one count felony plea. The letter goes on to say that a plea would present significant sentencing concessions on the part of the government, over the sentence that I would get, should I let the indictment process (and subsequent multiple felony convictions) proceed.

GamePolitics has learned that at least one other individual has also received such a letter. It would seem likely that many, if not all, of the 32 suspected mod chippers will be offered quick plea bargains in this fashion. Perhaps ICE and the ESA are waiting for the upcoming anniversary to make an announcement.

On the fallsinc website, the author goes on to say:

I honestly do not believe that I have violated any law, and as such, I feel I should not be charged with any crime, nor should I have my property confiscated. The actions of big business lobbyists is very apparent in this action, and destroying the lives and livelihoods of 32 people just to satisfy “The Big Three” is not a move that I see in the best interests of the people.

 

At this point I need all the help I can get. If you are a video gaming or linux enthusiast, or just a user who enjoys the ability to get more out of legally purchased hardware, I need you at my side...

A copy of an Operation Tangled Web search warrant obtained by GamePolitics from publicly-accessible federal court records shows that 10 WiiKey modchips and one Xeno modchip were among items seized from an Ohio residence believed to be that of the author of the fallsinc website. 

Mod chips are illegal in the United States under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). They are not illegal, however, in some other countries, including Australia and Canada. Last month, a court in the UK dismissed a case against a British mod chipper, ruling that mod chips do not violate copyright under English law.

ESA CEO Michael Gallagher is quoted on Operation Tangled Web in the organization's 2007 year-end piracy report:

As an industry, we protect our intellectual property, encourage our government to crack down on those who break the law, and urge other governments to take similar action against video game pirates. Yearly worldwide game piracy costs total over $3 billion and it impinges on businesses and employees who create, develop, and distribute innovative products.

 

The ESA will work with federal law enforcement to ensure that those engaged in the illegal trade of circumvention devices are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

A quartet of leading publishers have come out in favor of the Pan-European Game Information (PEGI) rating system for the UK market.

The game industry there, including publishers association ELSPA, does not look favorably upon the British Board of Film Classification, which itself hopes to claim a bigger piece of the UK's video game content rating pie. The BBFC is probably best known to gamers for its 2007 ban on Manhunt 2 which was later overturned on appeal.

As reported by Next Generation, ELSPA head Paul Jackson minced no words in remarks to British government officials at a media forum in Whitehall.

PEGI is the solution for today, and the solution for tomorrow.

Execs from Nintendo, EA, Ubisoft and Sega also weighed in, with Sega Europe CEO Mike Hayes adding:

If you look at the PEGI system against the film ratings board in the UK, you will see that PEGI is the only system that has the power to prevent games publishers distributing unsuitable content to children. It can ban a publisher’s entire output, rather than just a single title. This power is backed by the entire industry.

Middle-East website Al Bawaba reports that Disney Pixar’s Wall-E will be the first Arab localized video game.

Luke Keighran, THQ Export Sales Manager remarked:

We are delighted to be part of this, launching an Arabic game is every Arab gamers’ wish. This is a great opportunity for us to grow further in promising territories like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and a solid demonstration of our commitment to the Middle East market. It is [distributor] Pluto Games’ enthusiasm and will that made this commercially possible and we hope it will be the first of a long line up for Arabic titles in the future.

 

There are only few games that would suit the Middle East’s morals more than WALL*E. The game depicts family virtues in a fun adventurous story line immersing the players in a world of passionate pursuit for adventure.

Rabeeh Zakaria, THQ Product Manager for Pluto Games, added:

Wall-E is the first next generation video game to be produced in Arabic, we are seeing encouraging growth of the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 formats and are delighted to be able to finally distribute a product that speaks our language. We hope others will follow with THQ’s step and help contribute to the growth of the gaming industry in the Middle East.

Nintendo, which recently lost a $21 million patent case to Anascape, is currently litigating another federal patent lawsuit filed by an Illinois man.

In his complaint, John R. Martin alleges that he patented touch screen and pointing device gaming technology in August, 2005. The original Nintendo DS launched in November, 2004 in the United States. Martin's patent application describes his creation as:

An electronic game device system [which] is switchable between an amusement mode and a gaming or gambling mode and is useful for vehicles such as airplanes or boats which move geographically from jurisdictions where gambling is legal to jurisdictions where it is not...

 

An improved method of operating a touch screen on a CRT or ICD computer screen uses finger release as input registering... Mounting arrangements for mounting computer screens or monitors are also disclosed...
 

The drawing at left, from Martin's patent application, illustrates how he envisioned a user interacting with his device. While Martin does not specifically refer to the DS, the form of input he decribes seems to fit the DS as opposed to the Wii's motion-sensitive input.

In its response, Nintendo has denied infringing upon Martin's patent, of which it says it was notified in November, 2007.

Martin has a similar suit in the works against Apple, presumably over the iPod's touch-sensitive scroll wheel.

GamePolitics has a lodged a request with both Nintendo and the plaintiff's attorneys for additional information.

Yesterday GamePolitics linked Dean Takahashi's VentureBeat piece predicting that PC games would be noticably sparse at next week's E3 in Los Angeles.

Writing for Big Download, John Callaham begs to differ:

The Games for Windows Event this week had... Civilization IV: Colonization, Call of Duty: World at War, Bionic Commando, Ghostbusters and Space Siege... E3 2008 will have those same five games plus a ton more titles. A number of publishers are scheduled to show a lot of PC only games at the show such as Electronic Arts (Crysis Warhead, Spore, Warhammer Online), THQ (Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II) Codemasters (Jumpgate Evolution) Sega (Empire: Total War) and Deep Silver (STALKER Clear Sky).

 

UK based Jagex is scheduled to show off for the first time their next generation version of their hugely popular free MMO Runescape at the show. Russian based publisher Akella will only be showing PC games at the event. As far as hardware, Big Download confirmed this week that Toshiba will be showing off a new high powered gaming laptop PC which will be officially launched at the show...

PC gamers should not expect much in the way of news from next week's Electronic Entertainment Expo, according to Dean Takahashi on VentureBeat.

Microsoft's Kevin Unangst, senior global director of Windows gaming, told Takahashi:

As it has morphed, E3 has fundamentally become a console show. We didn’t want to just squeeze out some time at a console show... There have been a lot of trend pieces about how PC gaming is dying when that is absolutely not happening. It’s growing exponentially, thanks to online games, and even faster than the rest of the market.

Said Rahul Sood of HP's high-end VoodooPC game computer line:

E3 used to be the mecca of gaming. I’m skipping it because it’s not what it used to be. Now it’s just an event called E3.

Sales of new console systems have slowed, according to a report in the San Jose Mercury-News.

While 25 million Wii's, PlayStation 3's and Xbox 360's have been sold in the U.S. over the past 30 months, it seems that most of the buyers are upgrading from older systems or adding a second, or even third, game system. Console-less homes are mostly remaining that way. Said David Klein of Los Angeles-based research firm Centris:

We're looking at very slow growth.

What does this mean for the game biz? It's not good news, writes reporter Mike Antonucci:

The implications for the game industry, whose challenges include rising development costs, are sweeping. An expansion of the game audience offers continued revenue growth, or at least a hedge against a spending slowdown by existing fans...

 

[But]  ...word-of-mouth enthusiasm [for this generation of consoles] may not be translating into much real expansion...

The Entertainment Software Association took a victory lap this week, announcing the recovery of $65,000 in legal fees from Minnesota after the state abandoned further appeals of its failed 2006 video game law.

An editorial in yesterday's Duluth News-Tribune, however, dinged the ESA while acknowledging that Minnesota's fine-the-buyer legislation law was "flawed":

From the outset, the law skirted First Amendment rights and targeted the wrong people - minors... The logic was counter to that of more effective laws to protect minors, such as penalties to bars that allow underage drinking or fines to stores that sell cigarettes to kids.

 

...Though [Attorney General Lori] Swanson had indicated then she would continue to defend it, this week she cut her losses. Hence, the $65,000 of legal fees.

 

"Minnesota's citizens should be outraged at paying the bill for this flawed plan," Michael D. Gallagher, CEO of the video game trade association, said in a statement.

 

He's right, but what about his group's members who make and market games depicting sexual exploitation and violence as fun?

 

A little outrage is due there, too, for creating the problem in the first place.

Via: West Central Tribune (the Duluth News-Tribune link isn't working as I write this)

An attempt to block Activision's merger with Vivendi has ended with a ruling issued by William B. Chandler III (left), chief judge of the Delaware Court of Chancery.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, the judge has apparently taken notice of what World of Warcraft - one of the leading assets in the merger - is all about.

In denying a municipal pension plan's request for a preliminary injunction which would have put the Activision-Vivendi marriage on hold, Judge Chandler wrote:

In some ways, perhaps, the world of Mergers and Acquisitions is a massively multiplayer role playing game as well. Like in World of Warcraft... the participants in the M&A field take on certain roles, interact in their own community, hone specialized skills, and even develop a unique, somewhat curious vernacular.

 

One particular quest in the world of M&A is disclosure litigation. In the instance of disclosure litigation presently pending before this Court, the world of M&A meets the World of Warcraft.

 

In the role-playing game that is this disclosure litigation, both sides have played their respective roles well. Like any game, this one has rules, and the most essential rule of disclosure is materiality. Because the plaintiff could not establish the materiality of its final three disclosure claims, the motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. . . .GAME OVER.

GP: Very cool, indeed, your honor. Read the full decision here (31-page pdf).

In his PressSpotting column which ran on GameSpot yesterday, scribe Kyle Orland looked back at last month's ugly dust-up between the ESA and GamePolitics.

Kyle writes, in part:

Claiming that GamePolitics has a history of "anti-ESA vitriol" just isn't supported by the facts. Yes, GamePolitics covered the ESA's recent troubles retaining members, but so have countless other sites that have nothing to do with the ECA. What's more, GamePolitics' coverage has been relatively moderate compared to the blistering portrayals of the organization in some corners of the gaming blogosphere.

While I appreciate the support, I'd be remiss if I did not point out that Kyle is off the mark when he refers to the ECA which owns GamePolitics as a "rival" of the ESA. They're completely different animals.

Hal Halpin created the ECA to represent video game consumers, while the ESA has been around since 1994, representing video game publishers. What this means is that any individual could become an ECA member, if they choose to. Only game publishers can join the ESA.

Perhaps an easier way to think of it is: ECA is game buyers; ESA is game sellers. While there is some common ground (e.g. - censorship), the interests of gamers and publishers often diverge widely.

Back to the point, there's really so much I could say here. For today  I'll simply point out that for the ESA to charge me with "anti-ESA vitriol" is ludicrous. Here's an organization that sat on its hands for years while Jack Thompson said the most vile things about its president, comparing him to Saddam Hussein and Joseph Goebbels.

That former ESA boss, by the way, was a guy I very much respected. Didn't always agree with, mind you, but respected. The organization has the same P.R. guy now as then, by the way, so what's different? Why am I suddenly the one with the "vitriol"?

Different management, for one thing, so maybe that's part of it. Beyond that, I've broken a few ESA stories this year, ones they probably didn't like (closure of the New York office, member company departures), but reporting the news is my job. It's a competitive business and in this arena, being first with a solid story is what it's all about.

I've also dinged them on a few issues (2007's mod chip raids, failing to speak up on the Mass Effect-Fox News debacle, signing Gov. Rick Perry to keynote E3) and, again, as a commentator, that's part of my job description.

That said, I'm certainly not against the ESA as an entity. The video game industry surely needs a voice in Washington and in state legislatures. It needs an organization to represent its interests. I may not always agree with what the ESA does, but that comes with the territory.

While I'm at it, let me describe the relationship between GamePolitics and the ECA: ECA owns GamePolitics. They pay me to edit the site, and I operate it just as I have since I founded GP in early 2005. Hal Halpin's office is in Connecticut. Mine is in Pennsylvania. I see Hal a couple of times a year at trade shows. The last time we were face-to-face was November, 2007 at VGXPO here in Philly. I'll see him at E3 later this month.

Hal and I trade a few IM's and e-mails on most days, have the very occasional phone call. But from Day One, Hal has insisted on maintaining GP's editorial freedom; I wouldn't have it any other way.

Obviously, Hal is running a business with the ECA and hopes to sign up as many members as he can. I wish him all the best with those efforts, but I don't get involved in that aspect. I mention this by way of demonstrating that while we get along quite well, the ECA does not dictate, approve or edit GP's content in any way. I was very pleased to see that Kyle Orland understands this:

There's a difference between being owned by a company and being a paid shill for that company. GamePolitics is clearly the former but not the latter.
 

UPDATE: GamePolitics stories tagged with "ESA" as far back as August, 2007 are listed here. If you want, you can decide for yourself on how fairly I've covered the ESA.

Did anyone notice that Take-Two (NASDAQ: TTWO) closed today at $25.14, or sixty cents under EA's current (and apparently endlessly renewable) $25.74 tender offer?

By our count it's at least the second time that TTWO has closed below the tender price in the past week, admittedly a rocky one for Wall Street. It seems kind of strange, since EA will buy all the TTWO you care to sell them at 25.74. Why would anyone sell below that price?

For interpretation, GamePolitics turns to Wedbush-Morgan super-analyst Michael Pachter:

GP: Mike, what do you make of TTWO closing well below the EA tender price of 25.74? That would seem to be a natural floor…

Pachter: The daily [share] price is the probability-weighted price of a [T2-EA] deal happening. [The expectation of] no deal is [priced] around $17-20, a deal at $28 has a relatively high probability. Before, the arbs placed a higher chance of a deal, and a higher [share] price.

GP: So are you saying that today's close $.60 under the [EA] tender price reflects a sense that the deal is now less likely?

Pachter: A combination of less likely or a lower expected deal price.  Probably more of the latter, as a tribute to EA's discipline.  Still very likely that a deal happens at $27-28.

The $65,000 that Minnesota had to pay back to the game biz for legal costs incurred in fighting the state's unconstitutional 2006 video game law has been widely covered since the ESA released the news yesterday.

Over at the Technology Liberation Front, Adam Thierer (left) considers the cost from the perspective of what better uses the time and energy expended on the Minnesota law could have been channeled into instead:

...these cases make it clear that there is a significant opportunity cost associated with censorship efforts. That $2 million in recovered legal fees [by the game industry from nine different states] could have been plowed into educational efforts to help explain to parents how to use the excellent voluntary ratings systems or console-based parental control tools that are at their disposal. Moreover, that $2 million... does not account for the resources that state and local officials put into these regulatory efforts. So, we are talking about a much greater deadweight loss for society and taxpayers.

 

Just think, what if government officials had spent that money on some PSAs during a major sporting event? Or perhaps more brochures and in-store displays to make the public better aware of the ratings and parental control tools at their disposal. Or even a direct mail campaign to homes with children making parents aware of these ratings and tools?

GP: Adam's definitely on the right track here, but we'd even move the discussion beyond the video game space. What social challenges could the Minnesota legislature have been working on instead of video games? Are there no crime, poverty, healthcare, transportation or other key issues to ponder in the Gopher State?

Remember, too, that the $65,000 reimbursement represents only the cost of the video game industry's legal expenses. How many deputy attorney generals, paralegals and secretaries employed by Minnesota - and paid by the state's taxpayers - put their professional time and energy into the case?

As GamePolitics reported yesterday, the ESA announced that Minnesota would reimburse $65,000 in legal fees to the video game industry over the state's failed 2006 "fine the buyer" video game law.

In our coverage, we mentioned that the move apparently signalled that Minnesota would not be taking the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, its only remaining legal recourse. We've got a call into the office of Attorney General Lori Swanson (left) on the Supreme Court issue, but Finance & Commerce now seems to have nailed that part of the story down:

Attorney General Lori Swanson’s decision not to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was “practical,” according to spokesman Benjamin Wogsland, who pointed out that the nation’s highest court takes “less than 1 percent of discretionary cases every year.”

But Paul Smith, an attorney representing the [video game industry] plaintiffs, said Monday that the state decided not to pursue the case further because of a deal that would require the attorney general’s office to pay a reduced amount in fees owed to plaintiff’s lawyers. Smith could not say what the reduced amount was, though a court filing from May 19 shows that the plaintiffs’ lawyers were owed nearly $84,000. Woglsand did not return calls Monday.
 

GP: If Paul Smith is correct, Minnesota essentially bargained away - for $19,000 plus future legal fees -  its opportunity to take its argument before the U.S. Supreme Court. Given all that the state had already invested in the case, that would seem a rather curious decision.

It would have been fascinating - and, yes, risky - for the Supreme Court to consider a video game law, especially given Justice Antonin Scalia's comments to Law of Play blogger Anthony Prestia that game legislation might be constitutional.

The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), which represents the interests of video game publishers in the United States, has issued a press release announcing that the state of Minnesota will reimburse the industry to the tune of $65,000.

The figure represents legal fees incurred by the video game industry in its court challenge to Minnesota's unusual 2006 "fine-the-buyer" law.

As passed by the Minnesota legislature and signed into law by Governor (and potential Republican VP candidate) Tim Pawlenty (left) in 2006, the law would have turned traditional video game legislation on its head by fining underage buyers of M-rated games $25. Virtually all other video game content bills have sought penalties against retailers.

There were some other noteworthy aspects to the Minnesota situation:

U.S. District Court Judge James Rosenbaum, who ruled the law unconstitutional, borrowed his law clerk's Xbox to check out some violent games while considering his ruling.

Former Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch (D), who defended against the industry's constitutional challenge in its early days, described violent video games in a court filing as "worthless, disgusting speech" and "speech of very low societal value."

Minnesota appealed Judge Rosenbaum's decision's to the 8th Circuit Court, but lost. A request for a review by the entire 8th Circuit was also turned down.

The state's only remaining recourse was the U.S. Supreme Court. Judging from the settlement with the game biz, Minnesota A.G. Lori Swanson has apparently decided not to pursue a Supreme Court decision, but we've got a call into Swanson's office to confirm that.

The ESA originally sought $73,332 in fees in a motion filed in August, 2006. The $65,000 figure indicates that a little bit of negotiating went on.

ESA CEO Michael Gallagher weighed in on the $65,000 payment:

Minnesota’s citizens should be outraged at paying the bill for this flawed plan. Minnesota’s public officials ignored legal precedent and instead pursued a political agenda that ultimately cost taxpayers money. Courts across the United States have ruled consistently that video games are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as other forms of art, such as music and literature...

 

Politicians need to realize that the key to protecting our children from inappropriate media content is not haphazard legislation, but rather parental education. Video games have a first class ratings system supported by retailers, opinion leaders and parents.  It would be a far better use of public funds to help support this system, rather than continue to pursue unconstitutional legislation that works against it.    

GP: In a way, it would have been fascinating to see the Supreme Court make a ruling on this issue.

Scott Miller, head of 3D Realms, told Next Generation that he views the upcoming E3 Expo as "irrelevant".

3D Realms, of course, owns perhaps the most vapory vaporware game property of all time, Duke Nukem Forever. Of the long-awaited DNF, Miller commented:

Development is swimming along nicely. Seriously nicely.
 

But E3 show-goers won't be seeing Duke. Miller told Next Gen:

It's just that we view E3 as irrelevant nowadays.  In fact, I wasn't even aware it was coming up.

GP: It's a safe bet that Miller is not a favorite of the video game industry establishment these days. Readers may recall that in 2007 the 3D Realms boss got into a bit of a nasty exchange with ESRB president Patricia Vance.

Gamasutra ran a question-of-the-week on the role of the ESA and got some surprising answers.

The ESA, of course, is the Entertainment Software Association, the trade group which represents the interests of video game publishers in the US. From the article:

The full question read as follows:

 

In the wake of the recent high-profile departures from the Entertainment Software Association, what changes does the ESA need to make to better serve its members and show its relevance, if any? As an industry professional, what do you think the ESA's role should ideally be for our industry?

 

The general tone of most of the replies seemed to indicate that respondents do not have a strong grasp of [what] the organization's duties are.

 

This may point to why a number of members are opting out, or alternatively to the fact that, as largely a publisher-facing organization, the ESA does not interact with the majority of the industry.

Gamasutra also published three complete responses which can be viewed with the article.

Gamers spend about $30,000 on games and hardware between 18-48, according to data released this morning by GameStrata.

The provider of online tools and statistical data surveyed North American gamers. Of the results, GameStata exec Barry Dorf said:

The overwhelming majority of gamers are spending their time online with friends, building their reputation and online personas. Video games are becoming so much more than a momentary diversion; gaming is becoming yet another means of community building...

 

GameStrata also reaches some interesting conclusions concerning digital downloads:

A strong correlation between the frequency of digital purchases and Xbox 360 ownership suggests that the Xbox 360 is the preferred console for the consumption of digital content... The move toward the microtransaction revenue model is also a notable trend, with 85% of respondents confirming the purchase of a virtual good in the last month.

Via: GameWire

Yesterday, GamePolitics reported that the NYPD is considering the use of video game technology to train its personnel.

They’re not the only ones.

According to a new ESA survey of 150 large U.S. companies and non-profits, 70% train their employees with interactive software.  Additionally, more than 75% of those companies already offering simulation game-based training expect to expand their usage in the next three to five years. 78% of those not currently on the bandwagon are expected to hop on in the next five years.

Said ESA CEO Michael Gallagher:

Businesses across the spectrum, from automobile manufacturers to financial service providers, are utilizing entertainment software to help educate their employees to better serve their customers and improve their bottom lines.  Interactive technology is a valuable tool in workforce development and this study underscores the fact that video games have become a mass medium helping Americans live, work and of course play.

The majority of companies surveyed claim to be satisfied with the results and sophistication of their interactive training programs. They cite a reduction of costs, faster and more consistent training, ease of measuring employee participation, and better information retention as the biggest advantages.

-Reporting from San Diego, GP Correspondent Andrew Eisen never had one lesson
 

In addition to heaps of criticism, the recently released Grand Theft Auto IV has received its fair share of kudos. Game critics across the board have lauded the controversial title for everything from its impressive graphics and entertaining gameplay to the dramatic depth of its large cast and its cinema-quality story. 

With such high accolades, not to mention record-breaking sales, a movie based on the game seems like a forgone conclusion, no?

Well, no.

You see, back in ’77, Roger Corman produced a little flick called Grand Theft Auto.  The film (written, directed by, and starring Ron Howard) involves a rich girl stealing her dad’s car and running off to Vegas with her boyfriend to get married.  A $25,000 reward is offered for her safe return and suddenly everyone from the cops to the daughter's ex-boyfriend is after them.

According to LA Weekly blogger Nikki Finke, Fox Atomic currently owns the rights to the movie title Grand Theft Auto. By agreement between the parties, Take-Two can’t make a film called Grand Theft Auto and Fox can’t make a game called Grand Theft Auto.

For now, the best we can hope for is a remake or sequel to the 30-year-old, PG-rated chase film but even that’s looking unlikely.  As an insider revealed to Finke:

Yes, Fox owns the Corman movie. Yes, it has been one of 400 development projects for several years. But they are nowhere on the script. It has certainly not been a front-burner project.

Via: GameDaily

-Reporting from San Diego, GP Correspondent Andrew Eisen is still waiting for a film version of Chibi Robo

The British government has released a six-point action plan which endorses the recommendations concerning the Internet and video games made by Dr. Tanya Byron (left) earlier this year.

Referring to Byron's work as "groundbreaking", the document says that the government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown has accepted all of the child psychiatrist's recommendations. While the first four chapters of the action plan address how children relate to the Internet, the final two sections discuss how Byron's recommendations regarding video games are to be implemented.

Chapter 5, Reforming the video games classification system, notes that Byron called for a hybrid content rating system involving both the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) and the Pan-European Game Information (PEGI) ratings. Byron's recommendation has generated some controversy in the UK, where the game industry strongly favors PEGI. It was the BBFC, GamePolitics readers may recall, which banned Manhunt 2 in 2007 before being overruled by England's High Court.

As it turns out, the government is delaying its decision in this regard. Instead, it will "launch a four month public consultation" beginning in July. Following this review, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will publish its plan for reforming game ratings by early next year. DMCS will also work with game rating organizations to "agree to a way forward for classifying online gaming."

Chapter 6 outlines a number of steps, including:

• raising parental awareness about video game ratings
• setting standards for providing ratings information at point-of-sale
• setting standards for parental controls by November
• setting advertising guidelines for games

GP: Overall, the action plan generates no shockwaves. The key question involving who will rate games for the UK market - PEGI, BBFC, or both - remains unresolved for now.

Get your own copy of the UK government's action plan here.