competitive enterprise institute study

Competitive Enterprise Institute study on ESRB and media regulation

ORIGINALLY POSTED ON DECEMBER 12, 2007 at 11:49 p.m. EST. Moved back

for holiday guides.

Scroll down for the December 13 edit.

Reading Assignment for All!

Lately there's been a little buzz about a study from the Competitive

Enterprise Institute. And while I haven't finished reading it, I

encourage you to pick it up and at least skim it's 30-some pages.

Within the first few pages, the study starts off with a great message:

No ratings system can replace good parenting.

p. 3, last paragraph

The study isn't all about videogames--it covers movies, comic books,

radio, music and television. Each medium has its own section that

recaps the history of that medium's controversy, rating system(s),

politics and legislation. I've been meaning to look into the history

of media rating systems outside of videogames, and find this as a

really interesting read.

EDIT TIME :D

Posted December 13, 2007 @ 8:32 p.m. EST

Videogame portion of the study

-Stop! Grammar time!-

By the way, CEI, since you have this site bookmarked and I would like

to take a few seconds to be a grammar nazi (kinda surprised you guys

found this blog, actually). The fourth word on page 21 should be

"which" instead of "wich". Tsk, tsk on your editing.

//end grammar nazi

As with the other sections of this study, the videogame section begins

with the history of the medium's controversy. Death Race (Exidy, 1973)

and Custer's Revenge (Atari, 1983) are listed as the main offenders

before political action against games was taken in 1992 when Mortal

Kombat was released for Sega game systems and Nintendo's NES and

GameBoy. MK was a big deal because of fatality and dismemberment

finishing moves and added blood, which Capcom's Street Fighter II,

Sega's competition, did not have (although these aspects were edited

out of Nintendo MK games). MK had been in arcades for a couple of

months before the game console releases, but it looks like it only

became a political issue when it debuted on such systems and,

therefore, into living rooms everywhere.

The study touches on the events that led up to political action

briefly, but leaves me with one major question: why wasn't there any

political action until 1992? That's almost 20 years after Death Race.

Was it that a large and powerful title finally hit home consoles, and

parents were worried? Sega had sunk a lot of advertising money into

the MK venture and it was a hit right away. Was it that politicians

had been occupied with the Cold War and the Gulf War and had bigger

issues to worry about than addressing media violence? This is a real

stretch, but 1992 was an election year, and even now, media violence

is a fun topic to utilize to sway some votes your way.

Because the study talks about political involvement in the development

of ratings systems, I would have liked to see an answer to this

question. I wonder if it can even be answered. (And this is where not

knowing U.S. history post 1960s comes and bites me in the butt).

After MK lit a political fire in Washington, Congress was about to

pass a bill that would give the videogame industry one year to develop

a ratings system of their own. But, the game industry beat them to the

punch before the bill even passed, creating the well-known Electronics

Software Rating Board (ESRB). The study praises the ESRB system for

its flexibility and its ability to react quickly to the ever-changing

game industry and US culture.

Criticism of the ESRB's rating process was talked about briefly,

touching on the most common complaint about ESRB...

[The ratings process] involves three or more trained game raters

watching a DVD prepared by the game publisher which must contain

"[a]ll pertinent content (as defined by ESRB), including the most

extreme instances, across all relevant categories including but not

limited to violence, language, sex, controlled substances and

gambling." Some have criticized this method for an alleged lack of

thoroughness, which supposedly allows some content to slip past the

raters.

p. 22

...and swiftly discredited this argument.

Given the potential for such costs, why would a game manufacturer

submit to the ESRB rating process? Quite simply, for market access.

.... If the ESRB determines that a manufacturer is acting

dishonestly, it can make a pariah out of the company and its games.

p. 22

I don't know if I quite agree with this. From the example of GTA and

Manhunt 2, which surprisingly was not mentioned at all in this study,

one can see that being dubbed said pariah = controversy =

controversial publicity = free advertising = BIG SALES. This is, of

course, in absentia, the game merits at least a Mature rating come

sales time.

The CEI study also covered the typical fare of parental controls and

Rockstar's Hot Coffee controversy. I'm surprised the mayhem

surrounding Manhunt 2 was not mentioned at all. Maybe because that

would have nullified the "why would game publishers shoot themselves

in the foot?" Simple answer: controversy = sales.

With talk of controversial game ratings inevitably comes the

Adults-Only (AO) and Mature (M) ratings. Mature ratings are for ages

17+ and, according to the ESRB ratings guide, "may contain intense

violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language."

Adults-Only ratings are for ages 18+, in other words legal adults, and

"may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic

sexual content and nudity." Seeing that most game retailers refuse to

carry AO titles, the AO rating has become socially unacceptable.

Yet, the only real difference between the ratings' definitions is the

word "prolonged" and one year. One year. Other than being able to

legally buy porn and cigarettes, does that one year really make a

difference in the content you view? Is 18 magically more able to

handle "controversial" content than 17? Why just one year? Something

does not seem right with that. Except, I don't know what a socially

acceptable solution might be. Merging M and AO into one adult

super-rating probably would not work because having that middle ground

between Teen and adult seems like a necessary buffer. Maybe bumping

back Mature to 16+ might make a teensy bit more sense... I don't know.

This topic is easily another article entirely.

What I've been meaning to get to, however, is that I would like to see

a study cover this topic of Mature vs. Adults-Only more in-depth. I

thought the CEI study might touch on it because of its examination of

the ESRB. It's not disappointing that they didn't, but it is something

I would like to see in the future.

The conclusion of the study was definitely the most interesting.

In our judgment, the ESRB ratings system--the least government-

influenced of the lot--does the best job of giving parents the

information

they need to make decisions for their children. At the other

extreme,

the radio regulatory system, which is almost entirely political,

provides

parents practically no useful information. Between the poles, we

see a

great diversity of opinion. We close, therefore, with four pieces

of advice:

First, keep politics out of ratings systems

... Ratings systems that avoid government involvement will do a

better job giving people the information they need.

Second, know the medium being rated. Video games are complex...

This complexity requires a ratings system that provides lots of

information....

Third, if a ratings system collapses, it is not a cause for

concern. Changing tastes or attitudes mean that all ratings systems

will need to be updated....

Finally, ratings systems will never substitute for other social

institutions.

Parents, houses of worship, schools, and communities need to take

the lead

in keeping obscene, dangerous, or offensive materials away from

children.

Ratings systems cannot be expected to do this. Properly

constructed, they

provide useful information to parents, nothing more and nothing

less.

p. 24-25

I cannot agree more with the fourth point. That is so important to

remember, especially in today's culture where we cannot explain some

of the tragic violence around us and look for scapegoats, something

that can give us reason why one person snapped and went on a rampage.

That "why" is very comforting--it doesn't matter if it's right or not,

we just need it. And all media, not just videogames, are constantly

evolving, making them fresh for the finger-pointing.

I really agree with keeping government regulation out of media,

especially if the medium's industry is willing to take responsibility

with some kind of ratings. The day that our videogames have to go

under federal government review would be a sad day, indeed. This goes

hand-in-hand with the second point mentioned, which is knowing the

medium and acknowledging its complexity. Games are too complex to be

broken down with paperwork, stamps and laws. You truly need that

case-by-case scenario that the ESRB provides, and the possibility of

having someone's politically-driven agenda behind that scares me.

After reviewing the CEI's conclusions, it's time to come to my own.

Because my knowledge of rating system histories outside of videogames

is limited, this was an interesting read. I haven't finished reading

all of the sections yet, but maybe that can help provide new and

better insights for this site and this article. The section about

videogames and conclusion seem to mirror what I've seen and heard on

the game industry scene lately. I'd say the study had some solid

analysis, but this study almost seems to be too pro-ESRB, -videogames

to be true.

Here's the link to the study at the CEI site.

Here's the link to the study (PDF format).

+5 cookie points

if you get this :D