[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends View]
Tuesday, April 12th, 2005
Like the late comedian Rodney Dangerfield, the ESRB don't get no respect. As every gamer knows, the Entertainment Software Rating Board evaluates and rates virtually every video game sold at retail in the United States. The rating system has been around for more than a decade. So everyone is happy, right?
Time
Event
4:56a
Uh, no...
An article in the Hollywood Reporter describes how politicians and game developers alike are frustrated with the ratings system.
Congressman Joe Baca, (at left) a California Democrat and frequent video game critic, is concerned that some "M" rated games (17 and older) should be rated "AO" (adults only). Baca, who has asked that the Federal Trade Commission take another look at the ESRB's rating system, is quoted in the Hollywood Reporter article as follows:
"Parents are buying games that are inappropriate for their children, not knowing that they may contain sexually explicit and highly violent content. Some of these games depict sex with prostitutes, cop killing, robbery and assault of individuals including women and seniors."
What in the world is Rep. Baca is talking about? As I type this I am holding GTA Vice City in hand. Down in the lower left corner of the front of the box is ESRB's well-known "M" (17 and older) rating. Flipping the box over, I find a larger ESRB posting on the back of the case that outlines the basis for the "M" rating. In the case of Vice City, it reads:
BLOOD AND GORE, VIOLENCE
STRONG LANGUAGE
STRONG SEXUAL CONTENT
Pretty accurate, based on my experience with the game. What's more, it would be hard for a parent to miss the gunshots, explosions, and F-bombs echoing through the house while GTA is played. So what is Congressman Baca's point? If a parent isn't paying attention to the "M" rating, which makes it very clear what the game contains, will they pay more attention to an "AO" rating?
Probably not. But Rep. Baca could have a hidden agenda. Now I know it's hard to believe that a politician would conceal his true purpose. But since many retail chains won't carry "AO" games, is Rep. Baca trying to exert a type of back door censorship? An "AO" would mean that a game like Vice City would get virtually no retail shelf exposure.
The article also discusses the frustrations and additional expense that game developers have in trying to meet the ESRB standards.
If you wish, you may contact Rep. Baca about this issue.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Speaking of Rodney Dangerfield, his official website is still up despite the comedian's death last October. Especially spooky is the schedule of upcoming appearances and an e-mail link to Rodney.10:55a
As reported on GameSpot and elsewhere, video game publishing giant Electronic Arts has signed an exclusive 6-year deal with the NCAA to publish licensed console games based on college football. The deal comes on the heels of an exclusive 5-year arrangement reached by EA with the NFL last December. For all practical matters, the dual agreements lock up the entire football video game market through the next generation of consoles.
Big losers in the deals include 2K Sports, which made a pretty good $19.99 NFL game for the last couple of years, as well as consumers, who always lose when there is no competition. Without the competitive pressure from a budget-priced NFL 2K6, what are the chances that Madden 2006 will cost a penny less than $49.99?
But does EA's aggressive pursuit of football licensing constitute a monopoly in the legal sense?
An article by attorney Richard Steuer provides a summary of antitrust laws. Steuer's work says, in part:
"Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or conspire to monopolize a line of commerce...the offense of monopolization...has two elements: (1) possession of monopoly power in the relevant market, and (2) willful acquisition or maintenance of that power."
Steuer further notes that "The Supreme Court has defined monopoly power as the power to control prices or exclude competition. As a practical matter, such power is measured by the alleged monopolist's share of the relevant market....any market share of 50 percent or higher is sufficient to be of concern...Once monopoly power is found the question remains: Was it willfully acquired or maintained? ...Conscious acts designed to further or maintain a monopoly market position will suffice -- for example, acquisitions of competitors, exclusive dealing arrangements..."
So, after reading Richard Steuer's article...will someone explain to me how EA's deals are NOT monopolistic? How consumers will not lose out? How jobs will not be lost at competing firms?
Therefore, as of this morning, GamePolitics.com calls upon the United States Department of Justice to initiate an investigation into possible monopolistic actions by Electronic Arts in these matters.
<<
Previous Day
2005/04/12
[Calendar] Next
Day >>