Sign in to follow this  
Niyeaux

Have y'all been following this HR287 business?

Recommended Posts

I imagine a lot of people will have heard the noise about this already, but if you haven't, here's the deal: the American government is in the process of trying to pass a law that would require all games to have an ESRB ratings in order to be sold, either physically or digitally. It's a pretty flagrant attempt at censorship, and one that doesn't apply to any other forms of media, so people are pretty up in arms about it. On the other hand, many people are saying that such a law would get tossed out by the Supreme Court (and that similar ones have before) because it's a violation of the First Amendment.

Here's a decent summary of the bill and its possible ramifications.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much agree with everything the article writer said. I kind of knew before reading that it meant there would be some expense for small developers to pay on a newly imposed requirement as does tend to happen with many small businesses that get lumped in with these kind of laws. Kind of like a proposal a few years ago that every toy company has to submit their toys to be tested for lead even though the Chinese importers were the ones creating lead scares (did that bill ever go through?).

What I find most laughable about this bill is that it means that we can no longer sell or resell any games created and published before the ESRB existed. Does that mean floppy disks and NES carts will become some kind of contraband?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, who comes up with stupid ideas like this and do they realize how monumentally stupid they are? Aggravating nonsense that is a waste of time and money.

Apply hand directly to self-face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure this sounds like a swell idea to tired old politicians who don't know anything, or care, about video games, and aren't too concerned with principles in general. Also, there's probably lots of money lobbying for this thing, since it gets a lot of big companies off the hook, in a way.

Here's how I imagine most politicians look like when they're making decisions on post-1950s technology:

3779070_std.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find most laughable about this bill is that it means that we can no longer sell or resell any games created and published before the ESRB existed. Does that mean floppy disks and NES carts will become some kind of contraband?

Holy shit, I didn't even think of this aspect of it. That's a really funny idea, actually...people hoarding NES cartridges under the floorboards, Equilibrium-style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nintendo has actually already, completely voluntarily, been submitting old games to the ESRB for new ratings when they go up for sale on Virtual Console. (It is my understanding that the costs associated with the ESRB rating process are actually a big part of why those Virtual Console games cost so damn much. Seriously.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nintendo has actually already, completely voluntarily, been submitting old games to the ESRB for new ratings when they go up for sale on Virtual Console. (It is my understanding that the costs associated with the ESRB rating process are actually a big part of why those Virtual Console games cost so damn much. Seriously.)

Even so, the proposed law would require the rating to appear on the physical packaging of games, so NES carts would be retroactively illegal for sale. No one would ever be able to sell used retro games again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like what we have in Australia only here it also covers film, therefore indie games (recent example: Retro City Rampage) don't come out here because they don't want to pay the Office of Film and Literature Classification for a rating. It was also why a number of games were banned because we didn't have an adult rating for video games. Thankfully some games that aren't submitted to the OFLC like Retro City Rampage and The Walking Dead come out on PC so I can actually play them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(It is my understanding that the costs associated with the ESRB rating process are actually a big part of why those Virtual Console games cost so damn much. Seriously.)

This was the case, but the ESRB changed their process for digital releases a few months ago. Now it's much easier, it's free, and if your game was previously released for another platform and has already been rated, you don't have to resubmit it as long as the content hasn't changed (ie: most Virtual Console games can now skip the rating altogether).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, given that the ESRB was only formed in 1994, that last bit wouldn't apply to many Virtual Console games.

What do opponents of HR287 say when analogies are made to the movie business?

I don't believe films are regulated in this fashion within the US, nor is any other medium.

This would very much be singling out video games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe films are regulated in this fashion within the US, nor is any other medium.

This would very much be singling out video games.

Correct. There's no legal requirement that films are rated by the MPAA. It's mandatory if you want to put them in theatres, because the theatres are in cahoots with the production houses that run the MPAA, but there's no federal law or anything. Theoretically, you could release a movie digitally or on DVD without an MPAA rating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do opponents of HR287 say when analogies are made to the movie business?

I think I can answer this and I'm sure we've all heard this one before: Games are different from other media, because they're interactive. You're not watching violence, you're the one doing violence.

I've heard this argument from friends and family as well, but when asked what they base it on? Because it's logical! Who needs proof when it feels like it's the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an article about this -- and cannot remember at all where that was, so apologies for an unverified source -- that called this bill dead in the water. Apparently the same Senator who's proposing it now, also proposed it a few months ago, when it didn't even make it to the floor for voting. From the sounds of it, this version of the bill isn't gaining much traction either. I agree that it's a dumb proposition, but thankfully it doesn't sound like this is something Congress is taking seriously.

Edit: Here's the link to the article that talks about this bill: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/184997/Two_bills_target_video_games_following_Sandy_Hook_tragedy.php#.UP2NsqE3m10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Sno and Niyeaux for pointing out the unregulated aspect of the MPAA system (and apologies for perhaps inadvertently resurrecting a dead horse, PP). The situation is a little different in European regions, where some countries have made legal accomodation for the PEGI system, hence my poorly formulated curiosity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, and I know this seems a little semantic, but it's not "the American government" trying to pass this bill. Like pretty much any other bill, it's been introduced by one or more individual congresspeople. It's not reflective of actual government policy. Any congressperson can theoretically try to get anything passed, but that doesn't mean anything with respect to the current administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... a number of games were banned because we didn't have an adult rating for video games.

That is literally one of the most retarded things I have ever heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the UK you have to have a PEGI rating to sell your game... and I presume on PSN and XBLA (I would guess that Microsoft and Sony would require it). I've no idea how this affects Steam or self published games.

Personally I think that a rating system is a good thing, it means that kids will be less likely to be playing games they certainly shouldn't be, and adds some accountability to this. However, this does of course introduce some level of censorship (which I'm mostly against) by having a minority of people decide who should be able to play a game, if at all. It is an interesting dichotomy.

But then again, if you look at all the uk's banned films, they have generally been released later... and if you are really that way inclined, then I'm sure you can 'source' a copy. Only 2 games have been banned in the UK. Carmageddon (which was released after humans were replaced with zombies, rather tame looking back with hindsight) and Manhunt 2 (eventually released on ps2, wii, psp. The PC version still remains banned in the UK.. i'm sure I could find a copy quick enough though). Not entirely sure what my point is with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't a big deal at all. We have similar things here in the UK and it doesn't make any discernible difference. For a start, I believe it's only applicable to "proper" games, not indie games -- unless the indie game does something silly like feature extreme violence (and I don't mean Hotline Miami) or nudity. And we even go further and ban certain games here -- but I think the only game I can't buy in an uncut form is Manhunter 2 -- although if I REALLY wanted it, I'm sure I could get it. The main reason for it is so that parents can get an idea if a game is suitable for their youngun's. The average parents don't know their Call of Duties from their Band Camps, so it just makes it easier for them to make quick decisions.

In all: This wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to you, and I don't see how it equates to censorship except in the most tangential sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like what we have in Australia only here it also covers film, therefore indie games (recent example: Retro City Rampage) don't come out here because they don't want to pay the Office of Film and Literature Classification for a rating. It was also why a number of games were banned because we didn't have an adult rating for video games. Thankfully some games that aren't submitted to the OFLC like Retro City Rampage and The Walking Dead come out on PC so I can actually play them.

It's a little more complicated than that, as it only applies to media sold in Australia. The App Store, for instance, is not affected; you've also been able to buy The Walking Dead in Australia via Steam for ages, just not in retail stores. (Aside: it got rated MA15+ anyway so waiting for the R18+ was a waste of time). It's already been acknowledged that it's ridiculous to require ratings for everything in the age of the Internet, and probably the next reform after R18+ for games is allowing creator classification for anything M or lower.

There is one advantage: based on the rules we have now, other than a couple of dumb provisions for games, the rating schemes across movies, TV and games are now consistent. One set of guidelines for everything, with context a big part of the classification. It's only problematic for games in that really they're a lot more violent than maybe they should be, but violent movies make it here all the time, so.

That is literally one of the most retarded things I have ever heard.

So here's how it shook out:

Back in the 70s, well before video games, the government introduced a rating scheme, and because Australia was a tiny market mostly getting its media from jolly old England, they made it mandatory like in England. To sell anything in Australia, you needed to have it rated. This is pretty typical around the world - see PEGI, etc. In general Australians are more trusting of their bureaucracies than Americans seem to be, so as long as it was relatively transparent it was just fine by most people.

In the 90s games were added to the classification scheme. Same rule still applied, although for games they decided that if a game needed to be age restricted they'd just not rate it and let the states decide for themselves what to do with it. It was the 90s, it was a simpler time.

The states are kind of an important thing here - before the 70s each state had its own rules, and much like in America each state used to be its own boss, so they don't like the idea of the federal government taking away their power. So the agreement was that every state and the federal government would need to agree to change the rules before any rules could get changed.

And that's how come it took until 2013 to respond to the games industry not being for kids any more - you get one censorious Attorney-General who ruins things for the rest of us and the issue goes in the too-hard basket. Eventually it became a minor election issue once Australian gamers worked out that the classification board was lowballing ratings so they didn't have to ban borderline cases and decided to push the angle that 'adult' games were getting through for kids to buy. It also helped that the games industry started to be worth serious amounts of money, which made both state and federal governments suddenly very interested to see how they could get a piece of that action assist the local industry.

It's an unlucky confluence of various rules that seemed okay at the time. Only one person really had it out for games in the government, but checks and balances breed tyranny just as easily as unfettered power. Locally, high prices were always the bigger issue for gamers, and the games affected were either crap or re-released with minor changes. The biggest problem with the uneven classification scheme, honestly, was that Australian gamers constantly got crap from Americans on message boards about it. That was before we knew about the debt ceiling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't a big deal at all. We have similar things here in the UK and it doesn't make any discernible difference. For a start, I believe it's only applicable to "proper" games, not indie games -- unless the indie game does something silly like feature extreme violence (and I don't mean Hotline Miami) or nudity. And we even go further and ban certain games here -- but I think the only game I can't buy in an uncut form is Manhunter 2 -- although if I REALLY wanted it, I'm sure I could get it. The main reason for it is so that parents can get an idea if a game is suitable for their youngun's. The average parents don't know their Call of Duties from their Band Camps, so it just makes it easier for them to make quick decisions.

In all: This wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to you, and I don't see how it equates to censorship except in the most tangential sense.

It's sort of a big deal in the US for a combination of two reasons.

Number one, this system already self regulates. Major stores like Best Buy and Wal-Mart generally refuse to carry games that are rated Adult Only, or Unrated. This makes it an easy choice for any major developer to send everything past the ESRB because the lion's share of sales comes from these stores. Smaller companies that can't afford the ESRB stuff are limited as to where they can publish (generally Steam or self-published.) Why change a system that already works?

Number two, as shown by the recent confusion with the NY gun legislation (basically, they forgot to exempt police, so every officer in NY might be carrying illegally right now, depending on how you read it) you can't rely on the government to write a proper law that exempts small developers, or Steam, or whatever. It feels like the law makers prefer large blanketing laws that they fix later. Meanwhile, every indie dev is out in the cold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number one, this system already self regulates. Major stores like Best Buy and Wal-Mart generally refuse to carry games that are rated Adult Only, or Unrated. This makes it an easy choice for any major developer to send everything past the ESRB because the lion's share of sales comes from these stores.

That's all well and good, but I see why the system couldn't or shouldn't be improved? Isn't it more important that adult content isn't sold to minors?

Smaller companies that can't afford the ESRB stuff are limited as to where they can publish (generally Steam or self-published.) Why change a system that already works?

According to Joystiq, if your game's budget is below $250,000 you only have to pay $800 to have your game rated by the ESRB. That seems well within the reach of anyone who's seriously hoping to make money off an indie game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all well and good, but I see why the system couldn't or shouldn't be improved? Isn't it more important that adult content isn't sold to minors?

According to Joystiq, if your game's budget is below $250,000 you only have to pay $800 to have your game rated by the ESRB. That seems well within the reach of anyone who's seriously hoping to make money off an indie game.

So every phone game developer has to put up $800 before they even know if their game is worth selling? Obviously, if you know that your game is going to sell at least a few thousand copies, that's an easy $800 to spend. But if you're making a game on your own with no real knowledge that it's going to even sell a single copy, $800 is a barrier. People were complaining about the Steam Greenlight fee of $100, and you're wanting to put out a barrier 8 times that size?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I'm not necessarily against the concept of this bill provided the following (very unlikely) concessions

1) All media, including music, books, movies, TV, and games have to submit to this scrutiny

2) There is no charge for the rating

3) The rating is done by a government entitiy, not a private or non-profit organziation

4) There remains legal ways to sell rated R and X content to those adults who desire it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this