Senator Brownback brings back game bill

by Alexander Sliwinski { Feb 14th 2007 at 12:05PM }

Presidential hopeful, Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback, has re-introduced a bill that would require the ESRB play every game, all the way through, before assigning a rating. Every nook and cranny of that Thomas' English gaming muffin would have to be explored before slapping a rating on the title.

Feel that generation gap widening? This all goes back to our own issues of not being able to finish games. Forget good games, what about having to finish the bad ones? The very idea of playing a game all the way through before assigning a rating shows how completely out-of-touch the Truth in Video Game Rating Act is. Will Brownback explain on the campaign trail the tax hike required to fund the army necessary to ferret out all the info from these games? The bill would also require the Government Accountability Office to the study the effectiveness of the ESRB and evaluate the potential for an independent system not involved with the video game industry. Imagine if the ESRB said they just couldn't afford the manpower required. The U.S. government would have to make the Department of Video Game Rating Security.

Tags: brownback, esrb, game bill, play everything, senate

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

ViperVisor @ Feb 14th 2007 12:16PM

This is reasonable by his standard of lameness.

32_Footsteps @ Feb 14th 2007 12:18PM

It's pretty doable, actually. All the ESRB has to do is offer internships to college students that said they had to play through games and document what's in them in terms of content. They're internships, so they'd be free for the ESRB. And I know I would have leapt onto such a program in college had one been available, both for the experience and for the line on my resume. If the ESRB is complaining about cost, it's just bellyaching to get pity from outsiders.

Now, the bill should be defeated on the merit of governmental interference in private industry for no benefit to society (the government doesn't try to pass any similar bill on the MPAA or the RIAA, you'll note). Still, it's something that is quite possible and probably should have been enacted before the ESRB got negative attention from lawmakers.

Rob Accomando @ Feb 14th 2007 12:19PM

The U.S. government would have to make the Department of Video Game Rating Security.

YES, Finally!! **Updates my resume***

DKH @ Feb 14th 2007 12:25PM

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, but they do have at least something of a point. In games that allow for a great deal of potential, sometimes the developers don't even think of what you can do. An example that comes to mind is in Fable, where players can kill a town, then buy all the houses and rent them out. I'm not saying it's a good example, but it IS an example of something players can do that wasn't even considered by development teams (and to be fair, if anybody's not aware of what the Hell their own games are like it's Peter Molyneux). It's not unreasonable for concerned parents (not to be confused with lawmakers) to want the ESRB to really at LEAST put in a strong effort to work through a game.

Dave @ Feb 14th 2007 12:25PM

"...Sen. Sam Brownback, has re-introduced a bill that would require the ESRB play every game, all the way through, before assigning a rating."

I would like to propose a bill that would require all legislators to read a bill all the way through before voting on it. I'd tack on a rider on page 342 that would require Senator Brownback to kiss my ass.

polly @ Feb 14th 2007 12:35PM

Well said Dave.

I'd like to propose a bill that requires legislators have a reasonable understanding of a subject before attempting to legislate it.

Intertubes!

VampireHunter Z @ Feb 14th 2007 12:43PM

Nice pic there from "A Clockwork Orange", that scene made me cringe.

Crono @ Feb 14th 2007 1:07PM

32_footsteps,

Legally, all those interns would have to be paid. I realize that post internships aren't paid, but if an intern is required to do anything at his intership that the company would pay someone else to do if the intern weren't there, then the intern is entitled payment.

Now, it doesn't have to be the going rate for the full time employee. For instance, where I work there are several engineer interns. They get paid 10 bucks an hour, vs the going rate for engineers at 40k to 60k per year.

sheppy @ Feb 14th 2007 1:16PM

I was wondering who else would recognize where that pic came from.

Peacefuloutrage @ Feb 14th 2007 1:18PM

@DHK

Umm, your point is? It is well documented that you can murder people in Fable. The fact that you could rent their empty houses is what? Yes, it's immoral, but the content desciptors and its "M" rating are more than enough for the game. I'm sure if your read the descriptors on Fable "blood, violence, sexual themes, and strong language", murder would be included. And if you are 17 years old, I hope you know the difference between real mischeif and imaginary mischief.

4ham @ Feb 14th 2007 1:28PM

Interships! No way! We paid testers would unionize and throw our weight around! No Free Play! No Free Play! We need more jobs to support the American game tester and their families. These folks have long suffered debilitating hand and neck cramps, worsening eyesight and malnutrition to support the industry without asking for benefits. Now it's time for the industry to support them! No Free Play!

GCNH87 @ Feb 14th 2007 1:35PM

lol @ #6

(@pic) Heh, just last night, I had to watch ACO for abnormal psych class.

Pip @ Feb 14th 2007 1:39PM

What about games that never end?

So classic games like Frogger will be illegal to sell?

What if level 784 has a background of a naked lady? We wont know until we actually have someone play till that level and see for themselves. And having a programmer just 'show' the level with a back door code wont be enough, because it has to be played as a consumer would.

This bill would pretty much make every game illegal.

PeacefulOutrage @ Feb 14th 2007 1:40PM

We live in a country where congressmen want to legislate entertainment that is already rated. The big fuss over a MATURE rated game in which CLOTHED imaginary characters pantomimed having sex is rediculous. Meanwhile, a congressman makes passes on his under-aged paige and it is glossed over.

The previous posters are right, these people admit to not even reading the bills they sign. Anyone that has respect for these people other than for sharing our species may want to do some more research to find someone more deserving.

32_Footsteps @ Feb 14th 2007 1:49PM

Okay, fair point about the pay issue. However, does the law ever state that the interns have to be paid in cash, or do they have to simply receive recompension? Because if it's the latter, the ESRB could just make sure to let the interns keep the games, and get a few freebies along the way (games that are just free to own, consoles, clothes, etc.).

Moreover, if the ESRB does this now (where the positions don't exist, and therefore they aren't paying anyone for the job), they *can* get away with free internships. At any rate, the ESRB could pull this off with a relative small amount of expenditure... and they're asking for trouble if they don't.

REUYL @ Feb 14th 2007 2:24PM

The government needs to GTFO of our video games.

apocryphiliac @ Feb 14th 2007 3:04PM

When can I submit Nethack for ESRB rating? ;~)

Mr Khan @ Feb 14th 2007 3:12PM

That would merit the return of cheat codes, really fast, if a dev wanted a game to go to market faster, put cheat codes in and give them to the testers

Either that, or give everyone at the ESRB an Action Replay and let them go to town, with the appropriate codes and hexadecimal-to-AR Code encrypters, to access that 784th level and see that naked lady in the background and say, "AO for You!"

I don't agree with this, but its easily possible

Dave @ Feb 14th 2007 3:55PM

I think the easiest solution is to make sure the bill gets struck down.

jfls @ Feb 14th 2007 4:24PM

I was a game tester many years ago, and whenever the gold version of the game was creeping up, we were required to make a videotape showcasing all gameplay from start to finish. This had to be submitted to the ESRB as part of the certification process.

So what's to keep a publisher from withholding gameplay to obtain a lower ESRB rating? Well, that publisher will probably make another game in the future, and the ESRB will have to certify that game, too. Incidentially, did you know that most publishers want the lowest possible rating for their game, because in general E sells better than T sells better than M, and AO is the mark of retail death?

In other words, a non-governmental solution already exists to address this "problem." There is no need to legislate, with many supporting reasons given by the above posters.

Zach @ Feb 14th 2007 4:36PM

@Dave - I'd like to propose a bill that requires legislators be able to read. And I'm not talking Officer Barbrady level reading either!

Steve @ Feb 14th 2007 4:39PM

Interesting. Last week a politican proposed some stupid anti-gaming legislation and no party affiliation was cited in the article. I mentioned a basic truth of journalism: when a politician does something stupid the party affiliation is either buried or not mentioned if they are a democrat. Earlier today there was another stupid politician article, and again no party affiliation was mentioned. In both cases I found via Google that both candidates were democrats.

Then with this article we have another stupid politician proposing stupid anti-gaming legislation who's a Republican. What's that I see? Why it's the guy's party affiliation sitting right there in the article's very first sentence!

Good job Joystiq! This is New York Times quality of journalistic bias!

DKH @ Feb 14th 2007 4:49PM

Peacefuloutrage,

I'm simply using Fable as an example of a series of logical acts that end with a positive result that the game makers did not forsee and consider. Violence was described, yes. Was assassination? because that's what this example is. Assissination of a homeowner followed by an aquisition of property. Please understand that I'm fully aware of the fact that I'm quibbling over small examples, but I do think it's noteworthy as an example of something where the whole is different from the natural sum of the parts.

And it is noteworthy that there is a difference between imaginary and real mischief, violence, whatever. But videogames are becoming increasingly more realistic, shouldn't that be taken into account? A game of Contra's violence 20 years ago was hardly realistic but the same amount nowadays, relatively speaking, is a very different thing.

The gaming community is very quick to dismiss all of this when really it should be examined by impartial studies. The gamers are too quick to dismiss violence in games and say that the ratings are adequate and blame the parents while these lawmakers are too quick to use inadequate and biased scientific evidence to promote games as negative influences (and also to pass silly laws).

I simply think that it is very reasonable for lawmakers to want games played fully to the best ability of the ESRB or other groups that might assign ratings. Will things be missed? Sure. But it's not like porn hasn't been slipped into children's movies before, right (Rescuers, anybody)?

Tom @ Feb 14th 2007 6:29PM

Sen. Sam Brownback is a f***ing retard. His bill, if passed, will backfire big time. More titles will simply be released without a rating. So how is that an improvement?

Mythor @ Feb 14th 2007 7:19PM

The idea (obviously) is to force game publishers to pay much, much more to get their ESRB sticker, or to stop making games that take more than around 3 hours to play, like the general limit on a movie's length.

Either situation would be seen as a win by Brownback and similarly cracked in the head folk. Either they're making the games industry less profitable and hugely slowing the number of games released, or they're virtually destroying the industry if publishers go for the much shorter games route.

It's got jack to do with getting the ESRB stickers to be accurate.

ggoofer @ Feb 14th 2007 7:57PM

So true 22. There's this scandal going on in PA today with this state senator stealing government money, and though it did make it to the cover of the Philly Inquirer, it took me about 8 minutes to figure out what party the guy belonged to (obviously Democrat) Had it been a Republican, the headline would have read "State GOP leader slammed with misconduct charges".

I can see why this bill would be proposed (thank you Hot Coffee! which ironically still wouldn't have been caught), but it is misguided. The current system tends to work, but there are some bad ratings given. (RE4 contains the word shit and others, but isn't given the language descriptor). I think there needs to be some penalty to publishers who misreport contents. Maybe a hefty fine the first time (as well as a recall and redistribution of the correctly labeled game) and if it happens after that, no ratings for that publisher's games for 6 months. That would get them to report contents properly.

Dave @ Feb 14th 2007 9:14PM

Well, since this is becoming political, I think it's fair to say that neither Democrats nor Republicans respect people's inherent right to liberty--which is why I'm a Libertarian. The Democrat vs. Republican thing is a false dichotomy. They're similar in many ways.

That said, I would prefer ANY party to the party of the current administration. The old conservative Republican party is dead--replaced by the Neo-Con party. Republicans used to want limited government and limited spending. Those days are over. The current Republican leadership believes at least as much in expansion of government as Democrats--but, I would pick Democrats as the lesser of two evils. Ron Paul, of course, is the exception.