{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/1/2018 5:51:09 PM
8
The ESRB itself is a response from the industry to political pressure to regulate video games with regards to violent and sexually explicit content. Its function, for the industry, is to propose just enough guidelines to appease trigger-happy politicians and activists. It was established by the ESA, the main video game industry lobby, and is funded by the industry.
If enough guidelines are set and the industry largely adheres to them, then everything is honky-dory and lawmakers don't get involved. That's the principle of auto-regulation.
Knowing this, you can consider that whole thing since Star Wars Battlefront II as the wonderful and messy process by which auto-regulation happens. It's a negotiation. Here's how it went up until now:
1) Players get fed up with the industry's growing and enthusiastic use of predatory practices and raise a fuss. Politicians get involved. Oops, we have a situation.
2) The ESRB first claims that lootboxes are not gambling and that they will not change their rating system to account for them. That's the initial stance.
3) Politicians and players then say: "You are failing to regulate yourselves. We're going to do it for you with laws."
4) The ESRB then makes an extremely minor concession by proposing a generic "In-game purchases" label, that they know full well about 99% of games should display, thus making it pointless, because there is no classification of in-game purchases. It's as if the ingredients on a carton of orange juice read: "Oranges, other stuff, etc". That's an early offer. It is minor. They probably know they will have to offer more. But when you negotiate, you don't drop your pants all the way down in one go.
5) How will the anti-lootbox side respond? That's where we are now.
To summarize:
The ESRB defends the industry first, by doing the bare minimum to keep lawmakers away. Any benefit to the consumers that come out of this arrangement is coincidental.
The ESRB, ESA, game industry and lawmakers of a few countries are engaged in initial posturing and negotiation.
...
Knowing all this, I can't think of a single rational reason why players would side with the ESRB at this early stage. It's just against our best interests.
English
-
Lawmakers regulating what can and cant be in games is not in a gamers best intrest. There is nothing the government cant royally screw up when involved. The ESRB is a buffer for the gaming industry, take that away and watch the red tape fly. The government would steamroll the industry and microtransactions would be just an appetizer.
-
[quote]Lawmakers regulating what can and cant be in games is not in a gamers best intrest.[/quote] This
-
Edited by SebastienC: 3/1/2018 10:13:12 PM[quote]Lawmakers regulating what can and cant be in games is not in a gamers best intrest.[/quote] I'd say it is when they want to regulate things that have nothing to do with video games. [quote]There is nothing the government cant royally screw up when involved.[/quote] You think that because you have stopped seeing all the things governments get right. No one talks about stuff that works well and as intended. [quote]The ESRB is a buffer for the gaming industry, take that away and watch the red tape fly.[/quote] Have you been reading what I've just posted? I thought I made it pretty clear that I know that. The ESRB will not be bypassed by lawmakers if they keep incidentally protecting consumers. I they don't... well, that ball is their hands. [quote]The government would steamroll the industry and microtransactions would be just an appetizer.[/quote] That is the "slippery slope" argument a well known fallacy, and therefore irrelevant.
-
Im 34 with 8 years of military experience. I've worked for the government Ive watched the government in action for years. If you think once they get the green light to enter that world and fix a few things their gonna just do that and head out you are mistaken. The government doesn't get into anything make a few small changes then heads out. Their will be new branches created to monitor. New regulations will be established. This all comes with a price tag attached. If you think thats nonsense look at all the wars america has been in, now look at all the military bases outside of america. Once the government gets its hands in something it stays.
-
Edited by SebastienC: 3/1/2018 9:33:23 PMAnd that threat of government intervention is what makes the ESRB do its officially stated job, which is to protect video games consumers. It's all a balancing act. The ESRB wants to do as little as possible to protect consumers, and restrict the game industry as little as possible. It still ends up working out (sorta) for the consumers because if they did not have a regulatory effect on the industry, governments would legiferate instead, with all the shitty effects (that you mention) it involves. As I've said, both sides are still in early negotiation on this issue. Currently, the scales are tipped in the industry's favor (they can do pretty much whatever they want as far as fvcking up games and gamers with "in-game purchases", and the ESRB is trying to sell that everything is fine), so at the moment, I side with the lawmakers (though, nothing is currently happening in Canada about this!). If we were at a point, in the future, where laws taxing violent games, censoring certain themes, or forcing idiotic SJW shit into games (like "games must use gender-neutral pronouns") were on the verge of being voted, then I'd side with the ESRB. But we're not there yet. BTW I do understand how you end up distrusting your goverment. From my canadian point of view, the american political system in the last 10-15 years has looked extremely dysfunctional and incapable of passing any law that is not condemned to failure because it's been FUBAR by partisanship and lobbies. If the US were to pass federal laws on video games, I'm sure they would be fvcking horrible for everyone. But that's the only stick we have, and until the industry mouthpieces give us more than this weak sauce "in-game purchases" label, I think the rational thing for us to do is to support guys like Chris Lee so they keep menacingly waving that stick.
-
Agree 100%. And the sitting president is already saying "we gotta do something about these violent video games and movies"
-
Don't worry about that. He's got the attention span of a chihuahua on crystal meth. He's probably been already distracted by something else now.
-
Once you invite the government in it gets worse. Don’t say i didn’t warn you.
