[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
VIOLENT AND EXPLICIT VIDEO
GAMES: INFORMING PARENTS AND
PROTECTING CHILDREN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JUNE 14, 2006
Serial No. 109-105
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
29-893 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
Vice Chairman
FRED UPTON, Michigan
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
CHARLES W. "CHIP" PICKERING, Mississippi
Vice Chairman
VITO FOSSELLA, New York
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
STEVE BUYER, Indiana
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
MARY BONO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
C.L. "BUTCH" OTTER, Idaho
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
Ranking Member
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
BART GORDON, Tennessee
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BART STUPAK, Michigan
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
GENE GREEN, Texas
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado
LOIS CAPPS, California
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
TOM ALLEN, Maine
JIM DAVIS, Florida
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
HILDA L. SOLIS, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
JAY INSLEE, Washington
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director
DAVID CAVICKE, General Counsel
REID P. F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman
FRED UPTON, Michigan
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
MARY BONO, California
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
C.L. "BUTCH" OTTER, Idaho
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JOE BARTON, Texas
(EX OFFICIO)
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
Ranking Member
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
GENE GREEN, Texas
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado
JIM DAVIS, Florida
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
(EX OFFICIO)
CONTENTS
Page
Testimony of:
Parnes, Lydia, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal
Trade Commission 22 Severson, Gary, Senior Vice President,
Merchandising, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 32 Lowenstein, Douglas,
President, Entertainment Software Association 39
Vance, Patricia E., President, Entertainment Software Rating Board
88
Thompson, Dr. Kimberly M., Director, Kids Risk Project, Associate
Professor of Risk Analysis and Decision Science, Department of
Health Policy and Management, Harvard University 118 Buckleitner,
Dr. Warren, Ph.D., Editor, Children's Technology Review 123
Walsh, Dr. David, Ph.D., President, National Institute on Media
and the Family 128
Additional material submitted for the record:
Andersen, Crossan R., President, Entertainment Merchants Association,
prepared statement of 147
Tripodi, Cynthia Merifeld, Executive Director, Pause Parent Play,
prepared statement of 153
VIOLENT AND EXPLICIT VIDEO GAMES: INFORMING PARENTS AND PROTECTING
CHILDREN
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2006
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:39 p.m., in Room 2123
of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon Cliff Stearns [Chairman]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Stearns, Upton, Radanovich, Bass, Pitts,
Terry, Murphy, Blackburn, Barton (ex officio), Schakowsky, Markey,
Towns and Baldwin.
Also Present: Representative Matheson.
Staff Present: David Cavicke, General Counsel; Chris Leahy, Policy
Coordinator; Will Carty, Professional Staff Member; Billy Harvard,
Legislative Clerk; Jonathan Cordone, Minority Counsel; and David
Vogel, Minority Research Assistant.
MR. STEARNS. Good afternoon. The subcommittee will come to order.
My colleagues, the rise of computer and video games as mainstream
entertainment has been nothing short of meteoric. U.S. computer
and video game software sales reached almost $10.5 billion in 2005,
and more than double that since 1996. Worldwide computer and video
games sales have hit over $30 billion. And, according to PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the global revenue of video game companies
could reach over $55 billion in 2008, easily surpassing that of the
music industry at $33 billion.
While it is a global business, the U.S. computer and video game
industry continues to be the benchmark for innovation. This
spectacular rise of the video game juggernaut is not hard to
understand when you see the creativity, the educational value, and
the sheer fun the vast majority of games offer to gamers of every
age, especially children, who are still the core market for this
burgeoning industry.
According to the Entertainment Software Association, games created
for children age 17 and under constitute over 80 percent of the
titles rated by the Entertainment Software Rating Board, or ESRB.
However, I also note that the top-selling game in 2004 was now the
infamous Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, which is rated by ESRB as "M"
for "Mature" audience, indicating that the game's content is
inappropriate for children under 17 years of age. Grand Theft Auto
sold 5.1 million units in 2004, and pushed out Madden NFL Football
from the number one spot. Madden NFL Football was rated "E" for
"Everyone" by ESRB, suitable for children 6 years and older.
"Mature"-rated games continue to be top sellers, and continue to
push the limits of violence and sexually explicit content every
year. Grand Theft Auto, which we will show a few clips from later,
includes scenes that allow players to make drug deals, solicit
prostitutes, gun down and bludgeon and mutilate police and EMS
workers. And as a finale, they can fly a plane into a skyscraper.
Now, I hardly call that educational or creative.
This is not just a game. Building a video game around a premise
based on very realistic cold-blooded assassination of innocent
bystanders and police, the same law enforcement community that
stands guard outside the doors of this hearing for our own
protection, is not entertainment, in our opinion. This sort of
twisted homicidal imagery is more akin to hate speech, not free
speech. It targets those who are innocent, it stereotypes, it
incites hate, and it breeds disrespect for those who are serving
to protect all of us.
Free speech is a constitutionally protected right, but when it
involves very suspect expressions, expressions that are more akin
to cultural pollution than art, it requires responsible and discreet
execution. The costs our children must bear are too great.
But we are not here today to debate the constitutional issue
surrounding violent and explicit video games. We are here, my
colleagues, to investigate some pretty simple and commonsense
issues: whether parents are getting all the information they need
and deserve to make decisions about the purchase of video and
computer games, the process by which games are rated, and to what
extent those games with "M"-rated or "Mature" content are policed
at the retail level both on and off line. These are the elements of
consumer protection required to protect our most vulnerable and
valuable consumers, our children.
This committee and this consumer protection subcommittee has a long
and venerable record protecting children, whether it be from on-line
pornography, indecency in broadcasting, or, in this case, from
certain video games that have no place near children and should be
banished to a secure adults-only location, and the video game
equivalent of a red-light district.
In addition, my colleagues, a new phenomenon of hidden code and mods
is another disturbing development that came to light in the Grand
Theft Auto case, and it involves the ability to modify an existing
game's underlying code with a downloadable program that can unlock
hidden violence and sexually explicit content into the game. Such
practices attempt to circumvent the rating process and again
demonstrate the sophistication and stealth of the ways inappropriate
content can be delivered to our children.
This type of virtual reality, violence, and sexual content
undermines the efforts of parents as responsible caregivers to their
children. Parents should not be required to defend constantly
against the increasing media and marketing onslaught of excessively
violent and sexually explicit video and computer games.
Media, marketing, and a delivery technology, computers, PDAs, and
cell phones have become omnipresent in and outside the home. More
needs to be done by the industries involved which have the money,
they have the resources and expertise to better protect our
children. Ratings need to be cleaner, clearer, and more
universal.
Hidden content and the use of mods to evade ratings need to be met
with more severe penalties. Retail stores need to be more vigilant
in how they verify the age of customers both on line and at the
point of sale. Technology, though, can do a lot. For example,
parental control technologies like those found on the Microsoft
X-Box allowing playing consoles to read ratings and allow parents
to prohibit certain content from being played even if the child has
it in hand. And this is progress.
I also very strongly urge the Federal Trade Commission to report to
Congress on the Grand Theft Auto controversy as requested by
congressional resolution last summer, and it should start getting
tough with these companies like Take Two Interactive that flout the
law and continue to exploit our kids with violence and hate.
And finally, my colleagues, as they say, a picture is worth a
thousand words. After Members' opening statements, I would like to
show some clips from Grand Theft Auto, the number one selling game
of 2004, that have been meticulously edited to remove some of the
more extreme sexual content, but still contain some very disturbing
violent content. This should give us a sense of what constitutes
a "Mature" or "M" rating under the ESRB system, and perhaps will
make us wonder how bad things need to be to warrant an adults only
or "AO" mark, a brand that would take this pollution out of
mass-media and retail outlets that are frequented by our children
and take the profit out of peddling violence and sex to our
children.
So I would like to thank the witnesses for being here. I know the
sacrifice they had to make for their presence, and their views and
their testimony are obviously appreciated.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Cliff Stearns follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF STEARNS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE
ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
Good afternoon. The rise of computer and video games as mainstream
entertainment has been nothing short of meteoric. U.S. computer and
video game software sales reached almost $10.5 billion in 2005 -
more than double since 1996. Worldwide, computer and video game
sales have hit over $30 billion. And according to Price Waterhouse
Coopers, the global revenue of video game companies could reach over
$55 billion in 2008 -- easily surpassing that of the music industry
at $33 billion. While it is a global business, the U.S. computer
and video game industry continues to be the benchmark for
innovation.
The spectacular rise of the video game juggernaut is not hard to
understand when you see the creativity, educational value, and fun
the vast majority of games offer to gamers of every age - ESPECIALLY
children, who are still the core market for this burgeoning
industry. According to the Entertainment Software Association,
games rated for children (age 17 and under) constitute over 80% of
the titles rated by the Entertainment Software Rating Board or
"ESRB." I, however, also note that the top selling game in 2004 was
the now infamous Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, which is rated by the
ESRB as "M" for mature - indicating that the game's content is
inappropriate for children under 17 years old. Grand Theft Auto
sold 5.1 million units in 2004 and pushed out Madden NFL Football
from the number one spot. Madden NFL Football was rated "E" for
everyone by the ESRB -- suitable for children 6 years and older.
Mature rated games continue to be top sellers and continue to push
the limits of violent and sexually explicit content every year.
Grand Theft Auto, which we will show a few clips from later,
includes scenes that allow players to make drug deals, solicit
prostitutes, gun down, bludgeon, and mutilate police and EMS
workers, and as the finale, fly a plane into a skyscraper. I
hardly call that fun, educational, or creative. This is not
"just a game." Building a video game around a premise based on
very realistic, cold-blooded assassinations of innocent bystanders
and police - the same law enforcement community that stands guard
outside the doors of this hearing room for our protection- is not
entertainment. This sort of twisted, homicidal imagery is more akin
to hate speech, not free speech. It targets those who are innocent,
it stereotypes, it incites hate, and it breeds disrespect for those
who serve to protect.
Free speech is a constitutionally protected right, but when it
involves very suspect expressions - expressions that are more akin
to cultural pollution than art - it requires responsible and
discrete execution. The costs our children must bear are too great.
But we are not here today to debate the constitutional issues
surrounding violent and explicit video games. We ARE here to
investigate some pretty simple and common sense issues: whether
parents are getting all the information they need and DESERVE to
make decisions about the purchase of video and computer games, the
process by which games are rated, and to what extent those games
with "M"-rated or "mature" content are policed at the retail
level- both on and off-line. These are the elements of consumer
protection required to protect our most vulnerable and valuable
consumers - our children. This Committee and this Consumer
Protection Subcommittee has a long and venerable record protecting
children -whether it be from on-line pornography, indecency in
broadcasting, or in this case, from certain video games that have
no place near children and should be banished to a secure,
"adults-only" location - the video game equivalent of the red-light
district.
In addition, the new phenomenon of hidden code and "mods" is
another disturbing development that came to light in the Grand Theft
Auto case and involves the ability to modify an existing game's
underlying code with a downloadable program that can unlock hidden
violent and sexually-explicit content in the game. Such practices
attempt to circumvent the ratings process and again demonstrate the
sophistication and stealth of the ways inappropriate content can be
delivered to our children.
This type of "virtual reality" violence and sexual content
undermines the efforts of parents as responsible caregivers to their
children. Parents should not be required to defend constantly
against the increasing media and marketing onslaught of excessively
violent and sexually explicit video and computer games. Media,
marketing, and delivery technology (computers, PDAs, cell phones)
have become omnipresent in and outside the home. More needs to be
done by the industries involved, which have the money, resources,
and expertise to better protect children. Ratings need to be
clearer and more universal. Hidden content and the use of "mods"
to evade ratings need to be met with more severe penalties. Retail
stores need to be more vigilant in how they age verify customers -
both online and at point of sale. Technology can do a lot. For
example, parental control technologies, like those found on the
Microsoft X-Box, allow playing consoles to read ratings and allow
parents to prohibit certain content from being played even if a
child has it in hand. This is progress. I also very strongly urge
the FTC to report to Congress on the Grand Theft Auto controversy,
as requested by congressional resolution last summer, and start
getting tough with companies like Take Two Interactive that flout
the law and continue to exploit our kids with violence and hate.
And finally, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
After member opening statements, I would like to show some clips
from Grand Theft Auto -the number one selling game of 2004-- that
have been meticulously edited to remove some of the more extreme
sexual content but still contain some very disturbing violent
content. This should give us a sense of what constitutes a "mature"
or "M" rating under the ESRB system and perhaps will make us wonder
how bad things need to be to warrant an "adults only" or "AO" mark -
a brand that would take this pollution out of our mass media and
retail outlets frequented by our children and take the profit out
of peddling violence and sex to our kids. I'd like to thank the
witnesses before us today for their presence and views. Your
testimony is greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
MR. STEARNS. With that, I recognize the Ranking Member Ms.
Schakowsky.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Chairman Stearns. Thank you for
holding today's hearing on the violent and explicit materials in
video games. I appreciate the chance to further understanding how
these games are marketed, sold, and what is being done to keep them
out of the hands of children.
While I am a very strong proponent of free speech, and there are
many educational and wholesome games on the market, I am no fan of
the games that glorify killing and other forms of violence,
including rape. Games with such content are irresponsible and
dangerous, and have no place in a civil society.
The only thing that is as riling as those who make a business out of
creating those deplorable games are those who make profit off of
selling them to children. I am especially concerned about those who
in their zeal to make a buck allow for massive loopholes that make
it easy for those who are under 17 to get ahold of games rated
"Mature" or above without their parents' knowledge or consent. For
instance, it is as easy as a click of the mouse to get
"Mature"-rated video games on line from stores like Wal-Mart. All
one needs to do to get their copy of Grand Theft Auto from
Wal-Mart's Web site is to check a box that certifies, quote, that
the person ordering is older than 17. With 13-year-olds being
issued credit cards or having ready access to their parents' that
age verification is a joke. For a so-called family-friendly store
that won't carry music with "parental advisories" on the label, that
is quite a double standard. Tell me, how does selling violent game
to minors fit with Wal-Mart's claim that it is being responsible?
But having lax protections in place to stop the children under 17
years old from buying games rated "Mature" is not a unique
phenomenon to on-line purchasing. According to the Federal Trade
Commission, mystery shopping investigations that send 13 to
16-year-olds unaccompanied into stores, 42 percent of these children
were able to buy "M"-rated games. Sadly, this is an improvement
from 69 percent in 2003, but definitely no reason to celebrate it.
And I look forward to your testimonies.
I believe that for voluntary standards ratings to be effective, we
have to make sure that they are enforced, from the raters of the
games to the checkout counter. While I don't condone these games,
we need to make sure that parents are getting all the information
they need, and that they have the chance to be involved in deciding
what is appropriate for their children.
I very much look forward to hearing from our witnesses. I want to
learn more about how these games are rated, how they are marketed,
and to whom; who is making profit from them, what retailers have to
say about selling to under-aged children without parental approval,
and what they are going to do about it. Thank you.
MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady.
I know recognize the Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Barton from
Texas.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, Chairman Stearns, for holding this
hearing. I am looking forward to hearing from our distinguished
list of witnesses, and we have several distinguished guests in the
audience, and I hope at the appropriate time they might be
introduced.
But I am very glad that we are holding this hearing. I think it is
an important hearing. I hope that the parents of America are paying
close attention. Last year it was revealed that there was an
explicit sexual scene hidden inside a video game called Grand Theft
Auto San Andreas. It turns out that was one of the best-selling
games of the year. This content was not disclosed to the industry's
rating board, so the game did not receive the adults-only rating
that it deserved. So when we found out about it, we passed a
resolution asking that the FTC look into the production and marketing
of that particular game. That was about a year ago. The Federal
Trade Commission has still not given a report formally to the
Congress. Hopefully we will get some glimmer of what they found
out in today's hearing. But I think, given the sensitivity of the
issue, it is not an acceptable practice by the FTC to respond in
such a tardy fashion.
We are going to see in a few minutes some clips of this game, the
Grand Theft Auto game. What we are going to see will show policemen
being killed, drug dealing, and drive-by shootings. Apparently that
is acceptable. It is representative of the content of some
mature-only games. There are lots of other scenes we are not going
to see simply because this is a public hearing.
It is true that "Mature" and "Adult-Only" games are a relatively
small percentage of the games on the market, but unfortunately they
appear to be some of the most popular games and are accounting for a
disproportionately large percentage of total sales.
I will have to confess, Mr. Chairman, that I am also a video game
player. I have worked my way up to Civilization Four. I haven't
yet been able to beat it, but I at least understand the fundamentals
of it. I think that game is an "E" game, which means that anybody
can play it.
Given the fact that the industry is booming and that more games are
being purchased than ever before, over $10 billion last year, it is
imperative, in my opinion, that parents are informed about the
content of the games that their children are playing. I have two
stepchildren that are teenagers, and they are playing video games;
I have three grandchildren, two of which are playing video games;
and I have an infant son who will soon within the next 2 to 3 years
almost certainly be game-playing himself.
So this is of a personal interest to me, and I am fed up with games
like Grand Theft Auto being marketed under false pretenses. I have
got no problem if it is an adults-only game and it is sold in the
appropriate adults-only venue. If adults want to buy it, that is
their privilege as Americans in a free society. But more violent
and more sexually oriented games that are made available to the
general public, in my opinion, is simply not acceptable.
So I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.
I look forward to hearing the witnesses. And hopefully, on a
bipartisan-basis, if legislation is needed to clean up this mess,
I am sure that you will lead the way, and I will be one of your
most stalwart soldiers.
MR. STEARNS. I thank the Chairman.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Joe Barton follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND COMMERCE
Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Stearns, for holding this
hearing. It is important that parents pay close attention to the
entertainment that their children are watching and listening to, and
this examination of the video game industry and its rating system
is an important part of that process.
Last year, controversy erupted when it was revealed that an explicit
sexual scene was "hidden" inside a video game called Grand Theft
Auto: San Andreas, which was one of the best-selling games of the
year. This content was not disclosed to the industry's rating
board, and therefore the game did not receive the "Adults Only"
rating it deserved-the rough equivalent of an NC-17 movie rating.
Subsequently, we in Congress passed a resolution asking that the FTC
look into the production and marketing of the game. As of now-almost
a full year later-the Commission has not explained what they have
done. This is simply unacceptable, and I hope that today the FTC
will tell us specifically what the investigation has uncovered.
In a few minutes, we will show a short compilation of clips from
Grand Theft Auto showing cop killing, drug dealing, and drive-by
shootings. While it is representative of the content of some
"Mature"-rated games, there are a lot of other scenes in these
games that we simply cannot show in a public hearing. It is true
that "Mature" and "Adult Only" games are a relatively small
percentage of the games on the market, but they are some of the
most popular games and account for a disproportionately large
percentage of total sales. Given the fact that the industry is
booming and more games are being purchased than ever before-over
$10.5 billion in sales in 2005-it is imperative that parents are
informed about the content in the games that their children are
playing.
The industry should be commended for developing a rating system
voluntarily, and recent FTC studies have shown that retailers are
doing a better job educating their customers and checking ID when
selling more mature games. But not nearly enough has been done.
The Grand Theft Auto debacle exposed a serious problem with the
rating process, and many have argued that the ratings themselves
are not appropriately defined. Consumers must have confidence in
the ratings and those ratings must mean what they say. Also, last
year's study showed that unaccompanied teenagers were denied
"M-rated" games only 58 percent of the time. While that is a huge
increase from 2000, it is not nearly good enough. Retailers, large
and small, and the industry itself must behave more responsibly.
I understand that there have been efforts on the part of some state
and local legislative bodies to regulate access to games. I also
understand that all of these efforts have been ruled to be
unconstitutional by the Courts. The purpose of this hearing,
however, is to have a comprehensive discussion about whether parents
are getting the information they need to make educated choices for
their children. I believe that is in the best interest of consumers
AND the industry.
I want to welcome Ms. Parnes of the Consumer Protection Bureau of the
FTC, and thank her for coming in to discuss the Commission's work in
this area. I also want to thank the rest of our witnesses for
their participation today, and I look forward to learning more about
the industry, its ratings, and its marketing.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
MR. STEARNS. Ms. Baldwin.
MS. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact that
you are holding this important and timely hearing on violent and
sexually explicit video games and how we can best protect our
children from them.
It has been almost a year since the media first reported a secret
sexually explicit minigame that was embedded in the game Grand Theft
Auto San Andreas. Through installing a third-party program called
Hot Coffee available on line, game players were able to access the
embedded content, which was not originally disclosed to the
Entertainment Software Rating Board, or ESRB.
Subsequently, the Federal Trade Commission initiated an investigation
into the game, and just last week published a settlement with the
developers of Grand Theft Auto, Take Two Interactive, and Rockstar
Games. The settlement, if made final following a 30-day comment
period, would require the companies to disclose all playable or
nonplayable content of a game relevant to the game's rating, as well
as requiring the companies not to misrepresent the rating or content
descriptors for a game. The companies would be fined $11,000 per
violation if they did not comply with reporting and game
requirements. I believe these are constructive first steps in
ensuring that video game developers operate in a socially
responsible and consumer-friendly manner.
I know the Entertainment Software Rating Board has been working
hard to improve its rating system and aggressively working with
retailers to reduce the sale or rental of "Mature"-rated games to
minors without parental consent. I am especially heartened by the
fact that game console manufacturers have provided
password-protected parental control technology to prevent games
with inappropriate ratings from being loaded onto their
next-generation video game consoles. I applaud the industry for
taking self-regulation seriously, because incidents such as the Hot
Coffee minigame are not only bad for publicity, they are bad for
business, and they are bad for our children.
Nevertheless, we know that much more needs to be done. There are
financial incentives for game makers not to be cooperative.
Indeed, there is no question that in some instances a "Mature"
rating for a game drives interest and sales of that game. While a
game rated "Adult Only" or "AO" is automatically rejected by many
retailers, it is not difficult to imagine that a company would
downplay or misrepresent the content of a game to receive a "Mature"
rating when, in fact, the game more closely resembles the violent
and sexual content found in an "AO" game and should have received
the "AO" rating. Which begs the question are the ESRB ratings truly
based on content, or is the content of the game driven by ratings?
And I hope our panelists will refer to that and speak to that.
Finally, I want to emphasize that in ensuring video games are
available to consumers in a responsible way, we must be careful not
to trample on first amendment rights of the game creators. Indeed,
every Federal court that has ruled on State laws prohibiting the
sales of violent or sexually oriented video games to minors has
found such statutes unconstitutional. And that is why I believe
that self-regulation remains the best method in providing
information to parents about the game's content. For that same
reason, it is all the more important that the video game rating
system work effectively to provide accurate, objective information
to parents. Ultimately, I believe it is up to the gaming industry
to cultivate a more responsible culture in fulfilling their
obligations not only to the rating board, but to the public in
general.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again for holding this important hearing.
MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Terry.
MR. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important
hearing. As the father of three young boys, 11, 8, and 6 who are
avid gamers, I am very concerned about the content included in the
games that they and other young kids play.
My wife and I really try to be vigilant. The first thing that we
pay attention to is the rating on the cover. What we have found
out is that even within the ratings, there seems to be a wide
disparity, particularly in the "T" or teens ware, especially with
something like a car race game. For example, we have kind of
given carte blanche even with the "T" rating to buy racing games.
And then we found out with one of the racing games that they
actually get--or the purpose is to run from the cops, and you score
how many points by the damage that you cause during the police
chase, including hitting pedestrians, which I thought was pretty
graphic.
So we rely on these ratings. And I just want to get a feel for how
tight these ratings should be in order to properly educate or
provide the basis for whether or not a game is bought to parents.
I am concerned that the merchandisers are selling "M"-rated video
games to children, which an FTC recent survey recently documented.
In my opinion, some of these games, the "M"-rated games, have
pretty graphic violence of which, because the child is gaming,
they are part of it. And I think that may actually be more
dangerous to the child than watching a violent Hollywood movie on
TV or at the movie theater. And then, of course, it scares the
heck out of parents to hear about some of these Easter eggs or
hidden scenes with graphic sex that wouldn't even be part of the
rating. And it is disturbing to me as a Member of Congress that
the FTC, although requested by Congress, has not yet acted upon
the most insidious of that example.
Now, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and an
exchange of ideas of how to further protect children and empower
the parents in a gaming society. I yield back.
MR. STEARNS. The gentlelady from Tennessee Mrs. Blackburn.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to thank the
Chairmen of our subcommittee and also of our committee for holding
the hearings on this issue. And to our witnesses, we appreciate
you, and we appreciate your time for being with us today.
I know that there is going to be a great deal of focus on the
violence depicted in the video games and on the ESRB rating
structure; however, I want to be certain that we also discuss the
depiction of sexually explicit content in video games. Sadly, we
know that this is a growing problem and one, I know, that is a
cause of concern for many parents across the country and certainly
for parents in my district.
During hearings that we have held in other subcommittees, we
discussed the alarming increase in the number of teenagers who are
being exploited by sexual predators through the Internet. We have
got a whole generation facing a threat parents have never had to
deal with before, and a generation of kids being desensitized to
aberrant sexual behavior. I think we would be remiss not to begin
discussing how video game content is contributing to this problem.
What I am reading and hearing from parents is that almost all
"Adult-Only" video games have sexually explicit content. But it
also has been brought to my attention that some video games rated
"Mature" may also contain this sort of content. I would like the
ESRB to confirm to this committee that no video games rated
"Mature" contained sexual content. And in this, I am referring to
indirect reference--not to indirect reference, but to suggestive
sexual scenes and acts.
I know the industry has opposed age verification for violence in
video games, claiming that such requirements are subject to overly
vague standards, but I would like to hear the industry's position on
requiring age verification only for video games that may have
sexually explicit content.
One other aspect I would like the industry to comment on is the
abundance of freeware on the Internet, and whether ESRB rates this
software.
And a final comment. I want to hear from the rating agency on
whether they consider religious overtones a factor in their ratings.
I bring this up because of the recent MPAA rating of PG on a film
solely because of a religious aspect, and putting this issue on par
with violence, nudity, and foul language.
Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for holding the hearing, and I yield
the balance of my time.
MR. STEARNS. Mr. Murphy.
MR. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak today not only as a
member of this committee, a Member of Congress, but also as a
psychologist who has practiced in this field for many years working
with children. I wish I could submit this as part of the record, but
it is my only copy left, the book I wrote on The Angry Child. But in
that I have worked extensively with children with a propensity
towards violent and aggressive behavior.
Researchers consistently told me as a psychologist that children who
witness real-life violence even passively experience two and a half
times greater risk for psychological and behavior problems. Children
who then are involved in an interactive way with video games have an
increased tendency to act aggressively, with a decreased tendency to
use calmer and more thoughtful approaches. When they witness acts
of violence, this leads kids to believe violence is more prevalent
and acceptable than it is, and the viewer response becomes dulled,
which therefore requires increased violence to perk up the sales of
items. From TV and games, we, in summary, have increased aggressive
behavior, increased levels of arousal, and increased
aggression-related thoughts and feelings.
Now, the thing about video games that I find particularly interesting
is anywhere you look in the industry or the literature of
psychological and educational science, we have your highly
interactive and realistic games. The games reward violent behavior
and children involved in repetitive behaviors. Now, learning theory
has told us that activity and rewards and repetition is how you get
children to learn. It is amazing to me as I see studies that are
quoted by the gaming industry ignore that.
I think what we need to start off with here is understanding that
clearly what children are exposed to affects their behavior. If
that was not the case, then television and video games and even
parenting itself and school would have no impact. The fact is it
does. And so the issues here are not, it seems to me, the impact
of games or the ratings, but perhaps the ease of purchase and the
ease by which children can break through any sort of system that is
set up there, whether the ratings are themselves--and sometimes we
have heard in previous testimony they are false--or whether it is
parents not watching over them.
Now, I am not one to mandate a nanny state, where the Federal
government or State governments say some things can be made and
some things cannot out there. What I do think is important is that
we have to understand this: No government has done a good job at
mandating common sense and litigating compassion or legislating
intelligence. What we have to make sure is that parents themselves
are the main factors with that.
I always hope that hearings like this somehow help to increase
people's awareness, but in having worked with literally thousands
of children with pretty serious problems, unfortunately, that is
not the case. And so my hope is in this hearing today one of the
things we hear from the people from the gaming industry of what
role they wish to play aggressively with the billions of money
that they make on these items to help educate parents and children
to understand there is a relationship, and they need to be
responsible about that.
I yield back.
MR. STEARNS. Thank you.
Mr. Pitts.
MR. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this important
hearing. And thank you to the witnesses for sharing your expertise
with us today. Anyone who has young children or young grandchildren
has seen how influential video images can be on young, impressionable
minds. They are very influenced as young children, and they learn a
lot from video images. And I think you should be commended, the
industry, for what you are trying to do in setting up a system of
self-regulation ratings.
And parents who monitor what their kids are exposed to clearly have
tools to regulate what comes in their home, but that leaves a lot of
kids unprotected. A sizeable percentage of kids live in homes where
parents don't monitor what they are playing. I think it is safe to
say that, by and large, these are kids who are already disadvantaged
and at risk, and I would be interested in what the industry is doing
to protect these children.
I am also interested in the effect video games have on kids'
behaviors. I think it is safe to say that a wealthy kid from the
suburbs can play Grand Theft Auto or similar games without turning
to a life of crime, but a poor kid who lives in a neighborhood where
people really do steal cars or deal drugs or shoot cops might not be
so fortunate. And I should add that this isn't a hypothetical
question. Grand Theft Auto is one of the best-selling video games
in America. There is almost certainly a child somewhere in America
who is going to be hurt by this game. Maybe his dad is in jail, or
his big brother is already down on the corner dealing drugs. Maybe
he has just fallen in with the wrong crowd. But this game could be
all it takes to nudge him on to the wrong side of the fence.
And although I am a defender of the first amendment, don't you think
that the industry has a moral responsibility to think about at-risk
kids and impressionable minds before producing some of the stuff
that we are going to witness today?
So I hope you will address some of these questions in the hearing
today. And I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling it.
MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Towns.
MR. TOWNS. No opening prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to place it in record.
MR. STEARNS. By unanimous consent, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Edolphus Towns follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this timely hearing.
Today we will hear a great deal about what is wrong with the
video game industry. We will see violent images and hear about how
video games are corrupting children and giving them bad ideas.
Essentially, we will be hearing a lot about the content that is seen
in about 15 percent of video games
In contrast, I would like to stress the benefits and
qualities that are found within the games that make up the other
85 percent. Further, I would like to commend the industry for
addressing the public's complaints about content and doing its best
to alleviate our concerns. Additionally, I look forward to hearing
from the FTC and await Ms. Parnes' explanation of its study.
With all of the distractions and negativity our young people
face on TV, the internet, and in movies, I am thankful that there are
a large number of positive and educational video games available to
capture their attention. From "Battlefield 1942" and its stunning
World War II scenes and maps, to the wide variety of simulation
games that enable a player to plan the layout of his or her own
house or of an entire city, games provide our children with
amazing opportunities to learn about life, solve problems, and
make tough decisions. I personally enjoy selecting Tiger's clubs
while playing the U.S. Open in Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2006. (Sadly,
it's the closest I'll ever come to the real experience!).
The availability of adult video games to minors is certainly
a concern, and I hope to hear some new ideas from our witnesses. I
was pleased to read the FTC's findings on improvements made by
retailers in this regard, and am confident that the ESRB will
continue its oversight. I lookk forward to our witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
I'm again pleased to see the video game industry represented here
today, as it continues to provide consumers with innovative
technology and products. That said, I'd like to stress that the
protections in the DMCA have helped companies bring their products
and intellectual property to market, and we should do our best to
preserve their stream of commerce. America's content companies
continue to entertain and amaze all of us, and the movie industry at
large has aggressively and innovatively embraced the digital
marketplace. Movie and television studios are not "holding back"
their content, as some would have you believe, but rather are
exercising due diligence and caution in not licensing a business
model that exacerbates piracy.
In an age when consumers want new products and recent movies in
their hands as quickly as possible, we must be extremely careful
when reviewing the protections and guidelines that govern the
distribution of content. I feel that the entertainment industry
has made great strides, and I cite Mr. Feehery's ("FEARIE")
testimony in that regard. He lists a number of recent digital
content deals cut by motion picture companies to distribute their
works online, on IPTV services, for the i-Pod, on peer-to-peer
services, and through innovative uses of the air waves. These
efforts, I believe, are steps in the right direction. I was
intrigued by Mr. Denney's testimony, in which he cites century-old
examples of one or another content industry opposing various new
technologies. However, it appears to me that a look at more recent
history shows the movie industry has embraced and driven the
adoption of the DVD player and other consumer electronic devices.
Therefore, I look forward to Mr. Denney's comments here today and
hearing his rationale.
Finally, I would like to quickly mention that the video industry is
not alone in fighting piracy and in need of protection. We must be
just as diligent in coming to the aid of those who operate in the
audio realm, as our music artists are also under siege from rampant
piracy and improper file sharing. I look forward to the second
session of this two-part hearing, when we will concentrate on audio
protections in greater detail.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
MR. STEARNS. Mr. Radanovich.
MR. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact
that you are holding this hearing.
I, too, am a father of an 8-year-old, and he loves playing video
games. He plays anything from sports to action figures and
adventures. He is in the "E" for "Everybody" category. He is not
getting out of that until he is 30 years old, by the way, because we
are going to make sure of that.
His parents, my wife and I, are constantly faced with the challenge
of determining what is appropriate for our son to be exposed to. We
face the same pressures that all the other parents face, with an
impressionable child who sees the latest exciting advertisement for
the newest game or game system, and he wants to have it.
These are the difficulties we face, and one of the things that
parents rely on critically is the way the games are rated. That is
why I am deeply concerned with the developments last year with the
Grand Theft Auto game. The game was given a "Mature" rating, but
was later discovered to contain hidden content of which the ratings
board was unaware. I understand that this situation was addressed,
and the rating was up to adults only, but it illustrates the
possibility of ratings being inaccurate. These are ratings that
parents rely on, and it is our responsibility to make sure that they
are reliable and dependable.
I am also concerned with the marketing of games with "Mature"
content. These can be presented in a way that is very appealing to
young children. And I look forward to hearing about what the FTC is
doing to address deceptive marketing within the industry.
This hearing provides us with an excellent opportunity to learn more
about the video game industry and its rating system. I am
interested in how that process works, how the ratings are enforced
at the retail level, and how effective the ratings are in informing
parents about the games children are playing.
I understand the ratings board, the industry, and retailers have all
made efforts to increase accountability for games content. This is
seen through increasing difficulty for minors to purchase games and
a new technology that prevents games of a certain rating from being
played. The ESA in particular should be commended for its efforts
with the ratings board; however, we need to look and see how
effective this system is in practice and determine what is the best
way to ensure that our children are protected.
We have come a long way from playing Pong on the old Atari, and
right now my wife and I still have a high level of control over what
my 8-year-old can play, but he is young, and as children get older,
that level of hands-on control can change. We need to ensure that
the rating system is accurate and that it is enforced so that parents
can rely on it to keep games from ending up in the hands of those not
old enough or mature enough to play them.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today, and I look
forward to your testimony and a productive hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEARNS. I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Upton.
MR. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a prepared statement
for the record that I want to put in, but I want to say a couple
things. First of all, I appreciate having the hearing today and
seeing my old friend and neighbor Warren Buckleitner here today as
well.
I would like to think that I have been an outspoken watchdog on this
industry. I have got two kids, I am a gamer myself. I was an expert
in Pong. That was a good game. But I have got to tell you, as a dad
with two teenagers, I understand the rights of the first amendment
and folks that can handle some of these games, and obviously some
that cannot.
And we in this committee took action on the House floor last year on
Grand Theft Auto with the rating that they had, and I have got to
tell you, if I had had that game in my house, I would have been
outraged. Maybe I would have hired a lawyer to go after some of
these people for some of the garbage that they put out, but we
didn't. We passed a law instead, passed a resolution asking the
FTC to go after them.
And I guess I thought that the FTC had a few more teeth than they
apparently have. I have not read the consent agreement that just
showed up in my office just this week almost a year after we in the
House passed a very strong bipartisan resolution led by
Mr. Dingell, Mr. Barton, Mr. Markey, and myself, and Mr. Stearns.
And I am not at all happy with the consent agreement. In essence,
as I understand it, there are no consequences, none, for the rating
that they had before, and merely an acknowledgement that if they
mislabel or deceive folks in the future, that there will be a
potential fine of up to $11,000 a day. I would have liked to have
thought that they would have been able to be fined for millions of
dollars for the trash that they put out across this country with
the label that they got.
As a responsible parent, we have the duty to look after our kids,
and when they go into a Best Buy or a Target or a Wal-Mart, parents
often look at what that rating is. And as Chairman of the
Telecommunications Subcommittee, we have had hearings on those
ratings with the video industry and with the music industry, and
if those labels aren't accurate, parents can't make a decision as
to whether their kids ought to participate in those games or listen
to that type of music. And to find at least on the surface of what
we saw with the Grand Theft Auto, I just can't tell you how
disappointed and angry I am that their actions in essence aren't
even a slap on the wrist, nothing, for the most popular video game
that was sold in America.
So I look forward to this hearing. I look forward to looking at
legislation--if the FTC doesn't have the ability to go after them
when they deliberately deceive them, I look forward to seeing what
we could do to change that. And I obviously am out of time, and
I look forward to participating.
And I thank you, Mr. Stearns.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Fred Upton follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Thank you Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have been an outspoken
watchdog against explicit video games. I introduced H Res 376,
which passed the House overwhelmingly last July, to require the
FTC to look into this situation with the game Grand Theft Auto:
San Andreas because I was appalled to hear about the game having a
back door to porn embedded in its files.
As a parent of two teenagers, I know firsthand that parental
involvement is the most important line of defense in determining the
type of content suitable for children, and the ratings system
empowers parents to do just that. Unfortunately, the incident
involving Rockstar Games has severely degraded the integrity of the
ratings system. How can parents trust a system in which game makers
do an end-run around the process to deliver pornographic material to
our kids?
I appreciated the ESRB's swift action in investigating the matter and
revoking the M rating and ensuring that any further sales of "Grand
Theft Auto: San Andreas" were under an AO rating. But this action
should have never been necessary had Rockstar Games complied with
industry standards from the outset.
This kind of material would have certainly earned it an "Adults Only"
Rating rather than the "Mature" rating that it has been marketing.
I cannot imagine how a good player in the video game industry could
make an honest mistake of something like that, so you have to wonder
just what they are trying to do. I look forward to hearing from the
industry about their commitment to rating games accurately and
retailers about their initiatives to make sure that Adult Only games
don't get into the wrong hands.
I am especially interested in hearing what Warren Buckleitner has to
say about this because he and I grew up together in St. Joseph,
Michigan. I can only assume that his Midwestern common sense and
good judgment will help clarify what is really going on in the video
industry and what may or may not be needed to combat bad video games
and bad purchase choices.
I hope the FTC plans to walk through the outcome of the case
that they opened against Take Two and Rock Star Games, the makers of
Grand Theft Auto and the outcome of this case. I have to be honest,
I was hoping for something a little harsher especially after waiting
so many months to see the result of this investigation, although I am
not sure that the FTC really has the power to punish a bad player to
the degree that I would like.
The video game industry has gone into great detail
in defining their ratings, (I have them right here) but I want
parents to feel confident that the labeling of the video games they
allow their kids to play is reliable and that a bad actors do not
get away with deceptions like this.
MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman.
It is my pleasure to welcome a Member who is not a member of this
subcommittee, Mr. Matheson, who has a bill, I think it is H.R. 5345,
and I welcome him for a short opening prepared statement, and
welcome.
MR. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a written prepared
statement I will submit for the record. But I just want to thank
you, Chairman Stearns, and Ranking Member Schakowsky for giving me
a chance to sit in on your hearing. I am so pleased you are holding
this hearing.
There are a number of bills that have been introduced by different
Members. You have the capability to assess all those different
bills and try to work through the good ideas from all of them. I
think I have one point of view that might be helpful, and I just
look forward to participating in the hearing, and thank you for
the opportunity to be here.
[Additional statements submitted for the record follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE ROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Good afternoon and welcome. I would like to start off by thanking
Chairman Stearns and Ranking Member Schakowsky for holding today's
hearing regarding "Violent and Explicit Video Games: Informing
Parents and Protecting Children".
As the father of two teenagers, a seventeen year old and a fourteen
year old, I know first hand the thoughts and worries that many
parents of teenagers in this day and age are facing.
Just like any parent, I want the best opportunities and experiences
for my children. And just like any parent, I want to be able to
keep up with all aspects of my children's lives, including the
situations and content they are exposed to.
With that said I, along with many other parents, strive to do the
best we can but know that there are areas where all parents can
continue to learn more so as to best help their children be exposed
to constructive experiences.
In this day and age, technology moves at an extreme pace, which can
yield both the positive and the negative. Advanced technology
allows greater opportunities and access to information, education,
and entertainment.
Yet, the ever changing world of technology sometimes can get ahead
of a parent's ability to adequately track and comprehend each new
option that is presented to our children.
I am aware of the existing ratings board in place that continues to
monitor and rate video games that are sold in the market to persons
of all ages. I am pleased that such a ratings system exists and
look forward to learning more about the specifics of this system.
I also look forward to further discussion on ways that we may be
able to better utilize this system, as well as ways we can better
educate parents on the content of the games that they purchase or
allow their children to play.
I believe that all members in the room and witnesses present today
are here to see the same guiding principle accomplished, and that
is finding ways that we can best protect our children and help them
experience and learn from positive components of our ever changing
world of technology and entertainment.
Once again, I thank today's subcommittee for holding this hearing
and thank all the witnesses who have taken time to come here today
to help elaborate on this important issue. I look forward to the
upcoming discussions.
MR. STEARNS. Thank you.
With that, I don't think we have any more opening statements, and so
we will move to our panel. Before we do, we have an edited video
that we intend to show. I caution, it is Grand Theft Auto and other
videos. It does have some explicit material. We have put this on
the front of this edited version, but we would like to show that to
you. And I understand some of you on the panel have videos of your
own that you want to show, so we will obviously allow you to do
that, but I thought we would give before your opening statements
start sort of an overview of what we are talking about. And so with
that we will show the video.
[Whereupon a videotape was played.]
MR. STEARNS. I think that concludes the video clips of that. We
will start on our panel.
Lydia Parnes is Director of Bureau of Consumer Protection at the
Federal Trade Commission; Mr. Gary Severson, Senior Vice President
of merchandising, Wal-Mart Stores; Mr. Douglas Lowenstein is
President of the Entertainment Software Association;
Ms. Patricia E. Vance, President, Entertainment Software Rating
Board; Dr. Kimberly Thompson, Director, Kids Risk Project, Associate
Professor of Risk and Analysis and Decision Science at Harvard;
Dr. Warren Buckleitner, Editor, Children's Technology Review; and,
lastly, Dr. David Walsh, President, National Institute on Media and
the Family.
With that, I welcome all of you. And we will start with my left.
Ms. Parnes, welcome, for your opening prepared statement.
STATEMENTS OF LYDIA PARNES, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF CONSUMER PROTECTION,
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION; GARY SEVERSON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
MERCHANDISING, WAL-MART STORES, INC.; DOUGLAS LOWENSTEIN, PRESIDENT,
ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION; PATRICIA E. VANCE, PRESIDENT,
ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE RATING BOARD; KIMBERLY M. THOMPSON, DIRECTOR,
KIDS RISK PROJECT, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF RISK ANALYSIS AND DECISION
SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH POLICY AND MANAGEMENT,
HARVARD UNIVERSITY; WARREN BUCKLEITNER, PH.D., EDITOR, CHILDREN'S
TECHNOLOGY REVIEW; AND DAVID WALSH, PH.D., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
INSTITUTE ON MEDIA AND THE FAMILY
MS. PARNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Schakowsky.
I am Lydia Parnes, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at
the Federal Trade Commission, and I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the Commission's role in
monitoring the marketing of violent video games to children
under 17.
As the committee is aware, in response to concerns from Congress
and the public, the Commission has maintained an active program of
reviewing and reporting on the advertising and marketing of violent
entertainment products including movies, video games, and music.
The courts have found that the expressive content in these products
is protected speech under the First Amendment, leaving a very narrow
range of permissible government involvement with their advertising
and marketing. We believe, however, that we can play an important
role in encouraging industry to maintain active self-regulatory
programs and in holding the entertainment industry to its
commitments.
The Commission's first report on the marketing of violent
entertainment products was issued in September 2000. Since then,
the Commission has issued four follow-up reports.
We currently have several ongoing efforts directed to marketing of
violent entertainment products. We are developing a survey to
determine whether parents are familiar with and use the ESRB's video
game rating system. We are currently conducting a new undercover
test shopping program to determine whether retailers abide by age
restrictions on the marketing of video games and other products.
For video games, past results show that retailers are headed in the
right direction, but there is still substantial room for
improvement. And, as was noted in our most recent shop, 42 percent
of teens were still able to buy "M"-rated games.
We are actively monitoring advertising practices to determine
compliance with industry standards for the disclosure of rating
information, and we are collecting from the industry itself the
information necessary to issue a new report on the state of
self-regulation. We hope to release this report by the end of the
year.
In addition, as the committee is aware, in response to a
congressional resolution, the Commission recently completed an
investigation into the undisclosed explicit content in the video
game Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. This is obviously a matter of
serious concern to us, the public, and the Congress. Parents must
be able to rely on the accuracy of the industry rating system.
The staff at the FTC conducted a detailed inquiry, reviewing
thousands of internal documents, deposing company officials,
interviewing other potential witnesses, and consulting with outside
experts. At the conclusion of the investigation, staff believed
that the game's developers bore responsibility for what occurred,
having created the content that was ultimately made playable by the
mod program known as Hot Coffee. Accordingly, last week the
Commission accepted for public comment a settlement with the game's
developers that seeks to ensure that such events not happen again.
Several members this afternoon have expressed concern that the FTC
has failed to report back to Congress on the results of our
investigation. The congressional resolution directed the FTC to
conduct this investigation and take action, which we did, but of
course we would be happy to submit written material to the committee
to follow up on this.
Mr. Upton, you also expressed concern about the adequacy of our
order to address this conduct. First, I want to assure you that I
understand these concerns, and I share them, and I thank you for
your longstanding support of the Commission, and especially for our
work in this area. But the fact is simply the Commission does not
have the statutory authority to impose civil penalties for Rockstar's
conduct. Despite that, we have obtained a strong order in this case.
It prohibits any future misrepresentations of video game ratings,
requires the filing of compliance reports, and subjects the company
to the risk of very substantial civil penalties if they violate this
order. Finally, Rockstar's misconduct did have significant financial
repercussions for the company. Rockstar has publicly reported to
its investors that it spent $25 million recalling and relabeling
games as a result of the ESRB's revocation of Grand Theft Auto's
rating after disclosure of the hidden content.
Finally, the Commission remains active in consumer education. Most
recently, we updated our consumer education material and Web site to
make sure that parents understand that game content, especially in
PC games, can be modified or changed through mods that are widely
available on the Internet.
In conclusion, as the industry continues to produce games with
increasingly explicit content, industry self-regulatory efforts
become even more important. The Commission will continue to monitor
closely industry developments and will initiate law enforcement
actions, like our case challenging the marketing of San Andreas,
whenever appropriate.
Thank you. And I look forward to responding to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Lydia Parnes follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LYDIA PARNES, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF CONSUMER
PROTECTION, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
I. Introduction
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Ms. Schakowsky, I am Lydia Parnes,
Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade
Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the Commission's monitoring of the marketing of electronic
games (commonly known as video games) to children under 17 and the
serious concerns that some parents have about the marketing of some
of these games.1 Our monitoring plays an important role in
encouraging industry to maintain active self-regulatory programs and
in keeping the entertainment industry to its commitments.
The Commission's involvement in this area dates back to 1999 with
the revelation that the teen-aged shooters at Columbine High School
had been infatuated with extremely violent movies, music, and video
games. This event led to Congressional and Presidential requests
that the Commission investigate and report back on the practices of
the movie, video game, and music recording industries with respect
to the marketing of violent entertainment to children under 17.
Since then, the Commission has issued five reports on the marketing
of violent entertainment products. These reports have examined
voluntary guidelines and industry codes that govern the placement
of advertising for violent Restricted (R)-rated movies, Mature
(M)-rated games, and Explicit-Content Labeled recordings in media
popular with teens, and require the disclosure of rating and labeling
information in advertising and on product packaging. Given that the
focus of today's hearing is video games, I will limit most of my
remarks to that industry, except to point out relevant comparisons.2
Over the years, the FTC reports have documented progress by the
video game industry in limiting advertisements for M-rated games in
popular teen media. The FTC also has found that the video game
industry nearly always provides rating information in advertising.
Despite this progress, there remain a number of concerns relating
to video games and how they are marketed. First and foremost, there
is the question of the usefulness of the rating system widely used
by the industry. It is critically important that parents know
about and use the Entertainment Software Rating Board ("ESRB")3
ratings and content descriptors4 when choosing games for their
children. Content descriptors - such as Blood & Gore, Strong
Language, Strong Sexual Content, and Violence - which can be found
on the back of the game box, help inform parents about the game's
content.
In addition, it is important that parents understand that game
content, especially on PC games, can be modified or changed through
modifications or "mods" that are widely available on the Internet.
Often these modifications are developed by third-party game
enthusiasts with no connection to the video game companies. If
downloaded and made part of a game, they can add additional content,
ranging from simple additions like a different color car used in a
street scene, to superimposing new textures or skins on a figure in
a game. Many of the mods would likely be of little concern to
parents, but others add nudity or enhance the violence or depictions
of blood in a game. In light of the easy availability of these
"mods," the Commission, in July 2005, issued a Consumer Alert on
the video game rating system that highlights for parents the fact
that content can be downloaded from the Internet that has not been
evaluated by the ESRB and may make a game's content more explicit
than the rating indicates.5
Similarly, parents need to be concerned about game developers leaving
otherwise unplayable content on a game disc that is later made
playable by patches or programs developed by third-party modders.
The Commission recently investigated this very issue, culminating
last week in an announcement that the Commission had accepted for
public comment a consent agreement relating to alleged deception in
the marketing of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and the release on
the Internet of the so-called "Hot-Coffee" program that, if
downloaded and installed, made playable a sex mini-game.6
The Commission also has expressed concerns regarding how readily
children can buy M-rated video games in stores. Although retailers
selling video games have steadily improved their record of denying
under-age children access to M-rated games, a significant percentage
of children sent in as undercover shoppers are still able to buy
these games. Moreover, children are often exposed to advertising
for these products. As is the case with the movie and music
industries, existing voluntary guidelines for the video game
industry still would permit M-rated ad placements in media that are
very popular with large numbers of teens. In the past, all three
industries have placed ads for M-rated, R-rated, or labeled products
on television programs that are, according to Nielsen rankings,
among the most popular shows watched by teens, yet still fall within
industry placement guidelines.
Because the expressive content in video games has been considered
protected speech under the First Amendment,7 there is a very narrow
range of permissible government involvement with their advertising
and marketing. As the industry continues to produce games with
increasingly explicit content, it becomes even more incumbent upon
industry to enforce and enhance its self-regulatory guidelines
governing marketing, and upon retailers to implement and enforce
policies restricting children's access to Mature-rated games.
II. The Commission's Studies
A. Scope of the Studies
As stated earlier, the Commission has issued five reports on the
self-regulatory and marketing practices concerning violent
entertainment by the movie, music, and video game industries.8
In the course of preparing these reports, the Commission staff
requested information from the principal industry trade
associations, as well as from major motion picture studios, music
recording companies, and video game companies.9 In addition, the
Commission staff contacted interested government agencies, medical
associations, academics, and parent and consumer advocacy groups.10
The Commission collected information from consumers through publicly
available surveys and polls and also designed and conducted its own
research. In addition, the Commission has conducted four "mystery"
shopper surveys of retail stores and movie theaters in an attempt
to see if unaccompanied children could purchase or gain access to
products labeled as inappropriate or warranting parental guidance.
Finally, the Commission staff reviewed Internet sites to study how
they are used to market and provide direct access to rated or
labeled products.
B. Findings of the Commission's First Report
In September 2000, the Federal Trade Commission issued its first
report entitled, Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Review
of Self-Regulation and Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music
Recording & Electronic Game Industries ("September 2000 Report").11
That report found that the three entertainment industries had engaged
in widespread marketing of violent movies, music, and video games to
children that was inconsistent with the cautionary messages of their
own parental advisories and that undermined parents' attempts to make
informed decisions about their children's exposure to violent
content. In addition, the Commission found that advertisements for
such products frequently failed to contain rating information.
The Commission also conducted national telephone surveys of parents
and children on their familiarity and use of the ratings and
parental advisories. With respect to video games, our survey in
2000 found that only 61% of parents were aware of the ESRB system,
and that 45% of those parents reported that they rarely or never used
the ESRB system.12
Finally, the Commission reported on the results of an undercover
mystery shop by unaccompanied teens, aged between 13 and 16, of
retailers and movie theaters. In our 2000 survey, 85% of the
unaccompanied young teens bought M-rated video games and parental
advisory-labeled music recordings and 46% purchased tickets for an
R-rated movie.13
The September 2000 Report recommended that all three
industries - with respect to products that they themselves rate or
label with age restrictions or parental advisories due to their
violent content - enhance their self-regulatory efforts by:
1) establishing or expanding codes that prohibit target marketing
these products to children and imposing sanctions for violations;
2) increasing compliance at the retail level; and 3) increasing
parental understanding of the ratings and labels.
C. Findings of the Commission's Follow-Up Reports in 2001
In response to Congressional requests, the FTC released follow-up
reports in April and December 2001.14 Both reports examined the
entertainment industry's practices with regard to marketing violent
entertainment products to children. These reports noted progress
by the video game industry, as well as the movie industry, in
providing clear and conspicuous disclosure of rating information in
advertising, as well as new efforts by both industries to limit
advertising for M-rated games and R-rated movies in popular teen
media venues. The reports also found that the music industry showed
virtually no change in its placement of parental advisory-labeled
music ads since the September 2000 Report.
The results of the Commission's second undercover shopper survey
were included in the December 2001 Report. The video game
retailers showed modest improvement from the results in the
Commission's undercover survey in 2000, with 78% of the
unaccompanied young teens able to buy the product; the movie
theaters showed no statistically significant change, with 48% able
to buy a ticket to an R-rated movie as compared to 46% in 2000.
The music industry had the worst results, with 90% of shoppers able
to buy music recordings with an explicit-content label, not a
statistically significant change from the 85% result obtained in
the Commission's 2000 shop.
D. Findings of the Commission's June 2002 Report
The Commission's next report, issued in June 2002,15 showed
continued progress by the movie and video game industries and
improvement by the music industry in including rating information
in advertising that would help parents identify material that may
be inappropriate for their children. In the case of video games,
the Commission found nearly universal compliance with ESRB standards
limiting the advertising of M-rated games in media where children
constitute a certain percentage of the audience (35% for television
and 45% for print media). Nonetheless, the Commission found that
some industry members had placed advertisements for M-rated games
on television shows popular with teens, and in youth-oriented
game-enthusiast magazines. As the Commission noted in its December
2001 Report, the industry's anti-targeting standards
diminished - but did not eliminate - advertisements during programs
mainly popular with teens.
E. 2003 Workshop on Industry Marketing Practices
In October 2003, the Commission held a public workshop on industry
marketing and retail sales practices. At the workshop,
representatives from consumer and parents' groups, as well as the
motion picture, video game, and music recording industries' major
trade and retailer associations discussed and debated the state of
self-regulation in each of these industries. A summary of the
workshop appears in the Commission's July 2004 report.16
Significantly, one positive outgrowth of that workshop was an
announcement by the trade group representing video game retailers
that they would step up their efforts to restrict sales of M-rated
games to children, and by the end of 2004 would have in place an
enhanced system to deter such sales.17 Based upon the results of
the Commission's most recent mystery shop (see Section II. G.,
infra), it appears that game retailer members have adopted policies
to restrict such sales but need to do more to ensure that such
policies are being enforced.
F. Findings of the Commission's July 2004 Report
The Commission's July 2004 Report found substantial, but not
universal, compliance with ESRB standards governing ad placements
and found that industry participants generally were prominently
disclosing rating information in advertising and on product
packaging. The report further found that ads for M-rated games
continued to appear in game enthusiast magazines popular with teens,
and that Teen (T)-rated games were advertised in media popular with
pre-teens (children under 13). The Commission recommended that the
video game industry, as well as the movie and music industries,
improve their efforts to avoid advertising restricted or labeled
products in venues popular with under-17 audiences. The report
also noted that the game industry could improve its efforts to
disclose rating information, by including content descriptors in
TV ads and on the front of game packages.
The report discussed the results of a mystery shopper survey of
retailers conducted on the Commission's behalf in 2003. This survey
found that 69% of young teen shoppers (age 13-16) were able to buy
Mature-rated games, reflecting some improvement from earlier
undercover shopping surveys conducted in 2000 and 2001. However,
the survey also revealed that retailers still far too often were
selling such games to children. The report encouraged retailers
to do a better job disclosing ratings and reasons for ratings in
advertising, and to more widely implement and enforce sales
policies restricting children's access to restricted or labeled
entertainment media, and, in particular, R-rated DVDs and homes
videos, music with a parental advisory, and M-rated games.
G. Latest Mystery Shop Results
On March 30 of this year, the Commission released the results of its
latest nationwide undercover shop of video game stores.18 The
undercover shop saw a substantial decrease in the number of M-Rated
video games sold to unaccompanied children, particularly by large
retailers. Forty-two percent of the secret shoppers - children
between the ages of 13 and 16 - who attempted to buy an M-rated
video game without a parent were able to purchase one, compared to
69% of the shoppers in 2003. Notably, large retailers performed
better - 35% of the secret shoppers were able to buy the M-rated
games. While these results are headed in the right direction, there
is still substantial room for improvement. The Commission staff
currently is conducting another undercover shop to test whether
children under age 17 are able to buy tickets to R-rated films at
movie theaters, R-rated movies on DVD, explicit-content labeled
music recordings, and M-rated video games.
III. The Commission's Ongoing Activities
A. Survey Research and Ad Monitoring
The Commission staff is currently conducting research for a new report
on entertainment industry practices. Among other things, the
Commission staff will be surveying consumers on the video game
rating system. The surveys are a follow-up to the Commission's
surveys in 2000 on consumers' familiarity with and use of the ESRB
video game rating system. Because parents' knowledge of and ability
to use the rating system is a key factor, the Commission intends to
survey both parents and children to find out, among other things,
whether parental participation in the selection and purchase of
video games has changed since the 2000 survey, whether parental
knowledge and use of the ESRB system has changed, and what parents'
level of agreement is with the ESRB ratings for games they have
personally encountered through purchase or play with their children.
The Commission plans to survey 1,000 parents who have one or more
children, aged eight to 16, who play video games or personal
computer games.19 The FTC will also survey 500 children aged eight
to 16 who play video or personal computer games.
The Commission staff continues to monitor the industry's advertising
practices for disclosure of rating information and for the placement
of ads for M-rated games, R-rated movies, and music with a parental
advisory in media popular with children. As part of this monitoring,
the FTC surfs web sites to study the disclosure of ratings
information and methods used to preclude the sale of restricted or
labeled products to children under 17.
The Commission plans to release a report near the end of this year
summarizing the results of these additional surveys and monitoring
activities.
B. Collection of Media Violence Complaints
On March 17, 2004, the Commission announced an expansion of its
consumer complaint handling system to categorize and track complaints
about media violence, including complaints about the advertising,
marketing, and sale of violent movies, video games, and music.20
To make it easier for consumers to file a complaint, the
Commission's home page - www.FTC.gov - contains a link to the
complaint form. The expanded complaint system, implemented in
response to Congressional directives, enables the Commission to
track consumer complaints about media violence and identify issues
of particular concern to consumers. To date, the Commission has
received over 1,200 complaints.21
C. Law Enforcement Activities
The Commission has completed its investigation into the marketing of
the video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, having reviewed tens
of thousands of documents and the deposition testimony of numerous
company officials. As noted earlier, the Commission has accepted
for public comment a consent agreement with the developers of San
Andreas to address alleged deception in the marketing of that
game.22
The ESRB originally rated Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas M
(Mature 17+), indicating that the game has content that may be
suitable for persons ages 17 and older. As part of the rating, the
ESRB had assigned the game the following content descriptors:
Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual
Content, and Use of Drugs.
In July 2005, after media reports of a widely available "mod," the
ESRB found that the game discs for the originally released PC,
PlayStation 2, and Xbox versions of San Andreas contained unused
nude female textures ("skins") and a sexually explicit mini-game
that had been edited out of game play but was embedded in wrapped
form in the game's computer code23. Users of the originally
released PC version of the game could access this content by
downloading and installing a third-party program called
"Hot Coffee." Later, PlayStation 2 and Xbox users were able to
access the same content by taking certain affirmative steps, such
as installing special software and/or hardware accessories on
their game consoles.
According to the ESRB, its initial rating of San Andreas was
seriously undermined by the existence of the undisclosed and highly
pertinent content on the final game discs, compounded by the broad
distribution of the Hot Coffee program.24 The ESRB therefore
re-rated the game as AO (Adults Only 18+), indicating that the game
has content that should only be played by persons 18 and older. The
ESRB also assigned the game an additional content descriptor for
nudity.
Major retailers, most of whom have policies not to sell AO-rated
games, promptly removed the original versions of San Andreas from
their store shelves. Take-Two Interactive, Inc., the game's
publisher, agreed to offer retailers the option of either
re-stickering existing inventory with an AO (Adults Only 18+) rating
or exchanging all unsold inventory for new, M-rated versions of the
game with the Hot Coffee content removed.25 Take-Two also agreed to
make a downloadable patch available to all consumers who had
previously purchased the PC version of the game, which would make
the Hot Coffee program inoperable.
The ESRB clarified its rules to clearly require all game companies
to disclose any pertinent content that might impact the rating
contained on the game discs sold to the public, even if that content
is not intended to be accessed during game play. The ESRB also has
stated publicly that it intends to increase the fines available for
companies who fail to disclose pertinent content during the rating
process to as much as $1,000,000.26
Undisclosed explicit content in video games is obviously a matter of
serious concern. Parents must be able to rely on the accuracy of
the industry rating system. Practices, whether by game
manufacturers or a third party, that undermine the integrity of
this system need to be addressed.
In the instance of San Andreas, the Commission believes that its
developers bear responsibility for what occurred, having created the
content that was ultimately made playable by the "Hot Coffee"
program.27 Accordingly, the Commission last week published a
complaint and accepted for public comment a settlement with
Take-Two Interactive and Rockstar Games that seeks to ensure that
such events not happen again. The agreement, if made final
following a 30-day comment period, would require the companies to
make disclosures in their advertising and marketing whenever they
include content on a game, whether playable or not, that would
likely affect the rating for the game, unless they have disclosed
that content to the ESRB or other applicable rating authority.
In addition, the agreement includes a requirement that the
companies not misrepresent the rating or content descriptors for a
game, and implement and maintain a system reasonably designed to
ensure that all of the content of a game is considered when the
companies prepare a submission for the ESRB or other rating
\authority.28
The Commission believes that last weeks's action complements the
steps the ESRB has already taken. Importantly, it also makes clear
that companies owe an obligation to the public independent of their
obligations to the ESRB, not to misrepresent the content that might
become accessible on a video game.
IV. Conclusion
The Commission's follow-up reports have documented progress by the
video game industry in complying with and improving its
self-regulatory policies restricting ad placements and requiring
rating information in advertising. More remains to be done.
Because of First Amendment and other issues, the Commission continues
to support private sector initiatives by industry and individual
companies to implement the suggestions mentioned above. Nonetheless,
the Commission will continue to monitor closely developments in the
area and will initiate actions, such as the case challenging the
marketing of San Andreas, when appropriate.
MR. STEARNS. Mr. Severson.
MR. SEVERSON. Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and
distinguished members of the committee, Wal-Mart thanks you for
holding this hearing today. We support actions to prevent children
from obtaining violent and explicit video games, and inform and
educate parents regarding the same. We are prepared to work with
you on this issue.
I am Gary Severson, Senior Vice President and General Merchandise
Manager for Wal-Mart, and I oversee the purchases of toys,
electronics, entertainment, computers, and photos for Wal-Mart U.S.
stores.
Wal-Mart is pleased to be a part of this process. As a responsible
retailer, we take voluntary steps and proactively work to prevent
children from obtaining "Mature" and "Adult"-rated video games, and
to inform parents about video game content before a purchase is
made.
All the video games we carry are rated by the Entertainment Software
Ratings Board. ESRB is responsible for rating the content of the
games. The rating system is designed to help customers choose the
right games for their families. Parents report that they find the
rating system helpful and mostly credible.
First, while Wal-Mart represents a good portion of the video game
sales in the United States, we feel it important to point out that
we choose not to sell any video game with an "Adult-Only" rating.
Second, we have a process in place to help ensure that only
customers who are 17 or older can purchase video games rated
"Mature." Wal-Mart associates are not permitted to sell "Mature"
video games to any person under the age of 17 unless that person
is accompanied by a parent or guardian. All "Mature"-rated are
prompted at the register to check the age of the customer. The
associate is then required to request that the customer provide a
current valid form of identification. If they cannot provide that
form of identification, we must politely decline the sale. All of
our associates are taught and trained in the selling of "Mature"
video games.
All of our stores have the ESRB rating system posted in the
electronics area next to the video game product. We recently took
steps to improve beyond what we had done in the appearance and
visibility of those signs. We also use our in-store television
network to run public service announcements about the rating system,
and we display the rating system when we advertise video games in
newspaper circulars.
Compliance with these guidelines is crucial in helping us to be one
of the leaders among retailers in terms of compliance with the
rating system. Wal-Mart continually works to improve its
performance regarding the sale of video games. We focus on
education and ratings enforcement, and are working on new ideas to
educate parents about ratings.
It is important to note that we believe self-regulation regarding
compliance with the ESRB rating system in this sector works. There
has been dramatic improvement among retailers in restricting access
to inappropriate content by minors. Specific actions that led to
this improvement include installation of digital prompting
technology, clear signage at the retail sales floor describing the
rating system, and the dissemination and utilization of documents
outlining training for sales clerks.
We have systems and procedures in place to timely deal with any
issues that may arise in the sale of video games. For example, the
recent video game titled Oblivion was originally rated "Teen", but
was changed to "Mature" when it was determined to contain mature
content. As soon as Wal-Mart was notified of the change, we
immediately pulled the video games off the floor, moved them to the
back room, waited for relabeling, changed our register prompts in
our systems, and put the product back out on the floor when all
systems were in place. Further, within minutes of receiving notice
from the ESRB regarding the hidden content in the much-discussed
Grand Theft Auto today, Wal-Mart stopped all sales of the video
game, pulled the video games from the retail sales floor, and
returned them to the supplier.
We also have activities and affiliations with other organizations
that are making a difference. We are a member of Healthy Media
Healthy Children, which is an umbrella organization for Pause,
Parent, Play, which is a campaign to empower parents to make
decisions about what their kids watch, hear, and play from
television and movies to video games and music. Further, Wal-Mart
is a member of the Entertainment Merchants Association, the EMA.
It is committed to parental empowerment programs. As a
family-friendly, responsible retailer, we have been focused on
being involved in ways to make sure children do not purchase
inappropriately rated video games and in educating parents
regarding video game content for almost 5 years. We will always
work on ways to improve the process.
Thank you for your time and allowing me to speak on behalf of
Wal-Mart regarding this important topic. We look forward to
working with you effectively and constructively to address this
issue. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Gary Severson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARY SEVERSON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
MERCHANDISING, WAL-MART STORES, INC.
Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky and distinguished
Members of the Committee: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. thanks the Committee
for its work on this important issue and for holding this hearing
today. We support actions taken to prevent children from obtaining
violent and explicit video games and to inform and educate parents
regarding the same. We are prepared to work with you to avoid the
sale of this material to children and to make certain parents
understand what they and their children are purchasing.
Background
My name is Gary Severson. I am the Senior Vice President and
General Merchandise Manager for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. I oversee
the purchase of toys, electronics, video games, computers, music
and movies. I joined Wal-Mart in 1994 as a Buyer. In 1995, I was
promoted to Merchandise Manager and was appointed to Vice President
and Divisional Merchandise Manager in 1997. In August of 2002, I
was promoted to Senior Vice President and General Merchandise
Manager. Prior to joining Wal-Mart, for eight years, I served in
Merchandising for Venture Stores, a division of the May Company.
I hold a Bachelor of Science degree from Brigham Young University
in Provo, Utah.
Wal-Mart is based in Bentonville, Arkansas. Our company employs
approximately 1.3 million Associates from all 50 states and
approximately 1.8 million Associates worldwide. Each week over
176 million customers worldwide choose to shop at Wal-Mart, which
we feel reflects the success of our dedication to providing Everyday
Low Prices to our customers. Wal-Mart does not just operate stores,
clubs, and distribution centers in communities; we take a proactive
stance in community involvement on a number of issues.
Purpose of Hearing and Wal-Mart's Role
As we understand it, there are several purposes of this
hearing including: (1) to learn about best practices utilized by
the private sector to prevent the sale of violent and explicit video
games to children and to inform parents about video game content
prior to purchase; (2) to explore potential ways in which to best
prevent the sale of violent and explicit video games to children and
to inform parents about video game content prior to purchase. With
this understanding, Wal-Mart is eager to share its information and
experiences.
Wal-Mart's policies and procedures
Wal-Mart is pleased to be a part of this process. We make every
effort to be a responsible retailer and take the role very
seriously. We proactively work to prevent children from obtaining
mature and adult rated video games as well as to inform parents
about video game content prior to purchase. Wal-Mart has taken and
continues to take voluntary steps to address these issues.
All of the video games Wal-Mart carries are rated by the
Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB). ESRB is responsible
for rating the content of interactive entertainment software or
video games. The rating system is designed to help customers choose
the right games for their families. Parent customers report that
they find the rating system helpful and credible. According to an
ESRB nationwide survey of parents, parents agree with the ESRB
ratings assigned 82 percent of the time. This is an important
statistic to Wal-Mart as we look to our customers for guidance.
First, while Wal-Mart represents about 24 percent of the video
game sales in the United States, we feel it is important to point
out that we choose not to carry or sell any video game with an
"Adult" rating and in 2005 we sold significantly more "Everyone"
and "Teen" rated video games than we did "Mature" rated video
games. Second, we have a process in place to help ensure that only
customers who are 17 years of age or older can purchase video games
rated "Mature." Wal-Mart Associates are not permitted to sell
"Mature" rated video games to any person under the age of 17 years
of age, unless the person is accompanied by a parent or guardian.
Specifically, we have many checkpoints in place to prevent the sale
of "Mature" rated video games to anyone under the age of 17 years of
age. All video games have an ESRB rating symbol on the front of the
product. Thus, a "Mature" rating symbol will indicate to the
Associate that the customer is required to be 17 years of age or
older to purchase the item. Further, we have programmed all of our
cash registers to prompt Associates to check the age of customers
attempting to purchase "Mature" rated video games. Upon seeing the
prompt, the Associate is required to request that the customer
provide a valid, current, Government issued form of identification.
If the customer cannot provide a valid, current, Government
issued form of identification, the Associate must politely decline
the sale.
Further, salaried managers, Customer Service Managers and Home
Entertainment Department Managers are required to ensure that all
Associates know and understand the requirements for selling "Mature"
rated video games.
In addition to monitoring actual sales, Wal-Mart is committed to
making sure customers are satisfied with their purchases by ensuring
they understand what they are taking home. To this end, it is
policy that all stores have the ESRB rating information posted in
the electronics area to help customers make informed decisions about
the video and software games they are purchasing. Recently, we took
steps to improve the appearance and visibility of the ESRB rating
signs. Further, we use our in-store television network to run
Public Service Announcements to educate our customers about the
ESRB ratings system. When we advertise video games in newspaper
circulars we display the ESRB ratings guide. Finally, Wal-Mart
Associates play an important role in this process by explaining the
rating system and making sure customers are aware of it.
Compliance with all these guidelines is critical in terms of
providing excellent customer service, reducing returns from
surprised" customers, and enhancing customer trust. Wal-Mart is one
of the leaders among retailers in terms of its compliance with the
ESRB ratings and in taking steps to make sure children do not
purchase video games inappropriately rated for their age.
Wal-Mart continually works to improve its performance regarding
the sale of video games. We are focused on education and ratings
enforcement and are working on new ideas to educate parents about
ratings in our advertisements in in-store television monitors.
Further, we are working with our operations team to train all our
associates regarding ratings.
Wal-Mart does not limit its vigilance to in-store sales.
Walmart.com is one of the leaders in the industry in terms of
warning signals and prompts that we use throughout the interface
and checkout flow. A purchaser of a "Mature" rated video game on
Walmart.com must check a box confirming they are in fact 17 years
old or older before they can proceed to our online checkout and
purchase a "Mature" rated video game.
It is important to note that self-regulation regarding the ESRB
ratings and compliance in the retail sector has worked and continues
to work. There has been a dramatic improvement among retailers in
restricting access to inappropriate content by minors. Specific
actions that have led to this improvement include the installation
of digital prompting technology that requires identification at
the cash register, the installation of clear signage on the retail
sales floor describing the ratings system, and the dissemination and
utilization of manuals and documents outlining training for sales
clerks.
WAL-MART'S POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE
It is important to point out Wal-Mart has policies and procedures in
place as well as capabilities which allow it to react to the sometimes
quickly changing environment in retail sales. If for example, there
is a sudden need to pull a particular video game from our stores, we
have the ability to implement that process within minutes.
For example, recently a video game titled "Oblivion" was originally
rated "Teen" but was re-rated "Mature" when it was determined to
contain mature material. As soon as Wal-Mart was notified of the
rating change, we immediately pulled the video games from the floor
in all our stores, moved them to the backroom, re-stickered them with
a "Mature" rating symbol, and changed our register prompts
accordingly before placing the video games back on the floor.
Further, within minutes of receiving notice from the ESRB regarding
the hidden content and new "Adult" rating for a recent version
of "Grand Theft Auto," Wal-Mart stopped all sales of the video
game, pulled all the video games from the retail sales floor and
returned them to the supplier.
These examples illustrate Wal-Mart's ability to timely
address any issue that may arise in the sale of video games. This
in turn, improves our ability to remain a responsible retailer
providing excellent customer service, protection to children buying
video games and information to parents regarding the content of
video games.
ADDITIONAL WAL-MART ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS THAT ARE MAKING A
DIFFERENCE
As a responsible retailer and member of communities across
the United States, Wal-Mart participates in a variety of activities
designed to educate and empower parents to make decisions about what
their kids play, watch and hear.
Wal-Mart is a member of Healthy Media Healthy Children which
is the umbrella organization for PauseParentPlay, a campaign
designed to empower parents to make decisions about what their kids
watch, hear and play from television and movies to video games and
music. PauseParentPlay is the first comprehensive, nationwide
movement that joins the entertainment industry with leaders from
private businesses, Congress and family groups. PauseParentPlay
was created about four years ago when several corporate CEOs and
members of Congress started discussing a private sector initiative
aimed at helping parents gauge which media is appropriate for their
children. Wal-Mart was a founding member motivated by its belief
that parents should be armed with tools to make the best media
choices for their children. U.S. Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA),
Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), John Ensign (R-NV), and Mark Pryor (D-AR)
serve as advisors to this bipartisan group.
PauseParentPlay continually takes steps to reach parents
through outlets they use and see everyday such as placing
advertisements in magazines and placing displays in retail stores
and other venues. The advertisements and displays direct the
parents to the website, www.PauseParentPlay.org where they will
find information and tutorials about media tools in an easy-to-use
format. The site guides parents through available tools such as
the v-chip and age and content-based ratings for video games,
television, movies and music. The site provides busy parents with
easy access to all the information they need to make informed
choices about what their kids play, watch and hear.
Further, Wal-Mart is a member of the Entertainment Merchants
Association (EMA). The EMA (formerly known as the IEMA and VSDA) is
committed to parental empowerment programs. It began in October
1997, when one of EMA's predecessor organizations endorsed the
Motion Picture Association of America rating system for motion
pictures and encouraged its members to enforce the ratings. Among
other things, the EMA facilitates the adoption of voluntary
ratings enforcement by retailers, encourages retailers to educate
parents about video game ratings through various forms of in-store
signage and notification, and provides parents with information how
to make the right entertainment choices for their families. The
EMA's public education components include media outreach, a ratings
awareness public service announcement that runs on the in-store
monitors of more than 10,000 retail establishments, and a website
that contains the public service announcement, guidelines for
parents, a PowerPoint presentation about the ratings and labeling
systems, and other ratings and labeling information.
Conclusion
Wal-Mart seeks excellence and responsibility in everything we do.
We constantly strive to improve our business processes and to
enrich the communities in which we are located. With regard to
preventing the sale of violent and explicit video games to children
and educating parents about the content of video games, we believe
our model works. We abide by the ESRB ratings and do everything
possible to prevent children from obtaining inappropriate video
games and to inform parents about video game content.
Thank you for your time in allowing me to speak on behalf of
Wal-Mart on this very important topic. We look forward to working
with you to effectively and constructively address this issue.
MR. STEARNS. Mr. Lowenstein.
MR. LOWENSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. I do appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
I appreciate your commitment, Mr. Chairman, to putting together a
broad and fair-minded panel, as you always do.
I was going to focus a little bit on some of the economic issues
around this industry, but you, more eloquently than I could, in your
opening prepared statement touched on how important and how big this
industry is today and how important it has become to the U.S.
economy. So let me dive right into some of the issues.
I have raised two daughters, and I understand the concerns that
give rise to these hearings about the content of some video games.
Some of the entertainment my daughters consumed when they were
growing up certainly gave me my share of worries. But I have to
tell you, in the end I think they were better for having a diverse
array of content whether I approved of it all or not.
I also want to say that I lost an uncle to gun violence years ago,
so I have a personal sense of how powerful and how painful it is to
be exposed to violence in a profoundly personal way.
Monitoring what our kids see in this society is not easy. The video
game industry is part of a larger puzzle. In our industry, the
average game player now is 33 years old. They are not kids. And
that means, just like books, just like movies, just like music,
just like television, just like painting, just like any other form
of artistic expression, we produce content for people of all tastes
and interests. Some of it is not my cup of tea. Some of it, I
think, is extraordinarily powerful and compelling entertainment.
Some of it clearly is not appropriate for all audiences.
But context does matter. And as some of you have mentioned, 85
percent of all games sold in 2005 were rated as appropriate for
persons under 17.
I think it is important to bear in mind when we talk about this
subsection of games that give rise to this hearing, it is not the
dominant portion of this market. Yes, some of them are big
sellers, undeniably. And it is impossible to avoid that reality.
But let us keep this in some kind of context. And even if there
is room for disagreement amongst the ratings, and I am sure there
is, the fact is that almost everyone who has looked at this rating
system finds overwhelming agreement with the ratings the
overwhelming portion of the time.
This brings me back to the central question then, which is, what do
you do? And I think our industry has tried from start to finish to
create a self-regulatory system in partnership with retailers that
helps parents control, both give them the choices and give them the
way to control the entertainment that comes into the home.
You will hear a great deal about the Entertainment Software Rating
Board. I am not going to spend too much time on that. I will note
that the Chicago Tribune wrote in January of this year that the
video game industry's rating system is more detailed than those of
the movie and music industries. We are proud of that. There is
much more information about the content of video games than there
is about any other media. It may not be perfect, but we have
really made a commitment to empowering parents.
Second, we work with retailers, as Gary Severson has said, to
create effective self-regulatory systems. On the FTC data about
enforcement, I think it is important to note 83 percent of all games
are sold through just five retailers. And if you look at the mass
merchants, which the FTC did, enforcement is up to 65 percent. That
is up from 30 percent in just a year. That is a pretty impressive
gross. It is not where it should be. It is not as high as I would
like it to be.
But let us put that in context; if you look at movies, which have
69 percent effective enforcement of R-rated movies, so video games
retailers are essentially doing as good a job keeping kids from
buying "M"-rated games as movie theaters are at keeping kids from
getting into R-rated movies, and four times better, I might add,
than retailers are doing keeping kids from buying albums with
parental warning labels or DVDs rated R or NC 17.
Finally, the latest video game consoles have parental control
technologies. That has been touched on. The X-Box 360 has it on
the market now, the PlayStation 3, and the Nintendo, we will have
it when they come out in the fall. And I think this is a very
powerful tool for parents.
Now, this hearing is focused, understandably, on violent games, and
we have already seen a tape of Grand Theft Auto, but defining this
industry based on its most controversial titles, it would be like
defining the film industry based on Kill Bill, The Texas Chainsaw
Massacre, and Natural Born Killers; or the music industry based on
Eminem, 50 Cent and the Dixie Chicks.
And I would like, with the Chairman's indulgence, to show a brief
clip of what I think is a representative sample of games that this
industry produces. It is going to look a little bit different from
some of the other clips you have seen, but every one of these games
we will show is one of the top-selling video games of the last year.
If we could show the clip. Thank you.
[Whereupon a video clip is played.]
MR. STEARNS. We will probably need you to wrap it up before we all
get mesmerized here.
MR. LOWENSTEIN. The point of this video is to simply suggest to you
that there is an enormous variety of games. The Age of Empires you
just saw, a historically accurate game about the building of the new
world; the Sims, the most popular computer game of all time, 50
percent of the people playing it are women. There was a lot that we
offer as an industry. And no ratings system, no parental control
technology will work unless the parent is engaged. But if the parent
wants to be informed, if the parent wants to be there, then the tools
are there. I thank you for the opportunity to be here.
[The prepared statement of Douglas Lowenstein follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS LOWENSTEIN, PRESIDENT, ENTERTAINMENT
SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today. The Entertainment Software Association represents the $10.3
billion US computer and video game software industry, the fastest
growing entertainment industry in the world today.
Let me put this industry in some context. Worldwide, the video game
industry produced $25 billion in revenue in 2004, with Price
Waterhouse Coopers forecasting that it will hit $55 billion in
revenue by 2009, far surpassing the global music industry total of
$34 billion. A new study prepared for the ESA by U.S. economists
Bob Crandall of The Brookings Institution and J. Gregory Sidak of
Criterion Economics reports that the video game industry generated
$18 billion in direct and indirect economic impacts in 2004 alone,
concluding:
"The video game industry has grown into a vibrant business that
creates thousands of jobs, improves the performance of other
industries, and spurs technological advancement. Clearly,
this is an industry about a lot more than fun and games. It
is a serious business that improves training, efficiency, and
productivity in a variety of industries and has led to innovation
in other high-technology industries. Video games play an important
role in maintaining U.S. leadership in information technology,
which is critical to the future success of the U.S. economy."
Indeed, that scanner used by your doctor to diagnose medical
problems may be powered by a chip developed for the PlayStation 3
video game system; the demand for high speed broadband and high
speed wireless networks so critical to the next era of technological
progress is being driven in part by consumers appetite for online
and mobile games; and kids seeking careers in video game design are
being drawn to math and science education, fulfilling a goal of
policymakers on both sides of the aisle.
So as this Subcommittee talks about video games, I hope the dialogue
can be broader than the stereotypical focus on video game violence;
to be sure, it is a fair topic for discussion, but it should occur
with an understanding that this industry uniquely fuses together
advanced technology and boundless creativity, and is central to
building the innovation and knowledge economy elected officials and
economists so often talk about. I have attached the Executive
Summary of the Crandall-Sidak Report "Video Games: Serious Business
for America's Economy" for your information.
I have raised two daughters and I understand the concerns that give
rise to these hearings about the content of some video games. As a
parent, it was a monumental challenge to, on the one hand protect
my kids from things that we felt were not appropriate, either
morally, ethically, or developmentally, while on the other hand
ensuring that they were exposed to a full range of ideas and
expression, including that which we might personally find
distasteful. My kids saw movies, read books, watched TV, saw
things on the news, heard political speeches and, yes, played video
games that caused me more than my share of worry. Some of this
I was able to prevent, some of it I could not control. But in the
end, I think they are better for it. As Federal Judge Richard
Posner said in striking down an effort by the City of Indianapolis
to ban violent arcade games, "To shield children right up to the
age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would
not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped
to cope with the world as we know it."
As parents, we know that video games are among a wide range of
cultural, social, emotional, psychological and political factors
that shape our children. And they cannot be viewed in isolation
from all these other forces swirling around a child. And if Judge
Posner is right that it is neither wise nor possible to shield our
kids from everything and anything we might find objectionable, we
must find a way to empower parents to make good video game choices
for their families.
I don't pretend it is easy. We are well past the days when parents
merely had to sort through Mario and Pac Man. You might be
surprised to learn that the average age of people playing games is
not 12, or 15, or even 20. It is 33 years old. And even when we
eliminate people who mainly play solitaire, the average age remains
in the late twenties.
So like other forms of entertainment, we serve a mass market
audience; the core market for video games is between 18-35 years
old. And while there are many video games that provide a stunning
and enriching entertainment and educational experience with little
objectionable content, there are also some that are clearly not
appropriate for younger children. That's another way video games
are just like books, movies, music, TV, paintings and other forms
of artistic expression. We make games for all ages and tastes;
some are brilliant, others, to put it politely, do not ennoble our
culture.
But defining the video game industry based on its most controversial
titles would be like showing clips of Kill Bill, Texas Chainsaw
Massacre, and Natural Born Killers and calling it representative
of the film industry, or playing only the music of Eminem, 50 Cent,
and The Dixie Chicks and calling it representative of the music
industry, or defining Congress by the behavior of its least ethical
member.
In fact, 85% of all games sold in 2005 were rated appropriate for
persons under 17, and only 15% were rated Mature. That means there
is a vast array of quality entertainment ranging from Nintendogs to
Madden Football, from World of Warcraft to Super Mario, from Star
Wars Battlefront to Shrek 2, from The Sponge Bob Movie to Tom
Clancy's Ghost Recon, from The Sims to Roller Coaster Tycoon, from
Call of Duty to Gran Turismo. This expanding variety of offerings
explains not only why games are played by people of all ages, but
why one-third of game players are female, and one half of all those
who play online games are adult women.
This brings me back to the central question: how can parents do
their jobs when it comes to video games?
We have tried to create a "cradle-to-crave" self regulatory system,
in partnership with retailers, which gives parents both choice and
control over the games their kids play. How the tools are used
and the controls exercised is ultimately the responsibility of
parents.
First, as you will hear in great detail from Patricia Vance,
President of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), we
have created a superior rating, advertising, and enforcement system
to give parents accurate information about the age appropriateness
and content of every game sold in the United States. The Chicago
Tribune wrote in January, 2007, that "The video game industry's
rating system is more detailed than those of the movie and music
industries." Considering that the FTC reports parents are involved
in game purchases and rentals more than eight out of ten times,
the use of ESRB ratings by parents is the first line of defense in
regulating the games kids play.
Second, we have worked with retailers to ensure that they
implement voluntary programs to require IDs from any minor seeking
to purchase Mature or Adult Only rated games, and to post visible
signage at the point of sale about the ESRB rating system (we have
even supported laws in several states that require retail signage).
You will hear testimony from Wal-Mart about these commitments. The
latest FTC study found that national retailers successfully prevent
minors from buying Mature or Adult Only games 65% of the time,
nearly the same level of success as theater owners have in keeping
kids out of R rated movies, and more than four times better than is
the case with sales of R rated DVDs.
Third, game console manufacturers have stepped up with technological
solutions to further help parents regulate the games their kids
play. The newest video game consoles -- the X-Box 360 available
now, and the Sony PlayStation 3 and the Nintendo Wii, available this
November -- will all provide password protected parent control
technology to enable parents to prevent games with inappropriate
ratings from loading on the systems. Similar software is already
available for the PC.
In sum, parents can use ratings to make appropriate game purchases,
they can rely increasingly on retailers not to sell inappropriate
games directly to minors, and if they own the newest consoles they
can program them to prevent kids from playing games with
inappropriate ratings.
I am aware that there are critics who say the ratings are not
reliable, or that they are incomplete. But as Jack Valenti used to
say far more eloquently than I, ratings are not Euclidean geometry.
There is no formula that ensures a right answer at the end. We have
sought to create a video game rating system parents can trust, and
by all evidence we have succeeded. Not only does the Peter Hart
survey funded by ESRB each year show broad parental agreement with
ESRB rating decisions, the Kaiser Foundation has reported that more
parents (53%) find the video game rating system "very useful" than
any other rating system, including movies. Overall, 91% of parents
say the ratings are "very useful" or "somewhat useful."
Here's the bottom line: no rating system known to man will meet with
universal approval. Ratings are, by definition, subjective. We
live in a pluralistic culture where people bring their own values
and morals to all manner of issues, including the entertainment
content they find appropriate for their families. Our industry seeks
to provide mainstream information that allows informed choice; we do
not seek to tell people what is right or wrong for them, and we
welcome alternatives such as revues posted by NIMF, Common Sense,
and other groups.
Ratings are important, but so is honest debate. And too often,
critics of the industry seek to justify attacks on the industry by
selectively citing research they claim establishes a definitive link
between violent games and aggressive and criminal behavior. I don't
want to dwell on this subject here, but I have attached to my
testimony some background information on the research in this field.
Suffice it to say that six federal judges in five circuits,
judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans alike, have struck
down bills seeking to ban video game sales. Apart from issuing
clarion statements establishing that video games are a form of
artistic expression protected by the First Amendment, every one of
these jurists has dismissed the weak and flawed science advanced by
video game critics, including some at today's hearing, as a basis
for state regulation.
For example, after holding a hearing at which the state's academic
experts took their best shot at proving that violent games cause
aggression, the District Court in Illinois last December concluded
that there is "no solid causal link between violent video game
exposure and aggressive thinking and behavior." Further, it said
even if one accepts a connection, "there is no evidence that this
effect is at all significant." Finally, after analyzing the brain
mapping studies cited by so many anti-video game researchers, the
court said dismissively, that it found the author of the leading
research in the field "unpersuasive" and that there is "no basis
to permit a reasonable conclusion that" video games produce changes
in the brain that could make players more aggressive.
Regarding crime, Harvard researcher Dr. Cheryl Olson wrote in the
journal Academic Psychiatry in 2004 that "it's very difficult to
document whether and how violent video and computer games
contribute to serious violence such as criminal assault and
murder...." Similarly, Dr. Joanne Savage, writing in the journal
Aggression and Violent Behavior on whether viewing violent media
really causes criminal violence said: "The question addressed here
is not whether or not the effect is plausible, but whether the
effect has been demonstrated convincingly in the scientific
literature-and the answer is 'not so far.'...At this point it must
be said, however, that there is little evidence in favor of focusing
on media violence as a means of remedying our violent crime problem."
I want to leave you with this thought: In the year 2010, there will
be 75 million Americans between the ages of 10 and 30 - as many in
this millennium generation as in the Baby Boom Generation - and
everyone of them will have grown up with video games as a central
part of their DNA. Even today, ESA data shows that 35% of American
parents play video games, and 80% of them play with their kids.
Video games are the rock and roll music for the digital generation
and Halo and The Sims and Zelda are their Beatles and Rolling
Stones. Indeed, a decade from now, many of your colleagues on that
dais will be gamers and they will be uniquely comfortable with
technology and interactivity. Video games are taking their place
alongside other forms of mainstream popular entertainment. As an
industry, that means we have a responsibility to inform and empower
our consumers; at the same time, I hope it encourages public
officials to join in that important effort, and not devote time to
demonizing an industry which is at once so central to tens of
millions of Americans, and one so important to America's technology
future.
Thank you.
MR. STEARNS. Thank you.
Ms. Vance.
MS. VANCE. Before I begin, I would like to thank Chairman Stearns
and the entire committee for the invitation to appear today. We
applaud and strongly support your commitment to inform parents about
the games that they choose to bring into their homes. I respectfully
request that my statements, both oral and written, along with
instructive appendices, be made a part of the hearing record.
MR. STEARNS. By unanimous consent, so ordered.
MS. VANCE. The ESRB rating system consists of six age-based rating
categories with breaks at 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 18 years of age.
Rating symbols appear on the front and back of each game package,
and in addition, wherever appropriate, ESRB assigns one or more
content descriptors that appear prominently on the back of the box
next to the rating.
Kinds of descriptors, of which there are over 30 currently in use,
indicate elements in a game that may have triggered a rating or may
be of interest or concern to consumers, especially parents.
While games that are rated for mature audiences tend to get a
disproportionately high amount of media attention, the reality is
that most of the titles rated by the ESRB receive a rating of "E" or
"Everyone", and only about 12 percent are recommended for players 17
or older, a percentage that has remained constant for the last 2
years. In fact, in 2005, not one "Mature"-rated game was listed
among the top 10-selling computer or video games.
Virtually every computer and video game sold in the U.S. today
carries an ESRB rating. The Council of Manufacturers will not
permit games to be published on their system without an ESRB rating,
and most major retailers choose to only stock games that have been
rated by our organization.
ESRB's highest priority is ensuring that the ratings we assign are
accurate and useful to parents. Each year we conduct consumer
research with parents in 10 different markets across the U.S.
to measure agreement with the ESRB rating assignments. It is
critical that our ratings reflect mainstream American tastes and
values, especially among parents of children who play video games.
Indeed agreement with ESRB ratings has never been higher; 82
percent of parents agree with our ratings, and another 5 percent
think the ratings are too strict. These findings are supported by
a 2004 report by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that found
that among all entertainment rating systems, TV, movies, music, and
games, parents found the ESRB ratings to be the most useful, with
the majority of parents surveyed finding them to be, quote/unquote,
"very useful." Moreover the national PTA has called the ESRB
ratings an extremely useful and informative tool and urges parents
to check the ratings whenever buying game.
Ratings accuracy is solely dependent on our raters' access to all
pertinent game content, including the most extreme, no matter how
hard it may be to find when playing the game. Many of today's
games can take upwards of 50 or even 100 hours to play all the way
through. Given the length and complexity of games, playing every
game as part of the ratings process, be it for 1 hour, as Professor
Thompson did in her study, or 10, would provide no assurances
whatsoever that all pertinent content is being considered in the
assignment of a rating. That is why we require game publishers to
fully disclose to the ESRB in detail, in writing as well as on
videotape, exactly what is in their game, even content that may be
hidden to the player.
This includes the most extreme instances of pertinent content across
a broad range of categories, including violence, sexual, or
suggestive themes; language; depiction and use of a controlled
substance; gambling, and more. Publishers must also provide
information on the frequency of such content, key missions and
objectives in the game, and unique interactive elements such as
the reward system and player control.
After a game ships, if disclosure is found to have been incomplete,
recent enhancements to the ESRB enforcement system will soon allow
for the imposition of fines up to $1 million. The power to impose
substantial monetary and nonmonetary penalties which may include
the revocation of ratings services altogether for repeat offenders,
combined with corrective actions that can essentially mount to a
full product recall, serve as a tremendous disincentive for any
publisher to even consider not disclosing all pertinent content.
As the FDC has noted, ESRB enforcement system is unique in its
scope and severity among entertainment rating systems. While
certain critics like Professor Thompson and Dr. Walsh continue to
try to discredit the ESRB ratings, the fact is that far more often
than not, Dr. Walsh's organization and other advocacy groups' age
recommendations match our ratings exactly, or very slightly by only
a year or two at the most. Similarly, Professor Thompson's research
never claims that our age recommendations are inappropriate, just
that she would prefer we list all content in the game instead of
that which our raters have determined is the most important to
communicate to the consumer.
Professor Thompson's studies are based on completely different
criteria than the ESRB uses to assign content descriptors, and there
is no evidence that her personal opinions on how to assign them
are representative of public opinion. Case in point, her first
study claimed that 62 percent of the game play in Pac-Man is,
quote/unquote, "violent." I would imagine that most parents and
perhaps even many of you would disagree with such an assessment.
So are parents paying attention to the ratings? In a study conducted
earlier this year by Peter Hart Research, we found that 83 percent
of parents with children who play games are aware of the ESRB
ratings, and 3 out of 4 use them regularly when buying games.
Furthermore, more than half of parents surveyed said they never
allow their kids to play games rated "M" for "Mature", and parents
are twice as likely to ban "M" games when their kids are under the
age of 13.
Despite the high awareness and use of the system, we continue to
put significant resources into marketing and education initiatives
to encourage parents to use the ratings every time they buy a game.
We have received broad media support for our print and radio PSA
campaigns, audio news releases, satellite, television, and radio
media tours, and will shortly be launching a new initiative with
the national PTA.
In addition, ESRB retail partnership program currently spanning 18
different national retailers generates over a billion consumer
impressions each year, educating customers about our ratings.
We also encourage and support retailer policies with respect to
the sale of "M"-rated games, and we are very pleased that the
FTC's most recent mystery shopper audit showed significant
progress that national retailers are making in enforcing their
store policies, which now matches the level of restrictions for
R-rated films in movie theaters at 65 percent of the time.
MR. STEARNS. I will need you to sum up.
MS. VANCE. However, although there has been a significant focus
by industry critics on retail enforcement, it is also important
to note that the FTC reported in 2000 that the adults are involved
in the purchase of video games 83 percent of the time.
I would like to close today by simply stating that nobody takes
these issues more seriously than we do. ESRB values immensely the
trust that millions of parents have placed in the ratings that we
assign, and the vast majority of parents can and do make sensible
choices about the games their children play, and our ratings
consistently play a critical part in those informed decision. That
being said, we all can and should work more cooperatively to ensure
that parents are aware of and are using the tools at their
disposal.
Thank you for having me here today.
MR. STEARNS. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Patricia E. Vance follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICIA E. VANCE, PRESIDENT, ENTERTAINMENT
SOFTWARE RATING BOARD
MR. STEARNS. Dr. Thompson, welcome.
DR. THOMPSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, thank you very much for inviting me here today.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you. As a parent,
consumer, educator and active academic researcher on media
content, and videos specifically, I welcome the opportunity to
comment on the observations that we have made about the content
and ratings of video games in the context of our peer-reviewed
studies and questions that I believe that the industry and the
ESRB should address related to the process for rated games. So
in the context of our studies which are attached to the statement
I have submitted to you, I just want to give you a few of the
highlights of some of our results.
In our study of "E"-rated games, those are games rated for 6 and up,
we found that 64 percent of those games contained violence with
injuring characters rewarded or required for advancement in those
games. So talking about incentives, as Mr. Murphy raised, we are
finding evidence of that starting in the "E"-rated games at 60
percent of those games rewarding violent game play.
We also in our study of "Teen"-rated games observed content that we
thought could warrant an ESRB content descriptor in almost half of
the games for which ESRB had not assigned a content descriptor.
Let me put in context that what we do is we take a random sample
of the games. We play them. We record the game play and code that
game play so that what we can do is compare what we find in the
actual game play to what the ESRB discloses in the ratings. Because
we play them, we are able to then see games where they have assigned
a content descriptor and compare the content that they have given
those content descriptors to games where they have not. And we see
similar content where they have assigned those kind of descriptors
and then games where we think they should have it, but that is not
assigned. So it is not like it is just based on my personal opinion
on any individual game. This is based on a rigorous scientific
method.
In our study of "Teen"-rated games, we found that 98 percent of the
games involved intentional violence, with 36 percent of the game
play time involving violence. And just to give you a number that
puts the violence in terms of a death toll, over the entire sample
we found that the players were viewing, or in many cases
instigating, virtual human deaths at a rate of 61 deaths per hour
of game play. That is a virtual human death per minute.
In our sample of "M"-rated video games that we played, we observed
content that we thought could warrant an ESRB content descriptor in
81 percent of the games for which the ESRB had not assigned a
content descriptor. We found that all the games contained
intentional acts of violence. And in this case 78 percent of the
games rewarded or required the player to destroy objects, 100 percent
rewarded or required the player to injure characters, and 92 percent
rewarded or required the player to kill. In this context we again
had 104 virtual human deaths per hour. We are seeing a lot of
deaths in these games.
We consistently find that the games contain a significant amount of
violent and explicit content that may be of concern to parents, and
it is, in our opinion, inconsistently labeled by the Rating Board.
Given this research, I believe that there are several important
improvements in the rating system that are needed, and I hope that
this committee will ask questions about the ratings to ensure that
the industry, in fact, has the right incentives to improve them.
Point number one is that I believe the ESRB should play each and
every game prior to assigning its age-based ratings and content
descriptors. We have said since our 2001 study on "E"-rated games
that we thought the ESRB should make playing games part of its
ratings process. And we specifically said in one of our 2004
studies on "Teen"-rated games, "Our results also suggest the ESRB
should play the video games as part of its rating process to provide
a means to ensure the absence of content other than that indicated
by the material submitted to the ESRB by the game manufacturers.
However, we emphasize that game manufacturers should continue to
provide all the information they currently provide to the ESRB
because the rater should not have to play the entire game prior
to assigning the rating; anyone playing the game could miss specific
content."
Thus, to be completely clear, we suggest the ESRB should play the
finished game as it would be played by consumers before assigning
its ratings, in addition to its current process of collecting
information from the publishers. We have not stipulated any length
of time they should play, nor have we said the raters themselves
must play. We remain very concerned, however, that the inability
of the ESRB to play the games prior to assigning its ratings means
the ESRB cannot independently evaluate the content of games, which
in turn undermines consumer confidence in the ratings.
We also are not able to determine whether the mismatch between our
observations and the ESRB content descriptors results from a failure
of publishers to disclose content to the ESRB, the ESRB's decisions
not to provide content descriptors that we would expect based on its
definitions and what we observe in other games that receive the same
ESRB content descriptors, or if the game content changes between the
assignment of the ratings and the packaging of the final product.
Thus, we believe the ESRB should play the finished games before it
assigns ratings, and we believe the recent decision by the ESRB to
re-rate Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which was mentioned earlier,
from "Teen" to "Mature" clearly demonstrates that playing the game
made a difference. What was unfortunate in this case, and also,
of course, in the case of San Andreas, is that those games were
extensively sold, marketed, and played prior to the time the
correction was made. So obviously this is an important concern
for the committee.
Point number two is I believe the ESRB should make its rating
process and the terms that it uses in its ratings more transparent.
Our studies point to the need for clear, consistent, and
well-communicated criteria for assigning age-based ratings and
content descriptors. Our studies rely on playing the actual games,
coding them, and comparing the observed content to what we observe
in other games based on the ESRB's published information.
We believe that more clarity and transparency would be very helpful
to the industry as well. For example, in response to its decision
to change the Elder Scrolls rating on Oblivion, our impression, the
comments made by Bethesda Softworks, they said they felt they had
properly disclosed to the ESRB. So again, we think that having
clear, transparent criteria is not only good for parents, it is
probably also good for the industry as well. We do not think we
allow the same kind of ambiguity with ingredients in foods, and
why should we allow them in quality of our ratings for media
products?
Our studies consistently find content that is labeled in some games
and not others. We think some of the lack of consistency clearly
derives from the lack of transparency in the process and definition.
The ESRB has also stated in its press release responding to our
most recent study on "M"-rated games that it has "repeatedly
informed us about flaws in our methodology." And for the record, I
would like to emphasize that the ESRB has never provided any
scientific basis for its allegations about flaws in our methods,
and we were very surprised to see the ESRB make such statements.
We asked the ESRB to provide evidence of this assertion, and we
believe that their assertion of "flaws" in our methods is a very
serious scientific allegation.
We have met with the ESRB on several occasions to discuss our
research, and the ESRB has not provided us with any scientific
evidence of flaws in our research. The ESRB has also failed to
provide us with any information about their specific criteria for
applying ratings beyond what is available on the ESRB Web site.
If the ESRB provided us with this information, we could use it as a
basis for comparison to our methods.
We believe that Members of this Congress, parents, and the media
should ask the ESRB to make public its specific criteria for
assigning ratings and content descriptors. The ESRB requires game
manufacturers to provide examples of the most extreme content, but
do they do so? How would we know? And should parents expect the
content descriptors to provide information about all types of
content and games, or have the content descriptors now become like
the MPAA rating reasons, indicating only some of the content?
With the information to parents very unclear on this, and parents
and kids easily able to observe omissions as they experience
actual game play, the ESRB, in my opinion, should focus much more
on ensuring the quality of its information and worry less on
promoting its ratings system.
MR. STEARNS. Dr. Thompson, we will need you to wrap up.
DR. THOMPSON. I believe the members of this committee should ask
the ESRB to provide in writing the specific actual criteria that
ESRB uses. On the point of accuracy, the ESRB, I believe, should
also make clear what it believes is possible with respect to
accuracy of the ratings. It does say in its mission, and I believe
this mission is right, that it is striving to provide consumers,
especially parents, with accurate and objective information about
the age suitability and content of computer and video games so they
can make informed decisions. But I believe that it is important to
realize that the ESRB is inconsistent again in this area.
For example, the ESRB said in its recent communication to the FTC
that it regularly commissions the Peter Hart Research Associates to
conduct surveys on awareness, use and validity, not the accuracy of
ratings. It is in stark contrast also to the ESRB's press release,
which was titled "New Study Shows Parents Overwhelmingly Agree with
Video Game Ratings, ESRB Ratings Found to Be Highly Accurate."
So again, I believe members of this committee should ask the ESRB
to clarify its position on accuracy and objectivity in its ratings,
and that the Federal Trade Commission should continue to conduct its
own studies.
Finally, I think one of the most important things the ESRB needs to
do is distinguish real peer-reviewed scientific studies from
nonpublicly available market research that it commissions. With
respect to the Peter Hart market surveys which Ms. Vance just
mentioned, the ESRB commission says they are not peer-reviewed, they
are not published, and they are not publicly available. And in this
regard they are not comparable to the study of scientific work that
we do.
We also note that the Federal Register--and you can find all of the
citations to all of these quotes in my statement--says that "the
ESRB's validity studies involve the display of 1 or 2 minutes of
video game play to parents of children who play video games. The
brevity of these clips may limit the use of the results because
games typically take many hours to complete. Moreover, it is
unknown whether the content selected for these brief video clips
fully represents the full range of content that causes the ESRB,
whose raters rely on more extensive footage of game play as well
as the publisher's responses, to assign a particular game rating."
MR. STEARNS. Dr. Thompson, I will probably have you sum up.
DR. THOMPSON. Yeah, yeah. Sorry.
MR. STEARNS. Your entire statement will be made a part of the
record. DR. THOMPSON. So I appreciate the opportunity to speak
here. I do think you should ask them to submit evidence that allows
independent researchers to review anything they submit as a study
which is otherwise not peer-reviewable. And also it is important
for all of us who believe in self-regulation to make sure the system
is working as well as it can.
MR. STEARNS. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kimberly M. Thompson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. KIMBERLY M. THOMPSON, DIRECTOR, KIDS RISK
PROJECT, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF RISK ANALYSIS AND DECISION SCIENCE,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH POLICY AND MANAGEMENT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for
recognizing the important role of media in the lives of children and
for inviting me to present my views on the violent and explicit video
games: informing parents and protecting children. As a parent,
consumer, educator, and active academic researcher on media content
and video games specifically, I welcome the opportunity to comment on:
1 . the observations that we have made about content and ratings of
video games in the context of our peer-reviewed studies
2. questions that I believe are important for the video game rating
board to address related to its process for rating games
Over the past several years, my research group at the Harvard School
of Public Health has conducted several studies that quantitatively
evaluated the actual content of video games. This work includes
studies on violence in E-rated, T-rated video games, and M-rated
video games. Each of these studies yielded significant insights
including:
1. We found that 35 of the 55 (64%) E-rated (for "Everyone") video
games studied contained violence
(http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/faqs3.htm), with injuring
characters rewarded or required for advancement in 33 games (60%).
2. We observed content that could warrant an ESRB content
descriptor in 39 out of 81 games (48%) T-rated (for "Teen") video
games for which the ESRB had not assigned a content descriptor, and
we did not observe the content indicated by an ESRB content
descriptor within one hour of game play for seven games. These games
may be a source of exposure to a wide range of unexpected content
(http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/faqs4.htm).
3. In the random sample of 81 T-rated video games we played:
79 games (98%) involved intentional violence, representing 36% of
game play time, 73 games (90%) rewarded or required the player to
injure characters, 56 games (69%) rewarded or required the player
to kill, and we observed 5,689 human deaths for these 81 games,
occurring at an average rate of 61 human deaths per hour of game
play time (http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/faqs5.htm).
4. In a random sample of M-rated video games we played, we observed
content that could warrant an ESRB content descriptor in 81% of these
for which the ESRB had not assigned a content descriptor
(http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/faqs8.html).
We consistently find that the games contain a significant amount of
violence and explicit content that may be of concern to parents,
which is inconsistently labeled by the rating board. I would be
happy to show the members of the Subcommittee examples of some of
the unlabeled content that we have observed.
Given this research, we believe that several improvements in the
rating system are needed, and that Congress should ensure that the
industry has incentives to improve its ratings:
1. The ESRB should play each and every game prior to assigning its
age-based ratings and content descriptors. We have said since our
2001 study on E-rated video games that we thought the ESRB should
make playing the games part of the rating process. We specifically
said in one of our 2004 studies on T-rated games that "Our results
also suggest that the ESRB should play the video games as part of
its rating process to provide a means to ensure the absence of
content other than that indicated in the materials submitted to the
ESRB by the game manufacturers. However, we emphasize that game
manufacturers should continue to provide all of the information that
they currently provide to the ESRB because the raters should not
have to play the entire game prior to assigning a rating; anyone
playing the games could miss specific content." Thus, to be
completely clear, we suggest that the ESRB should play the
finished game before assigning its ratings, in addition to its
current process of collecting information from publishers. We have
not stipulated the length of game play time, nor have we said that
the raters themselves must play the game. We remain concerned,
however, that the inability of the ESRB to play the finished games
prior to assigning its ratings means that the ESRB cannot
independently evaluate the content of games, which in turn may
undermine consumer confidence in the ratings. We are not able to
determine whether the mismatch between our observations and the ESRB
content descriptors results from failure of the publishers to
disclose content to the ESRB, the ESRB's decisions not to provide
content descriptors that we would expect based on its definitions
and what we observe in other games that received the same ESRB
content descriptors, or if the game content changes between the
assignment of the ratings and packaging of the final product. Thus,
we believe that the ESRB should play the finished games before it
assigns its ratings. We believe that the ESRB's recent decision to
change its rating of Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion from Teen to Mature
clearly demonstrates that playing the game makes a difference. What
is unfortunate in this case is that the ESRB found the more detailed
depictions of blood and gore in the Xbox 360 version after assigning
its ratings and content descriptors and after the game has already
been sold extensively with the Teen rating. It should be noted,
however, that the Teen-rated version of the game also received a
content descriptor for "Blood and Gore," which raises legitimate
questions about where the ESRB draws the line between Teen-rated
video games and Mature-rated video games. In our quantitative
studies of T-rated and M-rated games, we have observed significantly
more blood depicted in M-rated games, but similar amounts of
violence.
2. The ESRB should make its rating process and the terms that it
uses in its ratings more transparent. Our studies point to the need
for clear, consistent, and well-communicated criteria for assigning
age-based ratings and content descriptors. Our studies rely on
playing the actual games, coding all of the content using
definitions that we publish in our papers, and comparing the
observed content to what we observe in other games and based on the
ESRB's published information. We believe that more clarity and
transparency would also be helpful to the industry. For example,
in response to its decision to change the rating of Elder Scrolls
IV: Oblivion, our impression based on Bethesda Softworks' response
is that they felt that they had properly disclosed the content to
the ESRB (see their press release at: http://www.bethsoft.com/news/pressrelease_050306.htm). The bottom
line here is that consumers need to know what the ratings do and do
not tell them. We don't allow ambiguity in the ingredients on
foods, why should we be so tolerant of low quality in the ratings on
media products? Our studies consistently find content that is
labeled in some games and not in others. Some of this lack of
consistency clearly derives from lack of transparency in the process
and definitions.
The ESRB also stated in its press release responding to our recent
study on M-rated games that it has "repeatedly informed" us about
flaws in your methodology. For the record, I would like to emphasize
that the ESRB has never provided any scientific basis for its
allegations about flaws in our methods and we were very surprised to
see the ESRB make such statements. We asked the ESRB to provide
evidence for this assertion and we believe that their assertion of
"flaws" in our methods is a very serious scientific allegation. We
have met with the ESRB on several occasions to discuss our research
and the ESRB has not provided us with any scientific evidence of
flaws in our research. The ESRB has also failed to provide us with
any information about their specific criteria for applying ratings
beyond what is available on the ESRB website; if the ESRB provided
us with this information, we could use it as a basis for comparison
to our methods. We believe that members of Congress, parents, and
the media should ask the ESRB to make public its specific criteria
for assigning ratings and content descriptors. The ESRB requires
game manufacturers to provide examples of the most extreme content,
but do they do so? Should parents expect the content descriptors to
provide information about all of the types of content in the games,
or have the content descriptors now become more like the MPAA's
rating reasons indicating only some of the content? With the
information to parents very unclear on this, and parents and kids
easily able to observe omissions as they experience actual game play,
the ESRB should in my opinion focus more on ensuring the quality of
its information and worry less about its advertising.
3. The ESRB needs to decide whether it believes that ratings can be
"accurate" or not and make clear what it means. I believe that the
ESRB has the right mission, which according to its website is: "To
provide consumers, especially parents, with accurate and objective
information about the age suitability and content of computer and
video games so they can make informed purchase decisions"
(http://www.esrb.org/about/index.jsp). I believe that accurate and
objective information is essential, and I am concerned with
inconsistencies in the ESRB ratings and in what the ESRB says about
its ratings system. For example, on page 2 of its recent comments to
the FTC, the ESRB wrote that: "The ESRB regularly commissions
Peter D. Hart Research Associates to conduct surveys on awareness,
use and validity - not the accuracy - of the ratings"
(http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/entertainindstrystudy/051123esrb.pdf).
This is in stark contrast to the ESRB's November 22, 2004 press
release about this same commissioned survey that was titled: "New
Study Shows Parents Overwhelmingly Agree with Video Game Ratings -
ESRB Ratings Found to be 'Highly Accurate.'"
(http://www.esrb.org/about/news/downloads/validity_study_11_22_04.pdf).
4. The ESRB needs to distinguish real peer-reviewed scientific
studies from non-publicly available market research that it
commissions. With respect to the ESRB-commissioned Peter Hart market
surveys, we emphasize that these surveys are not peer-reviewed,
published, or publicly available. In this regard, they are not
scientific studies that can be compared with our research. We are
not able to review the methods used, questions asked, or analyses
performed, but we believe that these surveys do not ask parents
about the ESRB's assignment of content descriptors and they do not
show parents the same information that is provided to the ESRB
raters. Note that the March 30, 2006 Federal Register (footnote 16
on page 16156) states that: "The ESRB's validity studies involve the
display of one to two minute clips of video game play to parents of
children who play video games. The brevity of these clips may limit
the use of the results because games typically take many hours to
complete. Moreover, it is unknown whether the content selected for
these brief video clips fully represents the range and frequency of
content that caused the ESRB (whose raters rely on more extensive
footage of game play as well as the publisher's responses to a
detailed questionnaire) to assign the game a particular rating."
(http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/03/060330frnsurveyvideoesrb.pdf)
Given the important role of the media ratings as the current strategy
in our self-regulatory system - a system that gives us all the
freedoms to create and to choose media and that reflects values
deeply held by all Americans - I believe that Congress must hold
the industry accountable for the quality of the information that it
provides to consumers and ensure that the system works and protects
children. Freedom depends on responsibility.
In my view, many of the current problems with the existing systems
derive from a lack of a scientific and research-based foundation for
providing ratings information. A rigorous system of ratings must
begin with some standard definitions that can be used to classify
content and to clearly and consistently inform parents. While these
definitions and classifying content includes subjectivity, that's
no excuse for not trying to be as objective as possible. Our studies
have demonstrated that using consistent definitions can work and
provide comparative information, and I believe that it's time for
the industry to start to perform its own content analyses and
accurately report the ingredients of its products to consumers.
I believe that the industry can better label its products and in
doing so help parents make better choices, and that this is required
as media continue to push the boundaries and consume more time in
the lives of our children. Thank you very much again for the
opportunity to testify today.
References:
1. Thompson KM, Haninger K. Violence in E-rated video games.
Journal of the American Medical Association 2001;286(5):591-598.
See related letter at: Journal of the American Medical Association
2001;286(16):1972.
2. Haninger K, Thompson, KM. Content and Ratings of Teen-Rated Video
Games. Journal of the American Medical Association
2004;291(7):856-865.
3. Haninger K, Ryan MS, Thompson KM. Violence in Teen-Rated Video
Games. Medscape General Medicine 2004(March 11);6(1). (Available
at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/468087).
4. Thompson KM, Tepichin K, Haninger K. Content and Ratings of
Mature-Rated Video Games. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent
Medicine 2006; 160:402-410
MR. STEARNS. Dr. Buckleitner.
DR. BUCKLEITNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I was
Fred Upton's paperboy. You have done well, Fred.
It is an honor to testify today. I appear before you as an
independent software reviewer, a library trustee, a former teacher,
and a parent of two daughters. But I guess the reason I am here
today is because I play a lot of games, about 7,308 as of yesterday,
as editor of a software review publication. I started reviewing
software in 1984 on an Apple II. I have traveled the Oregon Trail.
I have hunted for Carmen San Diego. I have killed thousands of bad
guys. I have squished some cops in Grand Theft Auto. I can hold my
own in DDR and load a UMD on a PSP. And I have played tennis with
Mario, skated with Tony Hawk, and golfed with Tiger Woods. I filled
hot tubs with Sims, and helped Joan of Arc conquer the Mongols all
in a weekend.
This is a powerful form of media. At the Mediatech Foundation where
I test software, I witnessed two high school boys stay awake for 36
hours trying to fly an airplane, the Spirit of St. Louis, across the
Atlantic in an attempt to repeat Charles Lindbergh's famous flight
to Paris in real time. It was fascinating. They used the Microsoft
flight simulator using GPS and real weather conditions. But unlike
Lindbergh, they crashed four times.
Recently I flew a Harrier jet using the new TS-3 controller, and I
conducted an orchestra with the Nintendo remote.
The first point to take away from my testimony is that improving
technology driven by Moore's law is going to make the next 5 years
very interesting. We need to protect our children, but from what?
There is little consensus on the short or long-term effects of
violent games on human development. Most would agree, however,
that normally developing children, which is a different population
than Mr. Terry worked with, can distinguish between fantasy and
reality. Most parents are taking their cues directly from
children. That is why you go buy a "Teen"-rated Star Wars game for
a third-grader who loves Star Wars.
There are less obvious things to protect children from, in my opinion,
including ethnic and gender stereotyping, commercialism, being left
alone for hours, and unsupervised use of the Internet. And what
about plain old old-fashioned low quality, which is certainly less
newsworthy than "Hot Coffee."
I have also wondered why the software publishing business seems to
be authorless, hence blameless, unlike books or movies where an
author like Rowling or director's game name is prominently
displayed. There should be a way to see who is behind the games.
I would like to know the guy that put that add-on to that game so
I can know what he stands for. The logic is you would be less
likely to put racy content in a game if your mother knew it was you
who put it in.
It is important in this hearing not to confuse linear versus
nonlinear media. I see it all the time. Unlike books and movies
where you can see the beginning through the end, interactive media
which we are talking about here today is slippery and
three-dimensional. We need a ratings system that is smart on these
issues.
The current ESRB system lets people who know their content the best,
the publishers, take responsibility for disclosing what is in their
product and pay the price if they do not. In my opinion, there is
no better way to do this.
Over the next few years we are going to see many more interactive
options seep into the lives of our children. It will be increasingly
harder to define a video game versus software versus TV toy versus
mobile phone, and any future ratings system will have to deal with
this.
Let me talk specifically about the ESRB. We and the parenting
magazines we work with have come to count on the ESRB to reliably
tell us if a title is appropriate for a certain age range, and if
the type of content may be inappropriate. If they were not accurate,
we would hear about it in seconds after the papers hit the deadline.
But the way the ratings are interpreted is less solid. Some parents
and retailers do not seem to mind "M"-rated games, and they probably
should, and the descriptors tend to be overlooked.
In my testimony I have pictures that I just took yesterday of the KB
Toys Web site of "Mature"-rated games right next to Curious George.
That is not right, and this is a toy store where kids go.
Why shouldn't a toy store sell Bud Light and cigarettes as well and
other "M"-rated products?
Finally, there is a new kind of digital divide to think about.
Participation in the video game culture is expensive. These games
cost $50. What about the families who are not participating in this
culture? It is a whole new conversation.
In conclusion, trustworthy consumer information such as that provided
by the current ESRB ratings system is a foundation for the development
of an interactive publishing business and for higher-quality use by
families. We need accurate labels. The biggest challenge we face
is to help parents, grandparents, and teachers use existing
descriptors and to continue to study the effects of interactive
media in light of the next generation of connected consoles and
HDTVs. As researchers we need to raise the level of dialogue by
citing references and trying the games ourselves firsthand,
observing real kids, and grounding our opinions in firm data. It
is safe to say there has never been a better time to pick up a
controller and play along with a child. Thank you.
MR. STEARNS. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Warren Buckleitner follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. WARREN BUCKLEITNER, PH.D., EDITOR,
CHILDREN'S TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
It is an honor to testify today. I appear before you as a software
reviewer, library trustee, former teacher, and parent of two
daughters, ages 11 and 14.
I guess the reason I've ended up here today is because I've played a
lot of games (about 7,308 as of yesterday) as editor of a software
review publication. I started reviewing software in 1984 on an Apple
II, traveling the Oregon Trail, hunting Carmen Sandiego and coloring
with KidPix. I've killed thousands of bad guys, squished some cops
in Grand Theft Auto, and punched myself silly in Mortal Kombat. I
can hold my own in DDR, load a UMD on a PSP; but I still can't beat
my youngest daughter in Hot Wheels Turbo Racing. I've played tennis
with the Mario Bros., skated with Tony Hawk and golfed with Tiger
Woods. I've filled hot tubs with Sims and helped Joan of Arc conquer
the Mongols, all in a single weekend.
At the Mediatech Foundation, where I test software, I witnessed two
high school students stay awake for 36 hours trying to fly The Spirit
of St. Louis across the Atlantic, in a failed attempt to repeat
Charles Lindbergh's flight to Paris with Microsoft Flight Simulator,
using real time weather conditions and modern GPS. Lately I've seen
children competing against one other using an innovative wireless
networking title, called Brain Games, on math facts. Recently, I
flew a Harrier jet, using the new PS3 controller, which uses the
position and motion of your hands to control the aircraft; and I
conducted an orchestra using the Nintendo Wii remote. The first point
to take from this testimony-improving technology, driven by Moore's
Law, will make the next five years very interesting.
What have I learned, and what does it mean for US families?
We need to protect our children-but from what? There is little
consensus on the short or long-term effects of violent games on human
development. Most would agree, however, that normally developing
children can distinguish between fantasy and reality. I certainly
do. Most parents are taking their cues directly from their individual
children, and perhaps that is why they have no problems buying a T
rated Star Wars game for their third grader. This is not known issue.
There may be less obvious things to protect children from,
including ethnic and gender stereotyping, hidden commercialism, being
left alone for hours and unsupervised use of the Internet. And what
about plain, old-fashioned "low quality," which is certainly less
newsworthy than "hot coffee." Some games are just poorly designed; a
waste of family resources and precious childhood time. Others load
your computer with commercial links that can slow a computer to a
crawl. There's a growing category of web-based content for sale,
such as services for SAT test prep, where you can find typos on the
sample tests.
Software publishing seems to be authorless, and hence blameless,
unlike books or movies, where the author and/or director's name is
prominently displayed. There should be a way to see who is behind
games. You'd be less likely to put racy content in a game, if you
knew your mother or children could tell it was you that decided to
put it in.
It is important in this hearing to make the distinction between
interactive and non-interactive (linear vs. non-linear) media.
Unlike movies, where you can see the beginning through the end,
or a book where you see how many pages you have, interactive media
is three dimensional, fluid and dynamic. To this end, we need a
rating system that can capture the complexity of millions of lines
of code, or the inner working of an MMOG (Massively Multiplayer
Online Game). The ESRB system lets the people who know their content
the best-the publishers-take responsibility for disclosing what is
in the product. There is no better way to do this.
With more platforms comes more consumer confusion. A single movie,
such as Disney/Pixar Cars, will generate nine video games, which are
different for each platform. These differences should be better
defined for the consumer.
As hardware improves over time, more interactive options will seep
into the lives of children. It will become increasingly harder to
define a "video game" vs."software" vs. "TV toy" vs. "mobile phone"
It helps to turn the question around and look at it through the eyes
of a child, at all developmental levels. What quality interactive
options does a child have to explore, at any given time? Is there
quality? Is there balance?
We have found the ESRB rating system to be both necessary and
reliable. We, and the parenting magazines we work with, have come to
count on the ESRB to tell us if a title is appropriate for a certain
age range and if the type of content might be inappropriate. The
validity of the ratings (or the way they are interpreted), however,
is less solid. Some parents and retailers don't seem to mind M rated
games when they probably should, and the descriptors tend to be
overlooked. Mature-rated games are easy to find in toy stores.
Why do toy stores mix M rated games with obvious children's content?
Why are there no descriptors online? (Both screens, from
www.kbtoys.com captured on June 12, 2006)
We have found the ESRB staff to be responsive to our questions.
Video games are no longer just for kids. Increasingly, more titles
will be designed for older audiences, and the ratings will reflect
this. But it is important to remember (and less newsworthy) that
85% of the current 11,937 games have no worrisome content, and many
have positive educational outcomes.
There's a new kind of digital divide to consider. Participation in
the video game culture can be expensive. The best quality online
activities cost $10 per month, and games cost $50 each. Kids without
the money and access to expensive game systems are being left out.
There are new faces to the digital divide.
Trustworthy consumer information, such as that provided by the
current ESRB rating system, is the foundation for the development
of interactive publishing, and for higher quality use by families.
The biggest challenge we face now is to help consumers use the
existing descriptors, and to continue to study the effects of
interactive media in light of the next generation of connected
consoles and HDTVs. As researchers, we should raise the level of
dialog by citing references and trying games ourselves first hand,
observing real kids and grounding opinions with firm data. There
has never been a better time to pick up a controller and to play
along with a child.
MR. STEARNS. Dr. Walsh.
MR. WALSH. Thank you very much. I am the founder of the National
Institute on Media and the Family and proud that over the last 10
years we have issued an annual video and computer game report card
in which we have taken a snapshot of the industry as it affects
children, and that has been our interest. We are also the group that
alerted the public to the "Hot Coffee" scenario last July 7 in our
first ever national parent advisory.
I would like to divide my 5 minutes into a couple of different
sections. One is I would like to amplify on Congressman Murphy's
comments about the impact of these games on children. Congressman
Murphy made some very, very important points, and I would only like
to add to them by mentioning that the new research about the
developing brain adds a new level of importance in terms of
understanding the impact of these games.
I would like to mention three things. One is that one of the basic
principles that we now know about children's brain development is
that very simple principle of the brain cells that fire together
wire together. The more they fire together, the stronger the
connection becomes.
Secondly, while experience is key in determining how a child's brain
gets wired, not all experiences are equal. Some experiences have a
greater impact than others. And those that have the greatest impact
are those that happen during a brain's growth spurts.
The third point I would like to make is that we thought up until
very recently that the brains' growth spurts were finished by the
age of 10. That turns out to be not true. We now know through the
recent research that the teenage brain is not the finished product
that we thought it was from a physical point of view. It is a work
in progress, a series of major construction zones. And as we
understand what those construction zones are, that helps us
understand why they act the way they do.
Two of the major construction zones in the teenage brain have to do
with impulse control, and the other is what I call the acceleration
center of the brain, and both of those are undergoing major change.
So when we think about kids and teenagers playing these games, we
need to understand that in addition to everything Congressman Murphy
said, the new brain research shows that these games do indeed have a
very, very big impact on kids.
The second category of comments that I would like to make has to do
with where the technology is going. Over the 10 years we have issued
the video and computer game report card, we have seen tremendous
change in terms of the power of the technology. We are headed very
quickly toward virtual reality. That is the stated goal of the
industry. When we think of the benefits of that technology, it can
be exciting. When we think of the potential harm, it is scary.
Another development that has been mentioned by different
Congresspeople in their opening comments has to do with, I think,
the emergence of sexual content. Last week for the first time ever
there was a meeting between video game developers and the
pornography industry. One of the people in that meeting made the
statement, "Don't tell me I have to abide by this little Disneyesque
palette. I may never even use the hard core end of my palate in any
game that I make, but don't tell me that I can't."
So I think increasingly we are going to see games similar to the one
that is coming out next month called Naughty America, which is
literally a game that features virtual sex.
The other thing that is going to be more and more true in the future
is that games are going to be more of an on-line environment, which
is going to make the challenge even more difficult because right now
most gamers have to walk into a Wal-Mart or a Target or a Best Buy to
buy the game. Increasingly they will be downloaded off the Internet,
which makes everything that we talk about today even more important.
There are a number of recommendations I have made in my written
comments. I will not repeat all of them, but I would like to just
highlight a couple. I think one of the things that would be helpful
to parents as they exercise their responsibility is to have one
universal ratings system for all forms of media. The present
alphabet soup is just confusing. I think it is important for the
industry to stop giving double messages to parents. On the one
hand, the industry and the ESRB tell parents to pay attention to the
ratings. On the other hand, they consistently deny the research that
shows that these games do have an impact on children. I think we
need to be clear about why it is important to pay attention to the
ratings.
In sum, I would like to suggest a comparison, that video games in a
sense are like medicine. We all know there are medicines that are
very, very helpful for children, and there are also medicines that
are toxic. And so part of what we do with medicines is we label
them, and we talk about the impact, we talk about the effects, we
talk about the side effects, and those are clearly labeled so people
can make decisions.
With regard to medicines, there are two important parts. One is
dosage, how much; the other is what the medicine is. I think
increasingly we have to look at both. Dosage has to do with what
is emerging as video game addiction for some kids, and the content,
of course, is what we are focusing on in this meeting.
The National Institute on Media and the Family, in conjunction with
Iowa State University, is in the process of convening is a national
summit in October of the leading child advocacy groups and experts
in the country to take a look at video games. We will be happy to
submit a set of recommendations from that meeting when we are
concluded. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. David Walsh follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID WALSH, PH.D., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
INSTITUTE ON MEDIA AND THE FAMILY
Video games have become a favorite activity for American children and
youth. 96% of boys and 78% of girls play video games on a regular basis
with girls playing an average of five hours per week and boys thirteen.
1 While the majority of games produced are appropriate for young
players, a growing number of titles feature extreme violence and gore
as well as sexual content. While they represent only a fraction of
games on the market these ultra-violent games are particularly
popular with pre-teen and teenage boys. 78% of boys report that
M-rated games are among their top five favorites and 40% name an
M-rated game as their favorite. 77% of boys under seventeen own an
M-rated game.2
Over the past ten years the National Institute on Media and the
Family has tracked and monitored the growth of the video game
industry. Last fall we released our tenth Video and Computer Game
Report Card as well as a ten year retrospective on the industry. It
is clear that the games have become more violent, more sexually
explicit and more profane. Ratings creep and the reluctance of the
industry sponsored ESRB to use the AO rating (Adults Only) mean that
these games are available to more and more children and youth.
A growing body of research shows that games influence young players.
While the industry touts the studies that show the positive effects,
they discredit those that demonstrate any harm. The psychological
and behavioral studies show that violent video games increase real
world aggression in kids.3 The newest frontier in research is brain
based and point to a number of important factors related to the
impact of video game violence on youth.
1. Experiences that happen during a young brain's growth spurts have
a greater impact than at any other time.
2. Contrary to earlier beliefs, the teenage brain is still under
construction with the growth spurts involving impulse control, anger
management, and the control of sexual urges undergoing major
development. 4
3. The discovery of "mirror cells" explains why young players are
likely to imitate the behaviors they rehearse on the screens. 5
4. Brain research shows that the circuits related to aggression
activate while playing violent video games while those responsible
for impulse control de-activate.6
The combination of psychological and brain based research provide a
growing rationale for the need to prevent young gamers from playing
very violent and sexually explicit games. The urgency grows because
of the following factors.
1. Game technology continues to advance making the games more
realistic and engaging. The goal of the industry is virtual reality.
2. Some game producers seem intent on pushing the boundaries of
violence. Take Two Entertainment has the games Bully and Grand Theft
Auto 4 in the production pipeline.
3. Sexual content will increase. The game Naughty America, a sex
simulation game, will be released this summer. Last week video game
producers met with leaders from the sex entertainment industry.
A veteran game designer was quoted as saying, "Don't tell me I have
to abide by this little Disney-esque palette. I may never even use
the hard-core end of the palette in any game I make. But don't tell
me I can't do that."
4. The future of games is in the on-line environment making it more
difficult to control sale and access.
Therefore, it is more urgent than ever to inform and educate parents
to become MediaWise(r). Education is going to be more effective
than legislation prohibiting the sale of games for two reasons:
* All legislative efforts have been invalidated by the judicial
system as violations of first amendment rights. The exception to
this may be the sexually explicit games which may be covered under
laws prohibiting the sale of sexually explicit material to minors.
* As game sales migrate to an on-line environment access will be
easier and retail sales will be less important.
Therefore I would recommend that policy leaders support efforts to
educate parents. The following steps would be useful.
1. Develop a universal rating system for all visual media. The
current alphabet soup of ratings is confusing to parents and is the
reason that so many parents still do know understand the ESRB
ratings.
2. Instruct the industry to be clearer about the potential harm for
youth. Currently the industry sends a double message. On the one
hand, they tell parents to pay attention to ratings and at the same
time they deny that games can have any harmful effects. The tobacco
industry, for example, has to label their products as potentially
harmful to users.
3. Instruct the game industry and retailers to accelerate their
efforts to keep M-rated games out of the hands of minors.
4. Instruct on-line game producers and distributors to have effective
age verification policies.
5. The current distinction between M-rated and AO-rated (adults only)
games is confusing and almost meaningless since so few games ever
receive the AO rating. This should be revised.
6. Independent validity and reliability evaluations of the ESRB
rating system should be done and reported to policy makers.
7. Support the promotion and distribution of independent ratings.
8. Support public education efforts to educate parents, youth
professionals, communities and organizations serving youth.
Programs like our MediaWise(r) program strive to do exactly that. Our
website at mediawise.org provides independent ratings, research
findings, information, and education resources for parents.
MR. STEARNS. Staff told me that you might be showing a video. Did
you want to show a video?
MR. WALSH. No. I just restricted my comments.
MR. STEARNS. I appreciate that all of you would like to have more
than 5 minutes, but as you can see, we are all confined here as
Members, we have to go vote and so forth, so we would like to keep
things going.
I will start with the questioning. Mr. Severson, I went to the
Wal-Mart Web site where you sell Grand Theft Auto, and it is rated
"M" on the Web site. And so from there I read what the "M" rating
said. It says, "this game contains intense violence, blood and
gore, sexual contents and/or strong language. You must be 17 years
or older to purchase this item. This product is intended for mature
audiences only. By ordering this item you are certifying that you
are 17 years of age. If you agree to the above terms
click 'I agree'." So if you click "I agree," you can get this
pretty easily.
Mr. Lowenstein, what we are talking about here is not just singling
out Grand Theft Auto. We are talking, as Mr. Walsh just said, about
a grander problem here in which children can get access to Grand
Theft Auto, or even people that get this game do not realize that
once they get it, as I understand the manufacturer of this game,
Rockstar Games, put in two codes, one dealing with explicit sex,
and another, I guess, with explicit violence that is not part of
the game.
And it turns out that somebody in Holland put on the Internet,
Mr. Severson, a way so that a child can get that connection so that
he or she can go into Grand Theft Auto and, by gosh, can get into
this whole scene, and Mr. and Mrs. America have no idea about it,
and yet it is easy to go to your Web site. And you might stop
selling the game, but today I can go on your Web site and get this,
and I can get anybody to agree, and, bingo, they got the game, and
then they go to the other to get this.
So we are not singling out, Mr. Lowenstein, like you talked about
the idea that one movie would make a barrel of apples bad. This
is more talking about how you control so that the parent has control
of what the child sees.
Ms. Vance, how many games a year are there brand new?
MS. VANCE. How many games?
MR. STEARNS. How many video games are there every year? We were
told there might be as many as 12,000 total games you rate.
MS. VANCE. We rate over 1,100 games a year. Over the course of the
time since 1994, I think we have rated something in the vicinity of
12,000.
MR. STEARNS. So over the timeframe. Now, how many of those games
have you actually played?
MS. VANCE. How many have I personally played, or does our--
MR. STEARNS. Let me ask you this: How big is your board?
MS. VANCE. Our rater pool is about 35 members at the given time.
Those are the people that actually assign the ratings.
MR. STEARNS. You are the one person on this board, and then you
subcontract out to raters to do this?
MS. VANCE. We have a pool of part-time raters who come in.
MR. STEARNS. So there are really not 12 members on this board.
You are the one person on the board; is that correct?
MS. VANCE. No, no, no. I am president of the organization. We
report to, as any self-regulatory body, we have a board of directors
composed of publishers of games, so it is a self-regulatory
environment, and I report to that board.
MR. STEARNS. But I understand from staff there is really no board
per se. This perception that there is a board like a board of
directors at General Electric, you do not really have a board.
MS. VANCE. We do have a board of directors, absolutely, that is
made up of the game publishers.
MR. STEARNS. There is not really a board that sits down and says,
okay, as Dr. Thompson says, we are going to play these games out
ourselves to determine the content and the advisability.
MS. VANCE. No. As my testimony indicated, we rely on publishers to
fully disclose to us. Our raters--
MR. STEARNS. Who are these publishers?
MS. VANCE. The game publishers.
MR. STEARNS. Do you think they would have a conflict of interest in
rating their own thing?
MS. VANCE. They do not rate the games. They submit the content to
us. We have a pool of independent raters who are all adults. They
have no ties to the industry whatsoever. They come in for about 2
to 3 hours every other week.
MR. STEARNS. Let me ask you this question. I'm sorry for
interrupting. Of the 12,000 games, how many were rated "Adult" out
of those 12,000 games, 20? I was told maybe only 20.
MS. VANCE. That is how many stuck. What happens if we assign an
"AO" rating, which is far more than the 20, what will happen is
because of the limited distribution that that product--
MR. STEARNS. But historically you have only rated--out of the
12,000 games, only 20 have been rated--
MS. VANCE. That is not true. We have assigned an "AO" rating more
than 20 times. The problem is--
MR. STEARNS. Twenty-two? How many?
MS. VANCE. I do not know the exact number, but I can tell you it
is significantly more than 20.
MR. STEARNS. Is it under 100?
MS. VANCE. Yes, it is under 100.
MR. STEARNS. Under 50?
MS. VANCE. It is under 100. But the point being that companies have
the option of making changes to the product and resubmitting it to
get a different rating, because I said in my testimony, the Council
of Manufacturers will not publish "AO" games on their platforms,
which limits the market, and many of the retailers, including
Wal-Mart, will not carry "AO" games. So companies do have the
option of changing the product if they get an "AO" rating assignment
project.
MR. STEARNS. Dr. Thompson, you made some great recommendations about
asking the board to play each game, and I do not have a feeling that
they played each game. Your other recommendation is transparency
in the criteria for assigning this. I do not see that. And your
last thing is that you want to have a real peer review involved.
We talk about a company that says, we are making $100 million a year,
then you have an outside auditor come in and tell you if you are
doing that, but there is nobody that is doing this.
So those three are very powerful, and Congressman Murphy made a
great point. I just do not agree when you say these children are
not impacted at all by this violence where 61 people are killed an
hour or 1 a minute. That has got to have an impact, and I think
what is so disturbing is I could go to the Wal-Mart site today, and
I could get this Grand Theft Auto, and there are going to be four
versions of it. I can get all four, and I can then go to this other
site and get this, when this occurred that you could get this site
to go in and get this hugely explicit sex scene, and the poor
parents would not even know. So I think what we do have here is
more of a trying to understand it, as Dr. Thompson has outlined.
With that, my time has expired.
Ms. Schakowsky.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all the witnesses.
I want to ask Ms. Parnes, were any of the stores that were checked
by your mystery shoppers Wal-Marts?
MS. PARNES. We did; yes, we did.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Did you break out the results by retail?
MS. PARNES. I cannot break it out. I do not believe that we are
able to break it out by specific retailer, but I think we can by
large store and smaller.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Can you tell me that?
MS. PARNES. The national stores asked the child's age in 55 percent
of the instances. The local and regional in 35 percent of the
instances. And basically that is what we found across the board,
that national retailers--
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Did better?
MS. PARNES. Did better than local and regional. They posted
information about ratings about half the time, while local and
regional outlets did it less than a quarter of the time.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you.
Mr. Severson, do you think that clicking an I agree box is enough to
ensure that teens or younger are not buying "M"-rated games without
their parents' consent?
MR. SEVERSON. That is a limitation of the Internet, and the vast
majority of children under 17 do not have a credit card or would
need a credit card from their parents, which would imply consent on
that. But I think that is something we need to look at to see what
is available to help improve that.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. I am wondering if you truly "make every effort to
be a responsible retailer and take the role very seriously." Have
you considered stopping selling "M"-rated games on line?
MR. SEVERSON. Currently we continue to sell those, and we continue
to try and be responsible and sell those to adults and make sure
that that is the case, because these are adult games that are
marketed to adults, and we want to sell them to adults.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. But Wal-Mart did make a decision that it was not
okay to sell music with sexually explicit lyrics, but it is okay to
sell explicitly violent video games, explicit and violent.
MR. SEVERSON. That is a current music policy that we have in our
store. And the current music and video game policy that we have in
our store is that we will not sell those videos games to minors.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. I understand, but you have stopped selling music.
MR. SEVERSON. No, we never started selling.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. You do not sell, fine.
Is somehow violence on these games and sexual violence more family
friendly than sexually explicit lyrics?
MR. SEVERSON. No, but we just sell those to adults.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. No, you do not just sell them to adults. Your
stores were still among those where only 45 percent you asked
whether or not--and teens can, in fact, just click on a box.
MR. SEVERSON. I cannot speak to the individual store results of the
survey, and I am not suggesting that the policy is perfect.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. It is far less than perfect; would you not agree
with that?
MR. SEVERSON. I think there is room for improvement on that, I
agree.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. That is not an I think, that is a fact.
MR. SEVERSON. Yes, I think that in our stores we perform better
than the average that is being put out there.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Do you have evidence of that? I would be interested
in it if you do.
MR. SEVERSON. I do not have data that proves that.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Buckleitner, you said in your statement--and I
looked at the pictures that KB Toys sells "M"-rated games on line,
and the toys in that picture are right next to each other. Do you
think this is something that the Entertainment Software Association
should condone, and have you found other toy stores that are
selling "M"-rated games?
DR. BUCKLEITNER. I have. I do not have as much problem with Wal-Mart
selling these because they sell ammo.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. They sell a lot of that stuff, so that is okay.
DR. BUCKLEITNER. I am just telling you it is not a place for children
specifically.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. I hear you. Toy stores.
DR. BUCKLEITNER. They sell a lot of things that you would not want
your kid to deal with. I think if you look at the book rack, it is
the same thing. You will see books you do not want your kids reading.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. In toy stores?
DR. BUCKLEITNER. In toy stores there is this confusion, specifically
like Toys R Us and KB Toys, where you are seeing "M"-rated games, and
to me this is a complete mismatch. It doesn't belong.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Ms. Vance, this issue of the methodology, that
Dr. Thompson's methodology is flawed, what is wrong with it?
MS. VANCE. Well, we have several issues with her methodology.
One primary issue is that she uses very different criteria than we
have used in assigning content descriptors. Our criteria is very
plain and public, which is our raters are instructed to assign
content descriptors based on what they think triggers a particular
rating or what they think in the context of that rating category
parents are going to be most interested in.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. I am running out of time. What I wanted to ask is
if you would provide for our committee a detailed report on what
about her methodology is scientifically questionable.
MS. VANCE. Well actually, attached to my written testimony is an
appendix that does address many of the issues we have with her
study.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. We will look at that and see if that meets the
question that I really wanted to see. Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. STEARNS. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn.
MRS. BLACKBURN. I thank the Chairman for the time.
Dr. Thompson, you mention game publishers. How many game publishers
do we have in the country; do you know?
DR. THOMPSON. I do not know exactly. There are large publishers,
and then there are also some smaller publishers. I think that is a
question really for Mr. Lowenstein. He would be the person who
would know that.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Mr. Lowenstein, do you know the total number of
publishers?
MR. LOWENSTEIN. I do not know the total number, but I would say
there are approximately 25 to 30 publishers of which probably 10 or
so are responsible for probably 70 or 80 percent of all the sales.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Are those domestic or global companies, or do you
know?
MR. LOWENSTEIN. Both.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Dr. Thompson, back to you again. Do you think that
ESRB is objective or subjective in these ratings?
DR. THOMPSON. Well, I think that what the ESRB does is it hands to
raters a package of material which we do not know how they then come
up with their ratings. So that is subjective.
MRS. BLACKBURN. So they subjectively select the material that they
give to the raters.
DR. THOMPSON. And the raters subjectively review it.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Ms. Vance, let me come to you for just a moment.
Let us see. Are you a for-profit or not-for-profit entity? How are
you structured?
MS. VANCE. Not for profit.
MRS. BLACKBURN. You are structured as a not-for-profit. So that
means you would have members of your board or your association, and
some of these publishing companies would be members of your board;
is that correct.
MS. VANCE. Members of our board are members of the publishing
community, yes.
MRS. BLACKBURN. How many members of your board do you have?
MS. VANCE. Approximately 15.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Fifteen members of your board who are game
publishers.
MS. VANCE. That is correct.
MRS. BLACKBURN. U.S. companies or foreign companies?
MS. VANCE. They are U.S. companies, but some of them are global
companies, but it is the U.S. operation.
MRS. BLACKBURN. So U.S. companies that are members of your board,
and you are a not-for-profit entity.
MS. VANCE. We are.
MRS. BLACKBURN. So then how do you receive your operating funds?
Do people pay for a rating?
MS. VANCE. They do just like in the film industry. Companies who
want their films--
MRS. BLACKBURN. So they are paying you for a rating of their
product, and they are choosing what they give to you to rate that
game by. Am I saying this correct?
MS. VANCE. That is correct.
MRS. BLACKBURN. And you do not see a problem with this?
MS. VANCE. If they do not disclose product to us, there are serious
consequences for doing so.
MRS. BLACKBURN. How many times have you brought somebody before the
board for inappropriate actions or for nondisclosure?
MS. VANCE. We have an enforcement system that runs through --
MRS. BLACKBURN. How many times have you brought somebody before the
board?
MS. VANCE. We issue numerous enforcement--
MRS. BLACKBURN. How many times --
MS. VANCE. I don't know the number. I would suspect it is over 100
on an annual basis.
MRS. BLACKBURN. That is fine.
Do you rate freeware that independent designers produce and freely
distribute on the Internet?
MS. VANCE. Typically not.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Do you see a need to rate things that are going to
go on the Internet, considering Dr. Walsh's comments about more of
this is going to be an on-line process?
MS. VANCE. We would love to get submissions from anybody who wants
their product to be rated. As long as it is a game, we will rate
it.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Do they have to be a member of your board to submit
to you and get a rating?
MS. VANCE. Absolutely not.
MRS. BLACKBURN. What would you think about having one rating system
for all electronic media or all video games or all movies?
MS. VANCE. I do not have a fundamental problem with the universal
rating system. I do not see anything fundamentally broken with
ours. There is fairly high awareness in use of the system that we
have today. I certainly would not want to water down our system.
We have a very strong and detailed system, and I would want to keep
it that way.
MRS. BLACKBURN. All righty. And your board was created in 1994 by
who?
MS. VANCE. By the Entertainment Software Association, by the
industry. It is a self-regulatory body.
MRS. BLACKBURN. All righty. And what would be your opinion of a
law requiring age verification for sexually explicit video games?
MS. VANCE. We do not have a position on laws about regulating the
video game industry. We do support retailer policies, and we
encourage retailers to post signage about those policies.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Do you have an idea of what the total revenue
generated by the "Adult-Only" video game industry is every year?
MS. VANCE. I do not.
MRS. BLACKBURN. You do not. Thank you for your time.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEARNS. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pitts.
MR. PITTS. Mr. Severson, I understand you have to go. I would like
to ask you a couple of questions. I am glad Wal-Mart has a policy
to make sure kids cannot buy "M"-rated games like Grand Theft Auto,
but even if you have a perfect system for making sure you only sell
games like this to adults, why would you want to sell them at all?
MR. SEVERSON. The nature of our business is that in a lot of
different products that we sell, there is someone who is against
that. We sell Bibles in our stores, and there are people who are
against that.
MR. PITTS. Why would you want to sell a game that makes a sport of
dealing drugs or killing police officers with chainsaws or flying
passenger jets into skyscrapers? Why would you not have a policy
that you will not sell any video that role plays cop killing or
terrorism or torture or drug dealing or prostitution or murder?
MR. SEVERSON. Those are difficult questions, and I do not
personally condone all of the things that happen on this--
MR. PITTS. Well, who in your company does?
MR. SEVERSON. We try to purchase products that our customers want
to purchase. That is what we do as a business. There are a number
of game players that are adults who choose to want to play different
games, and we want to be able to sell those to the adults that want
to play them.
I am a father of six children, four who are teenagers, and
personally my children do not play those games, and as a parent I
enforce that. We try to have the same information to parents in our
stores to allow them to make those decisions and have that
enforcement at the cash registers to prevent the children from doing
that as well.
MR. PITTS. Thank you.
Mr. Lowenstein, a couple of questions. What is the industry doing
to protect the children? I mentioned parents who do not monitor
what the kids are playing.
MR. LOWENSTEIN. Congressman, I wish it was in our power to protect
all the children by coming up with ways to mandate good parenting.
There are a lot of social ills in this country that are beyond the
capacity of our industry to solve. Our focus has been on providing
information for parents who are prepared to take responsibility.
I fully understand that we live in a culture where parenting is
difficult, where there are absentee parents and so forth, but at
the end of the day, as an industry our capacity is to provide
information and tools and let people know about the information
and the tools. We have endeavored to do so. We will continue to
try to enrich that and strengthen that system.
MR. PITTS. But you do not feel you have a responsibility towards
at-risk children? There are lots of at-risk children in society.
MR. LOWENSTEIN. There certainly are a lot of at-risk children for
a lot of things, and, again, if I knew as an industry how we could
uniquely help those children, I would certainly look into it. But
if those parents are not in the picture, I do not know what we
can do.
We support the retail enforcement. We support education and
empowerment. I do not know how those kids are getting the games.
The FTC has reported that 83 percent of the time the parents are
involved in the purchase and rental of games. So chances are if
Grand Theft Auto is in the home, Mom and Dad bought it. Now I do
not know how we fix that problem as an industry other than
continuing to focus on education and empowerment.
MR. PITTS. Well, one way you can do it is not contribute towards it
by offering that kind of a video.
MR. LOWENSTEIN. Well, we are a mass-market entertainment industry,
and as I said in my opening statement, we are no different from the
book industry, the music industry, or the film industry. There is
a wide range of product, some of which I may not personally
particularly care for, but it is protected speech, and it is not
within my power at the end of the day to compel someone or restrict
somebody from producing a constitutionally protected product whether
I like it or not.
MR. PITTS. Thank you.
Dr. Walsh, you mentioned the need for having one source of ratings
for all media. Would you expand on the need for that a little bit?
MR. WALSH. Most of our work is with parents. Last year I gave over
200 workshops and speeches to PTA groups, school groups, and
educators across the country, and one of the things that parents
often say, "why isn't there just one rating system? Why do there
have to be three? It would be so much easier. The alphabet soup
is confusing."
I think if the end user of the rating system is the parent, then I
think we should be listening to what they want and not what the
industry wants to do.
MR. PITTS. And the evidence that you have received from talking to
parents is that there is some confusion in their minds as to all the
different types of ratings systems?
MR. WALSH. Absolutely. In spite of the market surveys that are
done, we talk to parents, and if you ask parents what does the
different rating system mean, most of them cannot give that answer.
MR. LOWENSTEIN. Congressman, can I just add one thing to that?
MR. PITTS. Yes, please.
MR. LOWENSTEIN. The Kaiser Foundation, which is not affiliated with
this industry, one of the most respected research groups in the
country, reported a year ago that when they asked parents whether
they wanted universal ratings, an overwhelming majority said they
didn't. My personal view, by the way, is that I think it is a
wonderful goal, and I personally would sit down with anybody to see
how you could develop such a rating system because it is obvious
that a single rating system makes everybody's life easier. The devil
is in the details.
DR. THOMPSON. I would like to volunteer to sit down with you and
talk about that.
MR. PITTS. Dr. Thompson, with regard to the games based on movies,
should the ratings correspond? If they do not, does this add to
confusion? Would you expand on that?
DR. THOMPSON. In our studies we have observed a few examples of
games and movies that have been cross-marketed. This is also
something the Federal Trade Commission reports have raised an issue
on. But, for example, we observed the Enter the Matrix video game,
which was rated "Teen", was cross-marketed very heavily with the
Matrix movies, which were rated R. And in the other direction, the
Chronicles of Riddick is another example.
I think the key issue is that parents really need good information
about what is in the media products that they are trying desperately
to make sure they are consuming responsibly, and we need to make
sure that they are getting good information, and that the
information does not put them into a compromised position from the
get-go.
MR. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEARNS. Mr. Matheson, I will ask a few questions, and then I
will let you have it.
Mr. Lowenstein, what would it take to make an "Adult-Only" rating on
Grand Theft Auto? What more would you have to do besides--Mr. Pitts
just mentioned all the things that the game does. What, in your mind
personally, would it take to tell Ms. Vance we need an "Adult Only"?
This is a little bit asking you out of sort of your subjective, but
how much more do you have to do?
MR. LOWENSTEIN. You are right. It is a very subjective question,
and that is part of the fundamental issue when it comes to any
ratings system is ratings are by definition subjective. We all
bring our own values. It is a pluralistic society and a pluralistic
culture. So what it takes for me is almost, with all due respect,
irrelevant, because my standards may not be reflective of the rest
of the user base. Am I ducking the question? I do not have an
answer for you.
MR. STEARNS. I understand.
Ms. Vance, what would you say? Without the hidden programs that are
coming with the explicit sex and violence, it is already killing
emergency people who are trying to come help, it is killing cops,
and it is killing civilians. How much more would you need, in your
mind, to make it an "Adult Only"?
MS. VANCE. Well, again, it is a subjective call. No question about
it, Grand Theft Auto is a very high--our definition of an "AO" game
typically requires prolonged scenes of intense violence. In other
words, something like a torture scene and player control may add an
element to torture that takes it into a different realm. You could
have obviously sexually explicit content that would take it into
an "AO" category.
MR. STEARNS. How about taking a chainsaw to somebody? That is in
here. That does not count?
MS. VANCE. It depends on how explicit it is, but that could
qualify. It depends on the depiction.
MR. STEARNS. In this case there is blood everywhere. In the video
we showed here from Grand Theft, it was pretty clear it was pretty
explicit, but that would not make it.
MS. VANCE. I would ask you, you have seen plenty of R-rated movies
before with plenty of pretty graphic content in that, and it is the
difference between an R and an NC-17. It is subjective.
MR. STEARNS. Dr. Thompson, for you. Can you give a better
definition of what would push Grand Theft Auto to "Adult Only", or
is it something that we just cannot even come up with a definition
in your mind?
DR. THOMPSON. We have not actually studied the small subset of "AO"
games to figure out what are the typical characteristics of those
games. But the reality is that when we do study games within an
individual age-based category, there is a wide range of variability
with some games that are at the top, and we do find games that we
would say might overlap in that gray space. I think it is hard to
say right now.
MR. STEARNS. Ms. Parnes, how is the Federal Trade Commission going
to regulate hidden programs? You buy X, Y, Z game, and it might be
to a child under 17, and yet there are connections to the Internet
for hidden programs that can get you into a whole new--how are you
going to stop that? What is your agency going to do?
MS. PARNES. I think that one thing is that case that we brought
against Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. We are sending a message to
the industry that there is certain conduct --
MR. STEARNS. But do you think an $11,000 fine is going to be
sufficient?
MS. PARNES. Well, we can obtain an $11,000 fine per violation for
an order violation. And it could be $11,000 per day for the amount
of time for the violation.
MR. STEARNS. Is that what it is today?
MS. PARNES. It is per violation. And you can define it by per day,
perhaps per sale.
MR. STEARNS. I see.
What assurance do you have from Take Two and Rockstar Games that
they will not include hidden content? I mean, you can't do
anything. You just wait until it already occurs, and by the time
it occurs, for example, we understand at Wal-Mart they sold over 5
million copies of Grand Theft Auto before they stopped it. I mean,
aren't you behind the curve? Is there anything that you can suggest
that we do here?
MS. PARNES. Well, in some respects that is just a function of our
law enforcement. When we are enforcing orders, we think we are
actually not behind the curve. We think we are ahead of it in this
case because we have laid down the marker for what they need to do.
MR. STEARNS. Are you investigating the Oblivion video game for
violence? Do you do any investigation at all pre, like this
Oblivion video game? Do you investigate that at all?
MS. PARNES. We can't comment on whether or not we are conducting
an investigation. That would be nonpublic information.
MR. STEARNS. But you are capable of investigating something before
you hear about it.
MS. PARNES. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.
MR. STEARNS. Mr. Murphy.
MR. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Stearns.
I have some questions for Ms. Vance. Do you have children?
MS. VANCE. Yes, I do.
MR. MURPHY. How old are they?
MS. VANCE. Fourteen and twenty-one.
MR. MURPHY. I just want to make sure I understand this. So a
publisher of a game, they give a list of content. That is how
that information comes across?
MS. VANCE. They fill out a form, and they provide us with a
videotape and a script and lyrics sheets usually.
MR. MURPHY. And then from that, that is handed over to what you
called a group of people recruited out of New York City.
MS. VANCE. Well, it first gets scrubbed by our internal staff to
make sure that everything is there and that the videotape
encompasses everything in the written materials.
MR. MURPHY. But they are not actually playing the game. So these
are New Yorkers, they don't actually play the game, but it is a list
of content.
MS. VANCE. They look at the videotape, is what the raters actually
get.
MR. MURPHY. It is not actually playing the game, Correct?
MS. VANCE. They don't play the game.
MR. MURPHY. Thank you.
So they rate the game without playing it based upon this system;
that is, the SRB is not an independent board, but they are part of
the game industry. Is that correct?
MS. VANCE. That is correct.
MR. MURPHY. Then what I see here is you said that three out of four
games purchased are purchased by adults, correct?
MS. VANCE. It is actually more than that. It is more like 9
out of 10.
MR. MURPHY. You said three out of four. Okay.
MS. VANCE. Three out of four regularly use the ratings.
MR. MURPHY. You said 83 percent of adults paid attention to those
ratings.
MS. VANCE. Eighty-three percent are aware, and 74 percent regularly
use it either most of the time or all the time.
MR. MURPHY. So as I am trying to do some math here, so 75 percent
of the time they may use it, but that 75 percent of the use, only
83 percent are aware. So it started with 83 percent, and 75
percent of them are aware.
MS. VANCE. That is incorrect. No; 75 percent regularly use it.
MR. MURPHY. We are down to 65 percent. And then of the games
that are in people's homes, parents--
MS. VANCE. Seventy-five percent out of the whole base. It is
not 75 percent--
MR. MURPHY. You said three out of four people are aware.
MS. VANCE. No; 83 percent are aware, and 74 percent regularly
use it, which means most of the time or all the time.
MR. MURPHY. Fine. Eighty-three percent are aware. And out of
those that are aware, 74 percent--
MS. VANCE. It is not 74 percent out of 83.
MR. MURPHY. It is clearly not all. Let me continue on here.
Then out of that, not all parents watch those games. So we have
people who the publisher provides the content. People out of New
York are supposed to represent the rest of the Nation. I love New
Yorkers, but I don't think they represent the whole Nation. They
are basing their ratings on some rating scale that the industry
has provided, paid for by the industry, not independent. Not all
parents are aware of it. Of those parents who are aware, not all
pay attention to it when they purchase the game. And of those who
paid attention and are aware and purchased it, not all of them
watch the game. And even if they do watch the game, not all of
them see all the content, because sometimes there is hidden
content. And because no one has watched the whole video that has
rated them and parents aren't sitting down for hours, they can't
possibly know all the things in there.
Now, let me ask you this. Would you accept that sort of
system--now, I am concerned as a psychologist and as a parent that
there are effects here. And I don't know if you agree that there
are effects of video game repeated use with perhaps violent or
sexually content games, but I am concerned that it has an effect on
a child. Now, let me ask you this. Let us say 75 percent of the
time, would you accept--maybe you call it a babysitter service to
provide babysitting or a nanny for your kids. Would you accept if
they said that 75 percent we are correct on screening these people
for whether or not they are pedophiles? Would you accept that
rating?
MS. VANCE. I am not clear what you are asking.
MR. MURPHY. I am asking you--you are setting the bar down pretty
low, it seems to me, as a parent, to a pretty low number. You are
saying, I thought someone from Wal-Mart said that a pretty good
number, 69 percent of the time, people adhere in their staff. My
point is--
MS. VANCE. We can't force parents to use the system. Is that what
you are getting at?
MR. MURPHY. I am asking you this. What is acceptable? The system
is the publishers provide you the information on some rating scale,
summarized and reviewed by a number of people who may or may not see
the game, providing a scoring system that is from the industry
itself, and that parents themselves may or may not use this system.
My point is that you start to chip away and whittle this down. And
yet, again, I believe that repetitive viewing, interactive, of
violent and sexually explicit video games can have an impact upon
children's behavior.
MS. VANCE. That is why they are rated "M" for "Mature" for 17 and
older.
MR. MURPHY. But you say the parents may not see these. And my point
is--and I don't believe they have a direct causal effect on every
child. I mean, that clearly doesn't, just the same as not every
person who smokes cigarettes automatically gets cancer. But it does
have an interactive effect based upon the child's temperament,
personality, repetitive behaviors, things like that.
What I am concerned about is I wish there was more alarm. I wish
there was more efforts. I am pleased that there are going to be
some ads or there are ads at stores, hey, pay attention, folks,
that are increasing parents' awareness, because ultimately I am
concerned about parent awareness. I just don't think the industry
is doing enough to let parents know.
And as we are going down this, the reason I say those numbers is if
you went through this same kind of rating, if the police said, this
is how well we screen pedophiles and whether or not they are going to
live next door to you, this is how well we screen babysitters of
whether or not they can be left alone with your children, because
since your child is left alone with this game for a long period of
time, I don't think you would accept that.
MS. VANCE. Well, this is content that is finite, that it is not
controlled in terms of what we rate, it is not controlled by other
people. It is finite content that we are asking the--
MR. MURPHY. I don't understand what that means. All I know is as a
person who has spent my career working with children who have
serious problems, and many of them aggressive or violent behavior,
disturbed children, who, whether it is the game that attracts them
or they are attracted to the game, there is an interactive effect.
And I just don't believe the industry is using enough with this
system. I think there are recommendations that you would have
people rate this who actually play the games, watch children in the
games, and have a reliable, valid system of reviewing those. I
think that is very important. And I would recommend industry pursue
that as well, because as a parent and as a psychologist, I really
don't find that this is an unbiased system. And my concern is, is
that your comments and criticisms of Dr. Thompson and Walsh and
others about this, I think they have got some recommendations you
ought to look at. And rather than pooh-poohing it, I think you
ought to look at it.
But I want to ask this final question. Do video games repetitively
played with violent content affect the behavior of some children?
MS. VANCE. I think the research is inconclusive. But I think the
point is that parents need to be actively monitoring.
MR. MURPHY. I didn't ask about parents. I asked about this. And
it seems to me--
MS. VANCE. Is the material inappropriate, some of the violent and
sexual material inappropriate? Absolutely. And that is why it is
rated as such.
MR. MURPHY. Well, I don't agree.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. I thank you for your patience.
I think we had overall a balanced hearing, and I appreciate all of
you. We have had to reschedule a couple of times and so forth. So
I want to thank all of you for coming.
By unanimous consent, I will put Mr. Matheson's opening statement as
a part of record for him.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Jim Matheson follows:]
THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM MATHESON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky, thank you for allowing
me to participate in today's hearing. Most importantly, thank you
for holding today's Subcommittee hearing on Explicit Video
Games-it's an incredibly important topic.
As a parent and a legislator, I really worry about what our kids can
access without parental consent. I believe that parents should be
the first line of defense when it comes to children. But, I
recognize that parents can't be with their children at all times.
I think there is a reasonable place for government and the industry
to work together to help families.
For my part, I've introduced legislation with my friend and
colleague Rick Renzi of Arizona called the Video Game Ratings
Enforcement Act. I think that it presents a simple approach to
ensuring that kids can no longer purchase adult-rated content. It
also keeps the government out of the business of assessing content
by using the industry's own ratings system.
Simply put, this bill would require all retailers to check
identification for any children trying to buy or rent Mature-rated
or Adults Only-rated games. It also requires that ratings system
explanations be posted in stores. However, the Video Games Ratings
Enforcement Act does not prevent a parent from buying any available
game. It only helps to ensure that children can only access age
appropriate content with parental permission.
This legislation presents a reasonable approach for retailers and
manufacturers, because families deserve real ratings enforcement.
Today, video games are by far the most popular activity for kids
and most games are probably fine for anyone to play. However, given
that 190 million video game units were sold in 2005 here in the
U.S. there's room for concern as to what kids can actually buy at
the store.
A 2004 Federal Trade Commission report found that 69% of
unaccompanied 13-16 year-olds in the study were able to purchase "M"
rated video games from retailers. The National Institute on Media
and the Family published its tenth annual MediaWise Video Game
Report Card late last year and it included the results of a survey
of more than 600 students ranging from 4th-12th grade, conducted in
classrooms. Almost half (45%) said they have bought M-rated games
and 7 out of 10 children reported playing M-rated games.
And let's not kid ourselves about some of the content in
Mature-rated and Adults Only-rated games-high scores are often
earned by players who commit "virtual" murder, assault and rape.
Adults may be ok to choose what they want to play and what they want
to buy, but it's not ok for 13 year olds to be prime consumers of
adult-rated games, in my opinion.
I worry about how many Mature-rated and Adults-Only rated games are
being purchased by young children every single day in this country.
As lawmakers, I think almost all of us are very comfortable
insisting that retailers verify the age of people who want to
purchase alcohol or cigarettes because we've decided as a society
that those products are only appropriate for adults. I know that
as a parent, I'm glad that retailers help me by performing this
service. I don't doubt that at one point in time, retailers weren't
thrilled about point of sale restrictions for alcohol or tobacco but
I'm willing to bet that almost every retailer would now say that
it's a valuable service.
In the case of video games, the industry that makes these immensely
popular video games has acknowledged on its own that some games-many
of which are best sellers-are really only for adults. So why is it
unreasonable for Congress to insist that retailers only sell these
games to adults?
If a parent chooses to purchase a game for their child and they are
fine with the content, then that of course is their right as a
parent. Marketers and game manufacturers do not have the right to
sell to kids just because kids are willing to buy the products.
Kids aren't expected to know what is right for them in the long
run-that's where parents come in and that's where I think Congress
should be-on the side of parents trying to make sure that important
choices are made at home, not at the store.
I acknowledge that some retailers are already trying to do the right
thing and I commend those companies for proactively looking out for
American families. I welcome the opportunity to discuss these
issues at today's hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEARNS. And with that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:52 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD BY CROSSAN R. ANDERSEN, PRESIDENT,
ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD BY CYNTHIA MERIFIELD TRIPODI, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, PAUSE PARENT PLAY
1 The views expressed in this written statement represent the
views of the Commission. My oral statement and responses to
questions you may have are my own and are not necessarily those
of the Commission or any individual Commissioner.
2 The Federal Trade Commission is the federal government's
principal consumer protection agency. Congress has directed the
Commission, under the FTC Act, to take action against "unfair or
deceptive acts or practices" in almost all sectors of the economy
and to promote vigorous competition in the marketplace.
15 U.S.C. 45(a). With the exception of certain industries and
activities, the FTC Act provides the Commission with broad
investigative and enforcement authority over entities engaged in, or
whose business affects, commerce. The FTC Act also authorizes the
Commission to conduct studies and collect information, and, in the
public interest, to publish reports on the information it obtains.
15 U.S.C. 46(b) and (f).
3 As indicated on its website, the ESRB is a "self-regulatory body
established in 1994 by the Entertainment Software Association
("ESA"). The ESRB independently assigns computer and video game
content ratings, enforces industry-adopted advertising guidelines
and helps ensure responsible online privacy practices for the
interactive entertainment software industry."
http://www.esrb.org/about/index.jsp.
4 The ESRB ratings have two parts: 1) rating symbols that suggest
what age group the game is appropriate for; and 2) content
descriptors that indicate elements in a game that may have triggered
a particular rating and/or may be of interest or concern. The ESRB
system consists of the following rating symbols: EC (Early
Childhood), E (Everyone), E10+ (Everyone 10 and older), T (Teen), M
(Mature 17+), and AO (Adults Only 18+). There are more than thirty
different content descriptors, including Blood and Gore, Intense
Violence, Lyrics, Mature Humor, Mild Violence, Nudity, Sexual
Themes, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs, and
Violence. See ESRB Game Ratings & Descriptor Guide, available at
http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp.
5 See FTC Consumer Alert: Video Games: Reading the Ratings on
Games People Play (July 2005), available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/videoalrt.htm. The
Consumer Alert also explains how to decode ESRB's descriptors and
provides parents with certain tips, such as "Adults who are
concerned about the content of certain games may want to check them
out by renting and playing them before giving the nod to youngsters
in their household" and that parents can use the ESRB's website
to "enter the name of a game to see its rating and the descriptions
of its content." This alert and other information useful for
parents on the ratings systems for video games, movie and music are
also available on the Commission's webpage on "entertainment
ratings," available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/ratings/ratings.htm.
6 See Makers of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Settle FTC Charges
FTC Alleged Companies Game Content Claims Deceptive, available at
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/06/grandtheftauto.htm. The comment
period ends on July 10, 2006.
7 E.g., Interactive Digital Software Ass'n v. St. Louis County,
Mo., 329 F.3d 954, 957-58 (8th Cir. 2003); James v. Meow Media,
Inc., 300 F.3d 683, 696 (6th Cir. 2002).
8 The Department of Justice provided the FTC with substantial
funding and technical assistance to enable the FTC to collect and
analyze public and non-public information about the industries
advertising and marketing policies and procedures, and to prepare
the Commission's written Reports. The analysis and conclusions
contained in these reports are those of the FTC.
9 The Commission received information from numerous individual
companies, as well as the Motion Picture Association of America
("MPAA"), the National Association of Theatre Owners ("NATO"), the
Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA"), the National
Association of Recording Merchandisers ("NARM"), the Entertainment
Software Rating Board ("ESRB"), the Video Software Dealers
Association ("VSDA"), the Interactive Digital Software Association
("IDSA"), the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association
("IEMA"), and the American Amusement Machine Association ("AAMA").
10 Among those organizations were the American Academy of
Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, Center on Media
Education, Center on Media and Public Affairs, Children Now,
Commercial Alert, The Lion & Lamb Project, Mediascope, National
Institute on Media and the Family, National PTA, and Parents' Music
Resource Center.
11 The Commission's September 2000 Report is available online at:
http://www.ftc.gov/reports/violence/vioreport.pdf.
12 See September 2000 Report, Appendix F at 8, http://www.ftc.gov/reports/violence/appendicesviorpt.pdf. Appendix
F also contains a detailed discussion of the underlying methodology
and findings.
13 See id.
14 Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Six-Month
Follow-up Review of Industry Practices in the Motion Picture,
Music Recording & Electronic Game Industries ("April 2001 Report").
The Commission's April 2001 Report is available online at: http://www.ftc.gov/reports/violence/violence010423.pdf. Marketing
Violent Entertainment to Children: A One-Year Follow-up Review of
Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recording &
Electronic Game Industries ("December 2001 Report"). The
Commission's December 2001 Report is available online at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2001/12/violencereport1.pdf.
15 Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Twenty-One Month
Follow-up Review of Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music
Recording & Electronic Game Industries ("June 2002 Report"). The
Commission's June 2002 Report is available online at: http://www.ftc.gov/reports/violence/mvecrpt0206.pdf.
16 Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Fourth Follow-up
Review of Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recording &
Electronic Game Industries ("July 2004 Report"). The Commission's
July 2004 Report is available online at:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/07/040708kidsviolencerpt.pdf.
17 See Major Retailers Announce New Campaign to Enforce Video Game
Rating System, available at http://releases.usnewswire.com/printing.asp?id=24172 (Dec. 8, 2003).
18 See Undercover Shop Finds Decrease in Sales of M-Rated
Video Games to Children, available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/03/videogameshop.htm.
19 On March 30, the FTC published the second of two Paperwork
Reduction Act notices seeking public comment on proposed consumer
surveys on the video game rating system. See 71 Fed. Reg. 16155
(Mar. 30, 2006); 70 Fed. Reg. 56703 (Sep. 28, 2005).
20 See FTC to Accept Complaints about Media Violence
(Mar. 17, 2004), available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/03/mediaviolence.htm.
21 About 60% of these complaints grew out of a coordinated
campaign that encouraged parents to complain about the marketing
of a toy to young children that was based on a violent TV program.
22 A "censor flag" that preceded the sex mini-game script code
on the game disc acted as a kind of wrapper for that content. When
installed, the Hot Coffee program changed that censor flag from a 1
to a 0 at the relevant point in the script code, effectively
unwrapping the sex mini-game.
24 See ESRB Concludes Investigation into Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas; Revokes M (Mature) Rating (July 20, 2005), available at
http://www.esrb.org/about/news/7202005.jsp.
25 Take-Two reported that it incurred $24.5 million in costs
associated with returns of San Andreas as a result of the re-rating.
See Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K),
at 24 n.6 (Jan. 31, 2006).
26 However, these increased fines are not yet in effect.
27 The July 25, 2005, resolution of the U.S. House of
Representatives asking the Commission to investigate the marketing
of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas requested the FTC to determine if
the companies had intentionally deceived the ESRB. H. Res. 376
(July 25, 2006). The Commission's published complaint contains no
allegation that the companies intentionally misled the ESRB as to
the content of the game when they submitted the game for a rating.
Indeed, the relatively unpolished production qualities of the
enabled mini-game, as well as technical bugs that arose in the game
when the first version of the "Hot Coffee" program was released, show
that the companies had abandoned development of that content before
finishing it.
28 A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does
not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission
issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law
with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may
result in a civil penalty of $11,000.
1 Gentile, D.A., Paul Lynch, Jennifer Ruh Linder, & David Walsh.
"The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility,
aggressive behaviors, and school performance. Journal of Adolescence
27 (2004) 5-22.
2 National Institute on Media and the Family. "Eight Annual Video and
Computer Game Report Card" December 8, 2003.
3 Anderson, C.A. & Brad Bushman, (2001) Effects of Violent Video
Games on Aggressive Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive
Affect, Physiological Arousal, and Prosocial Behavior: A
Meta-analytic Review of the Scientific Literature. Psychological
Science, 12 (2001) 353-359.
4 Walsh, DA. Why Do They Act That Way? A Survival Guide to the
Adolescent Brain for You and Your Teen. New York: Free Press, 2004.
5 Gallese, V. "The Roots of Empathy: The Shared Manifold Hypothesis
and the Neural Basis of Intersubjectivity. Psychopathology 36 (2003)
171-180.
6 Philips, H. "Violent videdo games alter brain's response to
violence," http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8449 (Accessed
June 9, 2006) 159 (1)