The gist of what you’re saying is understood but you have to realize that there are is a significantly higher ratio of men to women in MMOs than in other game genres. There’s no need to split politicians into groups regarding gender for the statement to work. Eventually we all hope politicians “get-it”. If this happens as a result of attrition in the ranks of government then so be it. For many of us it can’t happen soon enough.

There’s a here and now solution to it all and that’s to get on board with a PAC that donates heavily to shut politicians up or at least give them pause before they run off on some ill-fated rant about how we’re all going to hell in a handbasket over Grand Theft Auto.

ps I’m preordered. Are you? I even splurged on the handbasket. RMT for the win! The trip to hell came with the preorder as a bundled pack-in and I can’t wait to get on board.

If we’re REALLY REALLY lucky then the world leaders will have friends from all around the world. Heck, how cool would it be if it turned out that half the members of the United Nations all play the same MMO?

/me imagines a LAN party after the UN meetings.

Okay, so that seems a little crazy and silly, but you never know. Right now, it’s possible that no single member of the US Senate has ever played an MMO. In 40 years it’s possible that all male US Senators will have active accounts on at least one MMO. Heck, my 12 year old daughter and all her friends play Club Penquin and Webkinz all the time, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the female Senators have MMO accounts in 50 years.

The report is, afaik, fair and balanced and has not delivered on the fears of many people of a crackdown. The reporting of increased penalties for sales underage is downright wrong, and the recomendations on age basically mean that 12 will join the existing 15 and 18 ratings.

Current consoles (except some handhelds…) allready *have* parental controls, and including a trial of some parental control software in the software package (again, most allready do) for a PC is hardly a disaster.

Games sold and distributed only online do not fall within the remit of the BBFC, incidentally, and there’s no suggestion that ratings will be applied there – this was the major concern of small online game makers and it looks very much like nothing is going to change there.

[...] response to the recommendations made by a commissioned report, the UK will require all packaged games to display BBFC ratings in addition to the now-standard PEGI ratings. The BBFC ratings are described as [...]

I have to say, I find all the international discussion of the nature of the investigation and the government’s ‘real’ reasons to be quite silly indeed. I know for a fact that although I can attempt to follow some aspects of the US government via online coverage, I simply don’t have the full background information and knowledge needed to proclaim myself an expert and to have the ‘truth’ about what is happening.

It must be said, of course, that you had a very valid point – that far too many people have been talking about how this was “vote grabbing” and few people mentioned any serious aspects to the work.

Truth be told, even in this country we don’t have a clue as to the real intent of the PM in commissioning the report. The news coverage of the Prime Minister’s request universally focused on the tabloid take of the investigation (“”Computer Games to Get Health Warnings” led The Times, traditionally considered a broadsheet, on its front page).

Gordon Brown is still considered new in office by the British public, and he has yet to actually be approved by a general election. It is strongly believed that Gordon Brown is preparing to announce a general election for when he will have the most support. We are barely out of the era of Tony Blair, a man who had spin doctors working for him, carefully manipulated the press and public, and is widely believed to have spun his way into a war. The whole Dr Kelly affair leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Over a million British people signed a petition against road charges, and the government simply said they didn’t care (I should note that this was an appalling idea for a scheme that would fail to make any real difference aside from an tasty income).

Furthermore, to anyone educated it is clear that the government will happily take action that sounds good on paper but only serves to cause harm in the long run. The NHS is a wonderful idea, but successive governments have repeatedly toyed with it as a vote-grabber that it is now about to collapse according to those doctors and nurses I have spoken with.

The ultimate truth here is that it does not matter if it addressed a serious concern or not, or if it was not intended as first and foremost a publicity exercise. The British public are sceptical of any government action, and the government too savvy to not understand the publicity aspects.

The official launch press event was held at a gaming centre, with children playing computer games spread around for the press to see. Yes, this also helped to reinforce parts of the report, but it also made for a wonderful press opportunity. Was that really by accident, not design? And politicians love to be around children having fun, of course.

The tabloid and commuter papers, however, give us a more sensible point of view. I’ve yet to determine where the Daily Mail placed its coverage, but in general the story was relegated to page two. Only the major broadsheets saw fit to use such highbrow content on the front page, and one even discussed the divide between the tech-savvy children and their parents. Ultimately, it was a slow news day and hence got coverage. Outside of young people, the gaming community, and some parents, it wasn’t of that much importance to most people. Heck, even the report itself is considered to be relatively light and exactly what would have been expected of an unbiased report. It’s pretty dull, really.

The doubts over the government’s true intentions have, as you can see, little to do with ‘dishonesty’ by ‘proponents of games’, but more to do with the current political situation over here.

What’s wrong with this very biased and cynical and pro-game stance (even with the head-pat on the lady for “doing her job” etc.) is that it makes it seems that a government (a government elected by the people for the people) is somehow only concerned with “getting votes” in some crass way, and is only going to take on the subject of games “to be a crowd pleaser” and “get votes”.

The implication is that it lies, is corrupt, scarifies people, spreads FUD, blah blah.

But…what if a government is in fact basically fulfilling its duty here? Preventing harm from coming to its citizen? And if this is attractive, and finds resonance, it’s not because people are silly gooses who didn’t play games in their youth (!) but because they are concerned about the huge number of hours their kids (and their fellow adults!) spend on games, and worry about what kind of toll it may be making on them.

That’s a legitimate concern, and one you can’t just dismiss away as FUD, craven and corrupt vote-grabbing, blah blah.

See, it’s that sort of tendentious comment that I find discredits the proponents of games every single time. It makes them completely dishonest brokers of any kind of public discussion of their product.

When it comes making laws for an entire population, though, sometimes you have to choose the simplest and most cost-effective solution. Who’s going to design, administer, evaluate, and update the better method for judging maturity?

In a perfect world, I’d say parents, but it’s not a perfect world.

In a perfect world, parents would always know best. As you said, it’s not a perfect world. I think legally empowering parents to determine whether their children are mature enough as individuals to handle certain content would simply be irresponsible. Parents are people, too, and they have their own agendas, their own good intentions, and own philosophies about life. I disapprove of any third-party controlling influence over developing minds.

No, I was thinking of something more scientific, computerized, and individual-driven. The simplest and most cost-effective solution would actually be to remove age restrictions and let people—because that’s what teens and preteens are!—make their own decisions about what products to purchase, what content to experience. Freedom, however, would be too radical to advocate, so I was thinking more along the lines of some sort of identification/maturity-grading system for teens and below.