Here, in it's entirety, is Vance's open letter to Utah's Parents and Leaders:

Legislation expanding Utah's existing Truth in Advertising law (H.B. 353) would require that if a video game retailer promotes its adherence to a policy restricting the sale of video games rated M for Mature – which, like the R rating for movies, indicates it is recommended for those ages 17 and older – and then sells an M-rated game to anyone under the recommended age, they could be subject to a lawsuit, fines and/or the payment of additional costs and legal fees. In fact, all major retailers of video games currently have such policies, which they have put in place voluntarily and with which they are in compliance the vast majority of the time. According to a recent audit, Utah video game retailers enforce their store policies regarding the sale of M-rated games an impressive 94% of the time – without any laws or requirements that they do so. That level of compliance took many years to achieve, and speaks to the strong commitment of video game retailers to do the right thing.

So why is this bill likely to put an end to those very efforts it seeks to support? On its face such an amendment makes good sense; after all, if a retailer says they're going to do something, they should do it, right? While the intent of this legislation would be to hold retailers accountable for compliance with their stated policies – presumably in that negligible 6% of instances where they fail to comply – the unfortunate reality is that it would introduce a liability that will likely force many retailers to seriously consider abandoning their voluntary policies and ratings education programs, undoing years of progress made on behalf of parents and their children.

It's worth noting that when the Federal Trade Commission first began measuring retailer compliance with video game sales policies nationwide in 2000, a scant 15% of underage customers were turned away. However, the most recent such study reported in May 2008 found that national retailers refused to sell M-rated games to customers under 17 a remarkable 80% of the time, far surpassing the comparable rates of compliance for movies, DVDs, or music CDs rated for a mature audience. The unraveling of this substantial progress would be a tragic consequence, depriving parents of the assurance and control they currently have with respect to deciding which games their children can purchase and play.

Utah State Representative Michael Morley, the chief sponsor of this new amendment, was recently quoted in the Deseret News stating that, "if they're one of those places that thinks, ‘Well, as long as they have a heartbeat and some money we'll sell to them,' then this won't have any impact on them." That statement reveals exactly why this law would
be so destructive. It would effectively penalize responsible retailers that have policies, and provide safe harbor for retailers that refuse to adopt a responsible policy in the first place. That is downright senseless. If the goal is to make sure our children are playing age-appropriate games, there is a better way.

The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), of which I am president, is a non-profit organization created in 1994 to help parents determine which computer and video games are appropriate for their children. Most retailers only carry games that have been rated by the ESRB, and game consoles and handheld devices include settings that parents can activate to block games by ESRB rating. Elected officials across the country, including Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, and groups like PTA have joined ESRB in helping educate the public about the rating system to great effect. The FTC recently reported that 73% of parents regularly use ESRB ratings when buying games for their children; 59% "never" allow their child to play an M-rated game, and 34% only do so "sometimes."

The bottom line is that parents are more than capable of utilizing tools like the ratings to make the right choices for their families. And there is broad support of ESRB ratings from major retailers and the game industry alike. The proposed legislation is looking to fix a system that is not broken. Instead, we should all be focused on figuring out ways to encourage parents to use the excellent tools already available to them to make informed choices about the media their children consume. Punishing retailers for promoting responsible sales policies is irrational and counter-productive. I write in the sincere hope that Utah chooses to empower its parents with information rather than undo the substantial progress made by retailers to date to serve the best interests of Utah's children.

With warm regards,
Patricia E. Vance
President

Behruz Minaii, managing director of the National Foundation for Computer Games — a group that oversees all activities dealing with cultural, artistic, and technical aspects of the video and computer games industry — made the announcement yesterday.

“This plan will help families get better ideas about selecting games for their children and can set a good example for cinematic and television productions," Minaii said. "It also helps support our domestic producers and gives better assistance to the distributors. "

Minaii said the idea to join the ESRB came about over a year ago, and since then over 20 experts, from religious, social and media organizations, had come together to work on the project.

The ESRB could not be reached for comment at this time.

Iran joining Entertainment Software Rating Board

Now the ESRB website lists the rating and content descriptors as well as a brief synopsis of the game. Take, for instance, this explanation of Call of Duty: World at War:

Call of Duty: World at War is a first-person shooter in which players assume the role of Allied soldiers in both the European and Pacific Fronts during World War II. Combat can be intense with extensive use of camera effects (e.g., slow-motion, blurring, and screen shakes) and realistic sound effects to highlight the tense and frenetic nature of each battle. Fighting is fast-paced with players using a large array of military weapons (guns, grenades, and flamethrowers). Collateral damage includes sprays of red blood when enemies are shot; maimed appendages from explosions; and flailing and screaming when enemies are set on fire. Cutscenes and historical footage can contain graphic depictions of prisoner/POW executions. Strong profanity can be heard during gameplay (e.g., "f*ck" and "sh*t").

Sounds like a fantastic idea to me. I've long argued that the ratings were sometimes too nebulous when it came to certain games, and most certainly when it comes to shooters.

And I'm not the only one who likes the idea. Both Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joseph Lieberman, who once stood together to attack the current rating system, are big fans:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)
"This new supplement to the ratings is a real gift for parents as we head into this holiday season. Parents need all the information they can get to make more informed decisions about what’s appropriate for their children. These new rating summaries offer more helpful information than ever before to help parents to get involved and get informed."

Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)
“For well over a decade I have called upon the video game industry to inform consumers about the content in video games so they could make the right choices for their children. One result was the creation of the ESRB rating system, which provides useful guidance to parents about game content and age-appropriateness. The ESRB has now taken consumer education one step further with their new rating summaries, which provide a greater level of detail about game content to help parents be even more prepared to make informed game selections for their children. I applaud the ESRB for taking this proactive step to inform video game consumers.”

While the World at War description seems spot on, I do wonder who will end up writing these once the system has been in place for awhile. Hopefully not the publishers.