Getting Down to Bidness

[Kathleen]

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/ge ... to-bidness

THQ mega auction time, and that means bad news for the CheckPoint IP ownership dream.

[CitronPie]

Deepak Chopra's Leela could have been the flagship product of Bionic Yoga Pants Media.

[CaptainSpam]

It's sad that I know the characters and mythos of both series well enough to make an opinion on it, but I'm trying to imagine a Smash Bros setup with Spadge (Worms) versus Old Man (You Don't Know Jack). And the results are nothing but hilarious in my mind.

Though Cookie would be weird, too, especially since he's just a voice in every game but the end of The Ride. And I guess Boggy B would be more accurate for the Worms series. And that it's REALLY sad I know all this offhand.

[empath]

RE: ESRB vs. 'Parents' segment: *ALL THE FACEPALMS*

Kathleen? I am going to quote the fuck out of you EVERYWHERE!

You can't blame the ESRB for not doing its job if you have NO GRASP of what its job is supposed to be!"

*pounds head against desk* It's shit like this that makes me wanna go all recluse and develop some means to eliminate homo sapiens sapiens from the universe completely.

Moving on...

Freemium shit comes to AAA games. Colour me not at all surprised.

My guess is Blizzard is going to release a mobile/tablet game/app/money-maker that will be interesting but equally sleazy.

Auction-tastic: I am beginning to think that THQ's trustee bundled 'the rest of the IP' specifically because of you guys.

And "Yes-no-yes-no"

As for the stinger...um, this is the FIRST I've ever heard of the 'Wii Mini'.

But wow, it was a REALLY good week for gaming news, eh?

[CaptainSpam]

RE: ESRB vs. 'Parents' segment: *ALL THE FACEPALMS*

Kathleen? I am going to quote the fuck out of you EVERYWHERE!

You can't blame the ESRB for not doing its job if you have NO GRASP of what its job is supposed to be!"

*pounds head against desk* It's shit like this that makes me wanna go all recluse and develop some means to eliminate homo sapiens sapiens from the universe completely.

Eh... I'd be careful about that. The same people who would blame the ESRB for this sort of thing are the same sort who would turn right around and blame the ESRB because they (the ones assigning blame) don't know what the ESRB's job is.

And before you ask, yes, it IS turtles all the way down...

[empath]

Oh, don't worry; *if* I do snap and go head with 'Case Omega', those 'people' (those who blame the ESRB for not doing a job which the selfsame critics don't understand in the first place) will certainly never be aware of anything I do until they cease to exist, thus unable to lodge any form of complaint in this universe.

...unfortunately, by my projections, the only way to ensure that breeding and recessive genes doesn't bring these 'blind critics' back to trouble us is...by enacting the extinction of humanity in toto.

[Kayden]

I don't get how parents don't understand ESRB ratings, ITS RIGHT ON THE BOX like seriously it isn't hard to figure out what rating a game is seeing as its on the god damn box.

[My pseudonym is Ix]

People probably do know what an ESRB rating is if they see it, but that doesn't mean they understand it. For example, until I started getting into watching films I could tell you with ease what the age ratings on the box meant but would look at you nonplussed if asked what BBFC was. Parents tend to have a rather dim understanding of gaming generally and (if I follow the stereotype here) take their views on it largely from media opinion. This information source is always going to suggest that games expose children to zombies raping baby corpses every four seconds (or something equally distasteful), and they know from hearing their kids' playground talk that nearly every child plays videogames to some extent. Thus, they probably aren't gonna think as a rule that any authority set up to protect kids against this kind of thing, which is their sole idea as to what the ESRB is, is effective, because their (admittedly poor) information is telling them precisely the opposite, and they do not as a rule understand the situation sufficiently to have any greater knowledge of the ESRB.

Basically, people are (slightly) less stupid than that story suggests.

[empath]

Okay, after thinking about it for a couple of days...the 68% might have a point.

The ESRB's purpose is, in essence, to inform and educate people about the content in video games. Which you can say is a reasonable 'vision statement' if the following 'mission statement' (taken from the horse's mouth):

The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) is the non-profit, self-regulatory body that assigns ratings for video games and apps so parents can make informed choices.

So, if 86% of parents polled did NOT understand the rating system that the ESRB puts forth, one could legitimately infer that "the ESRB is not doing a good job". Ultimately, it's a statement that - given those statistics - I'd have to "agree strongly" with.

...mind you, this statement also doesn't dwell on whether it's even possible that the ESRB could do a better job - whether the root cause of the disconnect between the ESRB giving games ratings and parents understanding what's in a game is the fault of:

a) the ESRB not communicating sufficiently, or
b) parents unable (or UNWILLING) to take in said communicated information.

*I* am thinking it's a the latter (and yeah, the latter of the latter, too ); or in aphoristic language:

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

[Vigafre]

That mission statement doesn't say that the ESRB's job is to actively inform parents about the contents that are in a game or app. It states that their job is to provide enough information so that parents can make informed decisions on what games to buy for their kids. I'm pretty sure they're doing a pretty good job at that. That 68% is the group not taking initiative.

Now, whether or not it SHOULD be their job to actively inform? I don't really know. Personally, I don't think it is. If the parents aren't paying attention what they're buying for their children, that's on them, not the ESRB.

[empath]

So b) in other words.

[Vigafre]

Well, I was mostly disputing the earlier parts of your post because you said those 68% might have a point and I completely disagreed.