Now that the Nintendo Wii is available to help bring families together and make a positive impact on how parents view videogames for their children, we no longer need the NIMF. Parents can educate themselves on what games are appropriate for the family by simply playing it with them.

Contrary positions lead to strength. The NIMF showed that it was willing to work with the industry, and thus helped offset the potential impact of more strident people (like Jack Thompson) and helped strengthen the rating system. I'm sorry to see them go.

The public never needed the NIMF/would-be censors (at least since the founding of ESRB) but that type of alleged child-protecting, censor-happy backlash has been there to attack most mediums in their (relatively) early infancy (cartoons, comics, music, film, and now games). The public still does need better education about game market demographics and how the average game player is now in their 30s so most games are no longer made specifically for teen boys and thus M/AO games have a rightful place in the mass market. Our industry as a whole has done a poor job in educating the masses on where the game market has evolved to and until the public realizes games are now a true mass market medium we will continue to see attempts at censorship (often couched under cuddly, family-value terminology).

Where is public education arm of the industry lobbying effort? If it is there at all it is all but invisible to all of the public and most of the industry.

"The public never needed the NIMF/would-be censors (at least since the founding of ESRB)"

I love totalitarian opinions: we don't NEED people who think differently from us.

Given how much the ESRB has evolved over the years, both in response to criticism from outside (by groups like NIMF) and bungling from the industry itself (the 'Hot Coffee' scandal), your statement seems more than a bit ridiculous.

Whether you like it or not, public concern over the nature and content of any medium is completely valid because a free society is a two-way street: your free speech is met with the equal right of the people to voice objection to what you say. This is not 'censorship', it is the natural give-and-take of the marketplace of ideas. In the case of NIMF versus the ESRB, the clash led to the betterment of both groups - the NIMF was able to learn and adjust its initially more hardline position, and the ESRB has gained appreciation from both the industry and concerned parents as it has changed its practices.

Contrary to what appears to be your position, it is not strictly an 'education' issue. It is at least somewhat a regulation and restriction issue. Which is why pressure groups have insisted that the ESRB carry the water it's supposed to in this regard.

@ Jefffrey. That is just my opinion of course. I didn't mean to be totalitarian. I agree it is a two way street. My disdain is for organizations with hidden or potentially conflicting religious/political agendas.

I have notices that organized outrage at music lyrics and R-rated movie attendance by kids has waned significantly the past decade or two when not much has changed there other than the public has moved on. I also look at every other non-media industry who polices themselves often in much more incompetent ways (meat/dairy for instance) but have less on-going negative limelight than games (not counting temporary mad cow epidemics).

I'm also all for working to keep kids from M games but isn't the best control of that at the distribution end and not at the content end? Name me a politician or organization who has done anything to change how Wallmart/Target/Gamestop sells games to minors. Targeting the games industry makes more headlines and upsets less contributors.

Thanks for the debate.

$0.02

@Mike

Actually, just about every law passed (and later ruled unconstitutional) has targeted retailers directly. They all posed fines on retailers who failed to keep M and AO games out of the hands of minors.

@ Ephriam, I stand corrected and do recall that now. Thanks. Still I think there is much more heat on our industry than on the retailers but I have already gone on too long.

Good day.

They join the ranks of Lieberman in the "irrelevant" camp.

I'm not sure who's getting more heat. I know the poor sales person at Best Buy has to ask for my ID when I buy an M rated game (I'm well over 30). She told me she had to ask everybody or she would lose her job.

Either Best Buy management is crazy, or they're feeling a lot of heat on this issue.

It's weird that I can buy R and "Unrated Edition" movies there without ID, just not games.

It's weird when you look at it this way:

Saving Private Ryan was looked at as shocking, graphic and strictly for mature audiences.

Call of Duty 5 covers the same exact war, with a similar level of gore and similar themes, but some people would still assume it's targeted at kids.

WTF? lol.

Everyone should probably keep in mind that censorship is still alive and well in America.

For example, Comics Code Authority continues to have a stifling impact on creative art of all kinds, not only comics, even though comics is where it formed and comics were its target medium. Call it a spillover effect. Japanese artists have commented about this when talking about how their entertainment evolved with the creators and audiences. Ours did not, that's all, thanks to censorship.

As for games as a specific medium example, the EMA refuses to allow stocking of AO titles. That includes used copies of titles that were found to have AO content. Therefore, even if a title is made and offered, the industry simply refuses to distribute it.

Of course, publishers simply refuse to fund and publish such titles for the most part, too. Censorship, anyway you slice it.

Meanwhile, people go into virtual worlds and "cyber" anyway.

It's also worth noting that AO in America equates to "contains explicit sex" but pretty much any level of violence is fine, albeit nonsexual violence. CERO in Japan has CERO-Z rated games due to violent content. Of course, nowadays, console makers have stopped allowing sexual content anyway, unlike the 1990s or 1980s. More censorship.

Our influence in the world is also impacting other markets (sigh). I'd say CERO's formation and the attempts to form official similar organization in Europe are directly a result of our influence, especially CERO. As people here know, I love Japan, but I'm not blind to certain problems and shortcomings their. This is an example where I wish they weren't so darned concerned with what others think of them and simply stayed true to their own philosophies. I've seen a definite slide in diversity of content offerings over the decades.

We have the American Library Association constantly fighting against banned books, but we really do not have anything similar in other media forms regardless of some claims to the contrary. The attitude in other media is give in rather than fight censorship.

Speech that is not profitable shouldn't be considered speech that is censored when there is nothing prohibiting that speech from being distributed through less profitable channels. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the profitability of distribution, so the EMA restrictions on AO titles are entirely irrelevant, as is the CCA (which has almost no influence today according to Wikipedia).

Censorship any way you slice it? No, it's market dynamics. If there was a strong market for AO titles the EMA boycott wouldn't matter and it would fade away just like the CCA did. In the meantime there aren't many people making AO titles, but there's nothing preventing them from making AO titles other than good business sense.

Just as a side note, I find it ironic that they're called "NIMF." Yes, G-D does have a sense of humor. :)