You don't think there are plenty of parents who need this? Too many still don't even know that there's a video game rating system.

@ Chris Hendricks - Isn't that the truth?

Chris,

I don't see how any parent who buys games could be completely ignorant of the ratings. However, I do understand that there are parents who don't care about the ratings. Big difference though.

The ignorant can be taught but those who don't care won't care even if they see these campaigns.

@ E Zachary Knight - That's true, too!

Right now old, childless non-gamers only have the news telling them that since someone does something terrible & plays video games it's clearly the fault of the video games.

Logic & reason go out the window when there's a chance to put a bugbear in the room to scare people into associating blame & demonizing something. It's been a problem ever since that rash of people's heads being jumped on in 1985 & the recent epidemic of walkouts as thousands quit their jobs to become rural farmers.

Yeah, but I think it's obvious that just having something you can easily ignore among all the other garbage at the register is obviously not working. Some simple ideas off the top of my head:

- Educating store managers more on making sure parents understand

- Including flyers in used games

- Finding a way to incentivize consumers to learn more...coupons for taking a questionnaire, maybe?

- Traditional PR: Get the ESRB and/or the ECA on like, the Today Show

- Pushing to get PSA ads into the publications that parents read

I think the first point could be really powerful. In general, people who work for specialty shops like GameStop are passionate about video games. If we educate them on what's at stake if we don't turn around our image problem, they'll proudly join the cause and champion consumer education.

Frank,

I think it is a good idea, however, how does educating the managers of specialty game shops help educate the "old, childless, people who don't play games"? They are typically the ones who are are calling for legislation and "studies".

As a single person in the dating pool I have this conversation a lot more often than I care to once I inevitably talk about my job. In my experience this isn't just an "old people" problem, my anecdotal evidence suggests that your average late 20s to early 30s person thinks that video games are significantly more violent and less accessible now than they were when we were kids.

So true, this girl was probably in her early 30 and clearly played when she was younger but now it looks to her like all we are about is violence and gore sadly. The remark about my belt buckle and how games used to be fun really struck me. Then I drop by Gamasutra and you posted a piece about our image problem and the ESA's proposed plan to fix it surprising timing to say the least.

I have had the same experience with many people from early 20s up to late 30s

However a "rating board awareness campaign" won't change that perception at all. What this is about seems almost a desperate attempt to say "look government look, we're doing something!1"

It doesn't change the fact that this year and the next and probably for a longer time, just a mere tip of the iceberg of video games will create public attention due to large-scale advertisement. And those are usually the "transformers"-games.

I say it's a complex cultural problem with many roots that isn't influenced by making parents aware of age ratings. It's not that games with M+ ratings are necessarily "mature" games or anything representing for the diversity of the industry.

In fact, I find this article headline misleading since I cannot see that this campaign is aimed for "image improvement" as much as merely pointing out, in a defensive stance, that there are ratings. Which isn't really new either.

Here in Germany we had a change in the cover symbols for age ratings (which actually ruined every cover and made me buy locally created games in the UK) years ago and it didn't change any persons view of the bad image of games.


What does change that view, or at least really educates people who aren't aware of anything more as the occasional TV ad, is coverage of a larger variety within the traditional mainstream media in my experience.
Quite a few of those people you and I referred to read newspapers or watch TV. But the image created there is mainly negative.

As long as TV networks and papers scandalize games, well actually lie into our faces with their dirty hate campaigns with merely any truth in it, the perception probably stays as it is. I still see the the same "documentations" about 14 year old "wow addicts" as around 10 years ago when games started to grab attention of the general public.

@ Kujel Selsuru - Even the movie Wreck-it Ralph poked fun of the way people view today's games during the scene in which Ralph was inside Hero's Duty! Not even Nintendo alone can change the way some people think about games in these days. That's why VP Biden gave the warning that he did when he talked with the representatives of the videogame industry. It wasn't an attack on the industry, but it was more of a heads up that no matter how much the Supreme Court points out that the videogame industry is protected by the First Amendment, the general public is not going to care as they have this belief that today's games are violent, which is far from the truth as not all games have violence to begin with. We could and should try to educate people about the truth behind videogames and show them that there are videogames with a positive side out there, but we should keep in mind that we may never convince hardliners/extremists that videogames have a positive side.

@ Gary Riccio - Agreed! Also, I'm glad that Rep. Schultz made the comment that she did, because couple people commented on Gamasutra about the issues with parents when it comes to videogames.