Majority of Americans want the governement to regulate games?

[AniAko]

The Escapist has some interesting facts (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/79582-New-Survey-Shows-Majority-of-Americans-Want-Government-Regulation-of-Games) on a survey recently performed by the Opinion Research Corporation.

The survey, which involved 1,147 U.S. adults, found that 60 percent felt the sale of violent or mature videogames should be regulated by the government, and 51 percent believed the government should be regulating the actual content of the games. Fifty-four percent of respondents who have children said that children's behavior is affected by mature content.


Even among gamers surveyed, 44 percent said the government should regulate mature content in games, while 55 percent said the sale of mature games should be legislated by the government.


44% of gamers want the "content" regulated? I don't mind legislation about the sale of "adult" themed content, but why should the government have say in what content is permitted in a game? I find it shocking that people are so willing to give up rights they don't explicitly exercise.

EDIT Let's see if EvilAvatar agrees with the rest of america...

[POLL] - What, if any part of videogames should the government regulate? (http://ww.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40745)

[toadkick]

*sigh* I hate people.

[Gorvi]

"1,147 U.S. adults" is the problem there. With such a small sample group, you're not going to get an accurate number, especially since we have no idea who they polled.

[Goronmon]

*sigh* I hate people.Quoted for truth.

[Lord_Don]

I doubt they even understood to what they were saying yes to. If they did understand and still said they'd like the content regulated... well fuck them. You can't tell me what I can read, watch, or play.

[Goronmon]

I doubt they even understood to what they were saying yes to. If they did understand and still said they'd like the content regulated... well fuck them. You can't tell me what I can read, watch, or play.Fuck them either way. If they didn't understand the question, they shouldn't have voiced their opinion.

Unless the poll itself was intentionally deception or just plain poorly worded. In which case, fuck them.

[Variable Gear]

"...60 percent felt the sale of violent or mature video games should be regulated by the government..."

But aren't video game sales already regulated?

[Bad_Buddha]

"1,147 U.S. adults" is the problem there. With such a small sample group, you're not going to get an accurate number, especially since we have no idea who they polled.

Probably polled in the church parking lot late Sunday morning. :rolleyes:

[Heretic Machine]

"...60 percent felt the sale of violent or mature video games should be regulated by the government..."

But aren't video game sales already regulated?

Not by the government, because they have no business poking their nose into the matter.

[Loki_09]

Keep giving away your rights and soon you'll have none.

Really though, I'd like to slap the 44% of the gamers who said they government should regulate the content. Regulating sales of mature games to minors I'm okay with, but altering the content? These people aren't real gamers.

Actually, I might poll the same quetions here at EvAv. I bet the numbers would be massively different.

[Variable Gear]

Not by the government, because they have no business poking their nose into the matter.

I don't know how to describe this correctly, but isn't selling a M-rated video game to a minor illegal? If that is true isn't it by definition regulation?

[Chainblast]

1,147 out of over 230 million and all of sudden it's what Americans think. Jeez...

[Citizen Philip]

Oh gee "The Opinion Research Organization" has come up with a piece about opinions, and about games: need we guess what their opinions are going to be?

[Roc Ingersol]

"1,147 U.S. adults" is the problem there. With such a small sample group, you're not going to get an accurate number, especially since we have no idea who they polled.Statistically speaking - assuming they have a properly diverse sample - that's plenty. The reduction in the margin of error for double or even tripling that size is fairly small. 1000 or so is fine for a ballpark figure.

Though you are correct that without details, the results are meaningless. (how were the questions phrased, did they reverse questions properly, was the sample truly random, etc.)

[GunnyMo]

"1,147 U.S. adults" is the problem there. With such a small sample group, you're not going to get an accurate number, especially since we have no idea who they polled.

Exactly. It is obviously a loaded survey most likely commissioned to add support to some politicians next election.

1147 people is not a representation of America. Hell, it's not even a representation of anything other than a group of people at the mall.

And, Variable Gear, it is not "illegal" to sell M-rated games to under 17; it's just frowned upon. Just like it's not "illegal" to sell a R-rated movie ticket to a ten year old. That, right there, is the biggest misconception about the entertainment world: that movies are government regulated so video games should be too.

Ugh, "surveys" like this just piss me off. I'm already upset because I have to wait until late tonight to play EVE and you guys post this crap. I hate you all. :p

EDIT: And I don't care what your fancy survey and marketing classes say, a poll of less than 1200 out of 200 million plus people does not represent a "majority" of Americans by any stretch of the phrase. Statistics like this are so much over-blown, pseudo-science it's really sad that people put so much faith in them.

[roboninja]

24% also think Bush is doing a bang-up job. I am betting most of those would have said yes to this poll too.

[jamaicanrage]

I've always wandered who the hell voted for Bush the second time around. I think I just had my question answered. Anyway I'd like to see this repeated with a larger sample size if possible.

[SPBTooL]

Not by the government, because they have no business poking their nose into the matter.The thing is that the majority of the public think that the ratings system used for moves is government enforced too.
... it is not "illegal" to sell M-rated games to under 17; it's just frowned upon. Just like it's not "illegal" to sell a R-rated movie ticket to a ten year old. That, right there, is the biggest misconception about the entertainment world: that movies are government regulated so video games should be too.Quoted for more words. ;)

[Deadend]

I don't know how to describe this correctly, but isn't selling a M-rated video game to a minor illegal? If that is true isn't it by definition regulation?

No, no no. It's a civil mater between the ERSB and retailers.

Now, how was the question posed, did the polles know the facts, and how do they feel about other things. Do 60% of those polled think movies and music need regulation?

**EDIT**
Oh, hey! Look who paid for the study!
Hill & Knowlton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_&_Knowlton) a PR/Lobby firm. Expect bad things to come from this.

[Selar]

They should have asked them if they think the government should regulate movies. My guess? Most of them would think that it already does.

Edit: Beaten to it. But just barely ;)

[Variable Gear]

And, Variable Gear, it is not "illegal" to sell M-rated games to under 17; it's just frowned upon. Just like it's not "illegal" to sell a R-rated movie ticket to a ten year old. That, right there, is the biggest misconception about the entertainment world: that movies are government regulated so video games should be too.

Oh, thanks for righting me GunnyMo. In that case, I agree with the common opinion here - because games don't need to be regulated more strictly than movies.

[Venkman]

Hillary Clinton is all about the federal regulation of video games. If you vote for Hillary, make a contribution to the ESA to offset the shitstorm she is going to cause for the games industry.

[Atepsflame]

Hurray for ignorant fucktard Americans. My guess is that a majority of those 1,147 adult americans that they polled were part of the reason we're stuck with the administration we have now.

[Baron Samedi]

To little information: How was the question framed? Who are they polling?

[Itchyeyes]

"1,147 U.S. adults" is the problem there. With such a small sample group, you're not going to get an accurate number, especially since we have no idea who they polled.
As long as they are randomly selected 1,147 people is enough to accurately reflect the US adult population within a 3-5% margin of error. Most scientific polls rarely sample more than 2000 adults.

[Rafer]

I think people are being too harsh on government regulation. Many film directors have said that the voluntary non-government MPAA is a bigger pain to deal with than the government regulations in other countries. For example films by Kubrick, Cronenberg and Egoyan have been edited for the U.S. but released uncut under the government rating systems in Canada and much of Europe.

The thing is, the MPAA and the ESRB are already a form of de facto government regulation, in that they were implemented "under threat" of government regulation and are constantly subject to pressure from the government... so if the government did regulate games it probably wouldn't look much different than things now (and they'd probably slap AO rating on so many games it wouldn't be taboo anymore, like how you can get console games with the harshest Cero 18+ rating in Japan).

[Itchyeyes]

EDIT: And I don't care what your fancy survey and marketing classes say, a poll of less than 1200 out of 200 million plus people does not represent a "majority" of Americans by any stretch of the phrase. Statistics like this are so much over-blown, pseudo-science it's really sad that people put so much faith in them.
Yes, stubborn ignorance is most certainly the path to enlightenment. :rolleyes:

[suVa]

Three comments on this.

For anyone that has taken more than high school statistics you'd realize that 1,000 people is more than enough to give a good idea of people's opinions. Hell they do presidential polls with as many people and tend to be accurate.

Also, as some have stated without seeing what the questions were you can't really guess as to what the opinion of the pollers was about it, they could have easily skewed the results either way depending on exactly what they asked.

Last, remember that alot more people are 'gamers' out there than what come to this website. I'd venture to guess a large number of those 'gamers' are 40 year old soccer moms that love their puzzle games online. Technically they are gamers, just not in the traditional sense that we all here consider.

[AniAko]

What pisses me off, more than anything, is someone else deciding what we can and can't do. It's like going to a PTA meeting for a school other than the on your child attends. It's like pissing in everyone's cherrios when the world knows you prefer corn flakes. I believe the proper term we've been using is "FUCK THEM"

[galactic empire]

Hurray for ignorant fucktard Americans. My guess is that a majority of those 1,147 adult americans that they polled were part of the reason we're stuck with the administration we have now.Are these fuctard americans going to regulate the industry for the rest of the world? Not all of us live in constant fear. I'm sick of fucktard american's. Spank your foul mouthed brat and take his games away, it's easy. Oh yeah, the little bastard will sue you. GOD BLESS AMERICA!

[Johan]

"1,147 U.S. adults" is the problem there. With such a small sample group, you're not going to get an accurate number, especially since we have no idea who they polled.

The sample size is less important than the randomization of the sample. This size can be quite representative, if it's been sampled properly.

What pisses me off, more than anything, is someone else deciding what we can and can't do.

That's called "society." Certainly, you can disagree with the idea of government getting involved, but society does not function without boundaries/limits, and when you set limits, you piss someone off EVERY time. Teens don't like restrictions on their driving...adults want to be able to smoke more freely in public...New Yorkers might want their trans fats back...

That's society...so fight for your position so that others don't set boundaries you will bump up against!

[Atepsflame]

Last, remember that alot more people are 'gamers' out there than what come to this website. I'd venture to guess a large number of those 'gamers' are 40 year old soccer moms that love their puzzle games online. Technically they are gamers, just not in the traditional sense that we all here consider.

Not in my book they aren't. Just like a person that likes to go to the theater every now and then to see the latest generic romantic comedy is not a film enthusiast.

[Itchyeyes]

Are these fuctard americans going to regulate the industry for the rest of the world? Not all of us live in constant fear. I'm sick of fucktard american's. Spank your foul mouthed brat and take his games away, it's easy. Oh yeah, the little bastard will sue you. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
You can hate on Americans all you want, but given the way legislation has been headed in Canada and Britain I doubt such a poll would turn out much different in those countries either. Not to mention countries like China and Germany where game content is already regulated by the government to some degree or another.

[Craggle]

51 percent believed the government should be regulating the actual content of the games

In other news, 51% of those surveyed can't be bothered to raise their own damn children.

[AniAko]

Three comments on this.

For anyone that has taken more than high school statistics you'd realize that 1,000 people is more than enough to give a good idea of people's opinions. Hell they do presidential polls with as many people and tend to be accurate.

Also, as some have stated without seeing what the questions were you can't really guess as to what the opinion of the pollers was about it, they could have easily skewed the results either way depending on exactly what they asked.

Last, remember that alot more people are 'gamers' out there than what come to this website. I'd venture to guess a large number of those 'gamers' are 40 year old soccer moms that love their puzzle games online. Technically they are gamers, just not in the traditional sense that we all here consider.

Good, regulate the content of puzzle games. I find Sudoku personally offending because I can't pronounce it and I'm afraid of numbers, plus it teaches no useful skills. Nobody should have the right to regulate content other than the artist in question.

[suVa]

Not in my book they aren't. Just like a person that likes to go to the theater every now and then to see the latest generic romantic comedy is not a film enthusiast.
I have zero argument with you there, but I promise you in their survey results that's a large portion of the group they considered to be gamers.

[Butters66]

[QUOTE=Deadend;1132243]No, no no. It's a civil mater between the ERSB and retailers.

Now, how was the question posed, did the polles know the facts, and how do they feel about other things. Do 60% of those polled think movies and music need regulation?

Or, more interesting, how many people think these things are already regulated? I bet a large portion of people. They don't realize the R rating is voluntary.

This is why legislation by majority is not always good, and why so many articles on Digg suck.

[ZeroOmegaZX]

If they ever pull this off with games, then why not Movies and Books? I mean movies are sometimes a hell of a lot worse than games. It all boils down to censorship. You don't want your kids playing the *naughty* games? or you don't like them yourself? then DONT BUY THEM!

[Loki_09]

Are these fuctard americans going to regulate the industry for the rest of the world? Not all of us live in constant fear. I'm sick of fucktard american's. Spank your foul mouthed brat and take his games away, it's easy. Oh yeah, the little bastard will sue you. GOD BLESS AMERICA!

We're sorry, you are in the wrong forum. Please redirect to boards.gamefaqs.com/

Thanks!

[Itchyeyes]

and why so many articles on Digg suck.
QFT. God that site has gone downhill fast.

[galactic empire]

You can hate on Americans all you want, but given the way legislation has been headed in Canada and Britain I doubt such a poll would turn out much different in those countries either. Not to mention countries like China and Germany where game content is already regulated by the government to some degree or another.You are correct. I can hate on Americans all I want. It's when I can't that we all have something to worry about.

[Roc Ingersol]

Not in my book they aren't. Just like a person that likes to go to the theater every now and then to see the latest generic romantic comedy is not a film enthusiast.And no-one polls film enthusiasts. They poll 'movie-goers'. And those pollsters use 'gamers' to cover the same sort of broad catch-all group for people who play videogames.

If you've chosen to identify yourself as an enthusiast via the tag 'gamer' - you're going to get your panties in a bunch an awful lot. Might save time to find a new word, E.g. 'movie-goer' vs 'film-buff'

Further derail: gaming probably could use a good separator like that anyway, to distinguish between BIOSHOCK and BIG GAME HUNTER similarly to how people use 'film' vs 'movie' to cue the audience.

[PsychoticVile]

adults should regulate their own video game habits as well as their children. The government should be involved in regulating nearly absolutely nothing. It's getting to the point where games are going to more strictly regulated than guns and drugs in this country and that says a lot about how idiotic most americans are.

[Achilles]

24% also think Bush is doing a bang-up job. I am betting most of those would have said yes to this poll too.Yeah, the majority (I think it's down to 66% now, Bush no longer has a 24% approval rate) thinks Bush is screwing things up; shows you how much the majority knows about what their government should be doing.

See how I turned that around there while at the same time making it a more accurate comment on this game poll? :p

[AniAko]

Let's see if our community agrees with the "rest of america"

[POLL] - What, if any part of videogames should the government regulate? (http://ww.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40745)

[51|RandoM]

I don't know how to describe this correctly, but isn't selling a M-rated video game to a minor illegal? If that is true isn't it by definition regulation?

It isn't illegal. Those guidelines are purely voluntary on the part of retailers.

[Mac]

Hurray for ignorant fucktard Americans. My guess is that a majority of those 1,147 adult americans that they polled were part of the reason we're stuck with the administration we have now.

You know....I see plenty of people here jumping to conclusions and making uneducated assertions plenty too.

[Baron Samedi]

The knee jerk reaction to this is sad. We know so little about this poll that commenting on it is irrelevant. And why do we have our own poll? As if the comments in this thread weren't enough....

[GunnyMo]

Yes, stubborn ignorance is most certainly the path to enlightenment. :rolleyes:

lol look, just because I refuse to buy into the myth that 1200 people represent the opinions of 200 million doesn't mean I'm ignorant. :p

[Goronmon]

lol look, just because I refuse to buy into the myth that 1200 people represent the opinions of 200 million doesn't mean I'm ignorant. :pYou refuse to buy into math? *boggle*

;)

[Wraith]

EDIT Let's see if EvilAvatar agrees with the rest of america...

[POLL] - What, if any part of videogames should the government regulate? (http://ww.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40745)Technical Note: That URL only has two "w"s in it... so when I go to that URL, it acts as if I'm not logged in (says I can't vote in the poll). If I add the extra "w", it works fine. May want to correct that.

[GunnyMo]

You refuse to buy into math? *boggle*

;)

Oh, I've been for the government regulation and banning of math for ages now. :D

Like I said, people can blow that statistics/math smoke all over the place when it comes to stuff like this but you will never convince me of that 1200/200 million ratio I mentioned. ;)

[Goronmon]

Quick let's make a completely biased poll to show how way off the other supposedly biased poll actually is!!!

Oh...too late...

[Itchyeyes]

lol look, just because I refuse to buy into the myth that 1200 people represent the opinions of 200 million doesn't mean I'm ignorant. :p
No the fact that you refuse to believe a scientific process (http://nsf.gov/news/special_reports/survey/index.jsp?id=trust), and that you do so without any evidence or scientific basis for such a stance makes you ignorant. At least creationists and global warming deniers have bogus studies to back their ideas up, what do you have?

[TheKeck]

How come that link to the poll signs me off?

[WAZts]

It amazes me that people tend force responsibility on everyone but themselves. A parent doesn't their child to play an M rated game, right? So...let's see what could they do? No no they can't STOP their OWN CHILD from playing that game. No, too hard. Oh oh I know! Make the government do it for them! Brilliant!

[MosBen]

Roc Ingersol, Goronmon, Itchyeyes, and a few others I've forgotten have been brilliant in this thread. There have been too many who have fallen somewhat short. We all know that nearly all of us are completely opposed to the regulation of the content in games. We also probably all agree that their use of "gamers" is probably broader than the way we use it around here. And yet none of that gets us around the fact that a significant number of people support regulation we're opposed to (whether you're against any regulation or simply content regulation). Quibbling over their definition of gamers doesn't help stop legislation you don't like and completely disregarding the polling process because you don't want to believe it certainly doesn't either. What this poll should tell us is that: 1) We need more information about how the poll was conducted before we can draw any conclusions about its validity; and 2) if the poll is indeed accurate we as individuals and as a collective industry need to do a much better job of explaining ourselves to the public. If you don't want the government to regulate the sale of mature games then you need to do something to ensure that retailers are following the ESRB guidelines. If you don't want content to be regulated then you need to contact legislators and explain to them the artistic capacity of the medium. Hey, you could even become a civil rights lawyer and fight these sorts of regulations in court as abridgments of the first amendment. Whatever, but simply saying "Man, fuck these guys! Those probably aren't *real* gamers anyway!" doesn't do anything.

[GunnyMo]

No the fact that you refuse to believe a scientific process (http://nsf.gov/news/special_reports/survey/index.jsp?id=trust), and that you do so without any evidence or scientific basis for such a stance makes you ignorant. At least creationists and global warming deniers have bogus studies to back their ideas up, what do you have?

Wow, touchy much? I really don't care about your "scientific process". :D If you want to call it willful ignorance, by all means do so. For the record, I have looked at the "process" in regards to this in the past and I still think it's a bunch of poppycock. That's right. I said poppycock. And I say it's poppycock because even though the "process" is scientific, the results rarely are. Statistical opinion polls such as this one are designed, by their very nature, to arrive at the conclusion their sponsor wants them to. In this case, a PR firm no doubt in the pockets of some politician or other government official. I'll just toss out some random links about how statistics are routinely used to promote agendas not "scientific process":

Ok, so it's money but it's still statistics. (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1997/0310/5905199a.html)

Hmm, Mark Twain must have been ignorant as well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics) :p

Insurance statistics lie? No way! (http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/a-liestt.html)

Classic! (http://plus.maths.org/issue30/reviews/book4/index.html)

And, to clarify, I don't disbelieve in the science of achieving statistics but in the way the results are used and how the information is gathered. And since the results, and how those results are acquired (biased questions, etc.) have been so perverted over the years by simple human nature that every result is easily come under suspicion. I am also speaking specifically about public opinion polls and any other style deigned to "represent the majority of Americans".

[Wraith]

How come that link to the poll signs me off?The URL in the link is missing a 'w'.

[Kelegacy]

I say we do a Fahrenheit 451 with all our media: burn all but the approved, clean pieces. Sanitize our entertainment! Movies, books, games, music. I want to be Ascian.

[Itchyeyes]

And I say it's poppycock because even though the "process" is scientific, the results rarely are. Statistical opinion polls such as this one are designed, by their very nature, to arrive at the conclusion their sponsor wants them to. In this case, a PR firm no doubt in the pockets of some politician or other government official. I'll just toss out some random links about how statistics are routinely used to promote agendas not "scientific process":

Ok, so it's money but it's still statistics. (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1997/0310/5905199a.html)

Hmm, Mark Twain must have been ignorant as well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics) :p

Insurance statistics lie? No way! (http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/a-liestt.html)

Classic! (http://plus.maths.org/issue30/reviews/book4/index.html)

You're changing the subject. None of this has to do with the sample size of a poll. If you want to say that a poll is fallible because of the way the subjects were selected or because of the way the questions were asked or because of the way the results were presented then I wholeheartedly agree with you. But that's not what you're saying, you're saying the poll is fallible because the sample size is too small, and that's bullshit. The sample size is perfectly adequate and that can be scientifically supported.

The reason I make a big deal out of it is precisely the same reason why you seem to doubt statistics so much. Statistics are indeed misused in a number of ways in our society, and so long as people remain ignorant of how statistics work then they will fall for it every time. A randomly selected poll of 1200 people is infinitely more accurate than a self selecting poll of hundreds of thousands of people, yet people ignorant of statistics will place more importance on the number of people being polled and consider the self selecting poll to be the more accurate one all the time.

[Camel]

Itchyeyes, I want to give you a big statistically significant hug right now. You've said everything I wanted to, only about 1000x more eloquently.

[walkstheplanes]

I don't trust teh governement at all.

[Ancalagon]

You're changing the subject. None of this has to do with the sample size of a poll. If you want to say that a poll is fallible because of the way the subjects were selected or because of the way the questions were asked or because of the way the results were presented then I wholeheartedly agreeing with you. But that's not what you're saying, you're saying the poll is fallible because the sample size is too small, and that's bullshit. The sample size is perfectly adequate and that can be scientifically supported.

The reason I make a big deal out of it is precisely the same reason why you seem to doubt statistics so much. Statistics are indeed misused in a number of ways in our society, and so long as people remain ignorant of how statistics work then they will fall for it every time. A randomly selected poll of 1200 people is infinitely more accurate than a self selecting poll of hundreds of thousands of people, yet people ignorant of statistics will place more importance on the number of people being polled and consider the self selecting poll to be the more accurate one.

I dont think I would consider such a small sample size representative of the entire population of the USA though. 1200 people to represent 300 million? I'd go with 3000 at the very least. Who knows what trends might emerge? In fact, what they have is probably data only valid for one state. Maybe one town. Unless they sampled people from all across the USA, I fail to see how this survey would be representative of them.

Theres another problem in the survey though. They segregated their data into gamer and non gamer, or possibly gamer and all people. But how do you do define a gamer? Is it someone who owns a video game console? Or someone who purchases computer games regularly? What definition did they use?

I also want to know what questions they asked, whether they allowed open ended answers, and whether they made sure the participants knew what they were actually being asked.

[Digital Outlaw]

Im waiting on the day that I have to go to a XXX video store to buy my games.

[Itchyeyes]

I dont think I would consider such a small sample size representative of the entire population of the USA though. 1200 people to represent 300 million? I'd go with 3000 at the very least. Who knows what trends might emerge? In fact, what they have is probably data only valid for one state. Maybe one town. Unless they sampled people from all across the USA, I fail to see how this survey would be representative of them.

Theres another problem in the survey though. They segregated their data into gamer and non gamer, or possibly gamer and all people. But how do you do define a gamer? Is it someone who owns a video game console? Or someone who purchases computer games regularly? What definition did they use?

I also want to know what questions they asked, whether they allowed open ended answers, and whether they made sure the participants knew what they were actually being asked.
Without access to the actual poll data it's difficult to tell just how accurate it is. However, a simple solution is to check and see if a margin of error was calculated for the poll. If a margin of error was reported with the poll, chances are it was carried out in a scientifically acceptable manner. Sorry I can't check any of this as I'm at work right now and sites are blocked.

But again, these aren't problems with the selection size, but with other methods involved in the survey. If they only surveyed one town or state, then that's a problem with how they selected their respondents not how many of them they selected. If distinguishing between gamer and non-gamer taints the results then that's either a problem with how the questions were asked or how the results were interpreted.

As counter-intuitive as it may seem 1,200 respondents really is a scientifically acceptable number to represent the adult population of the US within about a 3-5% margin of error, so long as the other aspects of the poll are carried out correctly.

Here's (http://www.publicagenda.org/polling/polling_error.cfm) a resource if you don't want to take my word on it.

[ElPresidente]

Ahhh you Americans and your enshrined right to freedom of speech. :P

Seriously I think you are all freaking out a little too much about this one. Your country is one of the few in the world where the government takes a relatively hands-off approach to censorship.

Culturally, I know the idea of censorship is a bit shocking but that doesn't mean there isn't an argument to be made for government regulation of content and that anyone who said they were in favour is a moron who didn't understand the polling question.

Most other nations have government regulation of content through classification systems.

In Australia we have G, PG, M, MA15+, R18+ and X18+. Those last three have statutory rules in place. For an MA15+ title you MUST be over 15 OR have an adult supervise. The last two require you be 18 before you can legally watch or engage with the content and the only reason the two are distinguished is the sexual content of the title is higher in an X rated film for obvious reasons (THEY ARE PORNOS NUM-NUTS :P).

The system has not stifled expression in this country. We have only denied classification to two films in recent times which was Ken Park and the other I can't remember the name of but it was French.

Government regulation of film, literature, etc is not always scary and if you live in a Western nation you really don't have to get scared of walking into a police state by allowing it.

Now I'm not trying to argue for government regulation, that is for all of you who actually live there to decide. I just wanted to point out that I think many of you are being alarmist for something that is far from terrifying.

[GunnyMo]

You're changing the subject.

Not really. I still say the sample size is too small to represent a "majority" of Americans. And it goes hand in hand with my other points about statistics: they are inherently flawed when it comes to public opinions and "majority of Americans", etc.. It's ignorant to accept a public opinion poll as representing a "majority" when every facet of that poll, except perhaps for the raw numbers, is suspect. Using suspect methods to achieve numbers doesn't mean the numbers are correct in anything but a mathematical sense. I don't believe you can separate one from the other.

I do so enjoy when these statistics threads come up though. It's amusing, in a light hearted way, to see all of the statistical math nerds get their feathers ruffled when Philistines like myself refuse to believe their fancy numbers. ;)

But don't feel bad. I feel the same way when trying to scientifically explain to a Creationist how there was no Magic Jeebus that created the world. :D

[D.D.D.]

Yeah... Because 1,147 people really represent how 300 million feel. :rolleyes:

[AversionFX]

Majority of Americans want the governement to regulate games?

Of course they do. Americans (by and large) are just too fucking stupid and/or lazy to do anything themselves.

[Johan]

a scientific process (http://nsf.gov/news/special_reports/survey/index.jsp?id=trust)

Well dang!

When conducting a survey, how a researcher selects participants is just as important as how many participate.

And I said, way back on post #31:

The sample size is less important than the randomization of the sample. This size can be quite representative, if it's been sampled properly.

I also was promptly ignored. :D

[OmegaVader]

Thankfully, one of the few beautiful things about America is that it's *not* about what the majority wants (at least, not always). Individual liberties are always protected first.

[KingGorilla]

I wonder how many of these "Americans" also think that the government already regulates movies, pornography, and books in the same way? The answer is that they fucking don't. And we already know how badly the FCC has cocked up television.

[AbeLincoln]

By "sale" do they mean "sale to minors" or do they mean we can ban manhunt 2 from being sold anywhere to anyone type of "sale" Not enough information or qualifications in those questions.
Content shouldn't be touched by the government and sale to adults shouldn't be touched.
If they do want to restrict sale to minors I don't see the problem. How many 13 year olds you know that can afford to buy $50 or $60 games every month? Their parents are already buying it for them, so I don't think it'll really change anything so they can knock themselves out.

[Banacek]

"1,147 U.S. adults" is the problem there. With such a small sample group, you're not going to get an accurate number, especially since we have no idea who they polled.

The people who answer these polls are in no way the majority of the country. Most people are too busy to waste their time.

[51|RandoM]

Im waiting on the day that I have to go to a XXX video store to buy my games.

Kill 2 birds with 1 stone? ;)

[Commissar Rob]

Hmmm, looks like Hill & Knowlton weren't supposed to release this data at all - methodology questions aside:

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8232&Itemid=2

The additional, unpublished findings are more positive:


More than two-thirds of 18-34 year olds currently play video games
Less than 1 in 5 Americans think playing video games is a negative way to spend time with friends and family
More than half of families think that video games are a positive way to spend time together
Educational video games are perceived to provide more learning than TV or DVDs.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I wonder how many of these "Americans" also think that the government already regulates movies, pornography, and books in the same way? The answer is that they fucking don't. And we already know how badly the FCC has cocked up television.

Honestly? It's not that bad. Censorship doesn't really mess TV up very much.

[Johan]

Honestly? It's not that bad. Censorship doesn't really mess TV up very much.

Well, unless you want to see the breast of a member of the Jackson family (does anyone?), I'd say the FCC is pretty harmless as regards TV.

[bean19]

"1,147 U.S. adults" is the problem there. With such a small sample group, you're not going to get an accurate number, especially since we have no idea who they polled.

Statistics will tell us that this is actually a good sampling. I bet the +/- on these results are within 5% of worldwide results.

What this means is that people are really uneducated about videogames. I talk to people about videogames often, and people talk about them like videogames and violence are a given. . . the way you might talk about television causing sloth or stupidity.

A large part of this is due to our terrible news media in the United States that loves to run stories that frighten people about the safety of their children. They'll do long segments of anecdotal evidence pointing to videogame related violence, but when scientific studies come out to debunk this myth, they'll completely ignore them and continue reporting anecdotal stories.

Maybe we should start a grass roots effort to educate parents about videogames. We should gather together all scientific studies on this and write a document regarding the potential problems of violence, sloth, etc. that may result from videogame use (if any), and include information about the ESRB system. Make a website that has all of this with links to the studies in an easy to read format, and start asking people to send information to their friends and colleagues. I bet we could get coverage on the major gaming sites and Penny-Arcade.

If someone is willing to do the web-page work and offer hosting, then I'm willing to do the research, write the content, and promote the site. Send me a PM.

[MosBen]

GunnyMo, you still haven't given any support for your argument against statistical analysis. As far as I can tell, you're essentially saying, "It's like magic, and magic isn't real!" The problem, of course, is that it's not like magic. You're absolutely right to question the other methods they used in the poll. Anything from how they selected the sample to the questions they asked or even just the way the questions were phrased or ordered could raise serious doubts as to its findings. The one thing that's not suspect, however, is the sample size of just under twelve hundred people. That is a completely legitimate number of people to poll assuming, and again this is key, that the sample of twelve hundred people was selected properly and that the questions were posed properly as well.

I guess you're getting some somewhat frustrated seeming responses from people because you're just dismissing statistical analysis as if simply not believing in, or perhaps not understanding, gravity, genetics, or math simply invalidates them.

[Banacek]

GunnyMo, you still haven't given any support for your argument against statistical analysis. As far as I can tell, you're essentially saying, "It's like magic, and magic isn't real!" The problem, of course, is that it's not like magic. You're absolutely right to question the other methods they used in the poll. Anything from how they selected the sample to the questions they asked or even just the way the questions were phrased or ordered could raise serious doubts as to its findings. The one thing that's not suspect, however, is the sample size of just under twelve hundred people. That is a completely legitimate number of people to poll assuming, and again this is key, that the sample of twelve hundred people was selected properly and that the questions were posed properly as well.

I guess you're getting some somewhat frustrated seeming responses from people because you're just dismissing statistical analysis as if simply not believing in, or perhaps not understanding, gravity, genetics, or math simply invalidates them.

His problem is not with statistical analysis, but with the sample group. Most polls are conducted during the middle of the day by telemarketers. Now, there is no possible way that those people make an accurate sample of the population, since most of the population is working at that time. It's like having a poll that asks, "Do you believe in God?" outside a church.

[Wolvie]

Wow that poll sucks. And anyways it doesn't matter, the government CAN'T regulate content in ANY entertainment format. It's unconstitutional.

[KingGorilla]

Honestly? It's not that bad. Censorship doesn't really mess TV up very much.

I forgot to mention that the FCC is planning on branching out into cable regulation as well.

[H.Bogard]

GovernEment?

[ubartehbarbarian]

God, Americans are stupid.

Seeya in Mexico, I gotta get out of here before my fellow countrymen vote in the next Hitler.

[MosBen]

Banacek, yes, he's questioned the methods of selecting the sample group several times. He has also, however, questioned whether 1,200 people can ever be a sufficient number of people polled to accurately reflect national opinion. While the former is a perfectly reasonable basis to question the results, as they don't provide us with information on how the poll was conducted , the latter is not.

[Mot Wakorb]

This is why I'm glad that the gamer generation is about to be parenting - hopefully most of them will have a better clue as to what games their kids should be playing, since we *get* the reasons why they label the game what they label it. At least, that's what I'm hoping for.

[Bahamut]

Just to preface my remarks, I am a graduate student in mathematics.

Statistics can be highly accurate - for example, oftentimes, the political polls are taken with sample sizes as small as ~500 people. The problem is that there is not much details to go by, i.e. how was the poll conducted.

It's true that statistics relies on a logical fallacy, in that you're able to approximate the overall population with a small portion, but for practical purposes, proper statistics is good. Why else would businesses and such rely on such methods (for example, for determining what % of their goods are defects - they only check random samples, not every item)?

[nnanji]

I haven't read all of this thread, but in case anyone cares, Gamepolitics (http://gamepolitics.com/2007/12/06/consumers-govt-should-regulate-games-esa-research-firm-did-us-wrong/) has posted a response to the survey from the ESA.

An ESA spokesman told GamePolitics:

The research released today was conducted by Hill & Knowlton for a proposal the agency made to the ESA this summer… Hill & Knowlton’s decision to release these findings was both unprofessional and unethical and its timing is questionable.

The research was… only performed in an effort to help Hill & Knowlton win our business. In addition, the release of only part of the findings paints an inaccurate picture of the entertainment software industry.

The ESA was also angry that H&K didn’t release other, more positive results, including:

-More than two-thirds of 18-34 year olds currently play video games;
-Less than 1 in 5 Americans think playing video games is a negative way to spend time with friends and family;
-More than half of families think that video games are a positive way to spend time together
-Educational video games are perceived to provide more learning than TV or DVDs.