« Ask Not What Educational Games Your Country Can Design for You... | Main | Gender differences in MMOs »

Dec 10, 2009



Its sad how MSNBC decided to display the report, and further still, I have to wonder how sites like Red Light Center are meant to block kids without blocking customers/players.


Considering what's on regular old tv these days, I think a few rough chat comments are pretty tame (see http://www.apt11d.com/2009/12/not-ready-for-prime-time-tv.html). Right now it looks like virtual worlds might be safer than the real one.


Is it not easier to just use Google to find explicit content?


I know it's only me that will spot this and only me that will care. But why is the file name OECD-VWRPT. I find this highly perplexing as, so far as I can see, the report has nothing to do with the OECD, and ironic as I'm actually going to the OECD next week to agree the terms of reference of a Virtual Worlds report.

I know, just me.

Oh - wot Josh said.


The decision to avoid games was actually a decision to avoid virtual worlds in which ESRB-rated games were set. This decision, whether or not you agree with it, focused content-analysis on worlds that had not subjected their content to some sort of credible third-party watch dog. Had ESRB-rated games been analyzed, M-rated and above (a la Conan) would probably still not have been looked at. The decision also implicitly ensured that most of the the focus was placed on the the aspect of virtual worlds that have the greatest potential to shock and appall parents: avatar-to-avatar interaction. Games with an ESRB rating below M generally disallow any real interaction between avatars, besides fighting.


It'a a conspiracy wether you like it or not ;)

The comments to this entry are closed.