The ESA

To kick-start this unit, I will research the 'Entertainment Software Association' (ESA). The ESA provides services for companies that publish computer and video games for consoles, personal computers or the internet. These services include (but are not limited to) anti-piracy programs, business and industry research and intellectual property protection efforts. The company is also the owner of the world-known E3 annual gaming event, where publishers and companies hold conferences to unveil new products and ideas to the press and public.

The ESA is a strong supporter of the video games
industry as a whole.

In 1994, the company was formed under the name 'Interactive Digital Software Association' (IDSA) and renamed to the ESA in 2003. Almost all of the top games publishers are members of the ESA in some form or another, including Nintendo, Microsoft, Sega, EA and Sony. These publishers are supported by the ESA through their services such as battling against piracy of software and against governmentally-imposed regulations on releasing video games. The most notable case in current times would be the Supreme Court case 'Schwarzenegger vs. EMA/ESA', in which the Great State of California is trying to put a regulation on the sale and rental of games because of violence. Most people disagree with this decision because  "video games are entitled to the same treatment as movies, music, books and other forms of entertainment." (Gallagher, 2010). I personally believe that no such law should ever be imposed, as it would take one of the most important aspects of video games away, free speech. Games are now seen as a form of art, and are protected under the First Amendment as such. It is fair to say sexual content and such can be regulated, as that is still classed in today's society as obscenity and not protected in any way. During the Supreme Court case, the representative from the state of California, Mr. Zack Morazzini was first to present his case to the panel of Judges. Immediately they started to find holes in his case, and pick it apart just as the opposing side would when they expressed their side of the case. When ESA counsel Paul Smith stood to present his argument, he elaborated on what the judges had already said. "California, as we have heard today, does not seriously contend that it can satisfy the usual First Amendment standards that apply to such a law," Smith said. "Instead it's asking this Court to grant it a new free pass, a brand-new Ginsberg-like exception to the First Amendment that would deny constitutional protection to some ill-defined subset of expressive works, and I submit not just video games, but necessarily movies, books and any other expressive work that describes or portrays violence in a way that some court somewhere, some day, would decide is deviant and offensive." (Smith, 2010) Smith then went on to explain how "[there are a] number of defenses parents and the industry have as a whole to prevent minors from playing too-mature games, such as ESRB ratings, parental control settings and the fact that games, at their current price, are a tad too expensive for your average minor." I believe that, as a player of games, I don't feel any more engrossed with a game than a can be with a book or film. The Californian Government seems to have the false belief that if a minor was to play an excessively violent game, they would go on to re-enact those actions in real-life. I believe that people are still a little sceptical about video games because it's a much newer form of medium than anything else. Paul Smith says it perfectly; "We do have a new medium here, Your Honor, but we have a history in this country of new mediums coming along and people vastly overreacting to them, thinking the sky is falling, our children are all going to be turned into criminals." (Smith, 2010).

I've now learned that ESA is a vital part of the gaming industry. Without them, there would be much less support for games companies and boards such as the ESRB and it's also an incredibly helpful source of business and industry information. They care a lot about this form of media, and will stop at nothing to keep it at the top of it's game.

Reference:


Gallagher, Michael (2010) Schwarzenegger vs. EMA, the recap. Available from:
<http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/03/schwarzenegger-vs-ema-the-recap/>
[Accessed 3rd November 2010]

Smith, Paul (2010) Transcripts from Supreme Court's violent game case available now. Available from:
<http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/02/transcripts-from-supreme-courts-violent-game-case-available-now/>
[Accessed 3rd November 2010]