Honestly, video games have been under fire since Mortal Kombat back in 1993 and nothing has really changed.
Except the reaction by gamers. While it may have happened before elsewhere, on non-game related topics, this is the first time that gamers have really gone after one of these people in such a creative manner (the "critibombing" of her books in order to hurt sales). That makes it noteworthy.
Also, Mortal Kombat was pretty intense for that era. Mass Effect barely registers. So the outrage to their supposed objection is even more justified than perhaps ever before.
But you are right, nothing will immediately change for the worse. The industry voluntarily agreed to the ESRB's as a way to avoid unwanted legislation. Unfortunately, many retailers now act like those ratings *are* law.
Luckily, one of the recent news murmurs I have heard is that the Entertainment Software Association is doing what sadly needs to be done by industries in America to secure their rights as an industry, and that's contribute money. Yes, the ESA is forming a lobby in government and money-hungry parties and government bodies should stand up and take notice, seeing as how the gaming industry is a multi-billion dollar industry and an industry that continues to grow in the face of economic recession. I just can't wait until our generation starts to move into power and realizes the strength of the gaming market. I'm sure if the ESA came knocking on the Hillary Clinton campaign door with campaign funds, her attitude towards violent video games would change overnight. God Bless the Free Market.
The free market is killing this country in terms of import/export (we import as much as 90% of our goods in some markets.. not really great for the domestic workforce), so until we can get our butts into gear, i suppose you could say i am something of an economic protectionist. But yeah, i shudder to think what would happen to gaming with Hilary as president. Luckily she lost another primary tonight (Saturday), and by a huge margin, which keeps her candidacy from being assured. Personally i am for Obama, but considering politics is a no-win/all-lose discussion, i'd like to stay as far as away from mainstream politics discussion as possible, so let's not go any deeper there.
Back to the topic at hand, i assume you are referring to the creation of the
ECA (Electronic Consumers Association). It is a watchdog group that exists, in their own words, "
to defend against political activity that is threatening the creation and publishing of video games." I truly hope it does come to some kind of power. While i am against lobbyist groups as a rule, gaming needs something in a position of real power to defend itself. However, they need, as you say, money. But also support, lawyers, and a landmark case to sink their teeth into that can help them make a name for themselves. Until they can show that they have some bite, it's really just a lot of talk.
A primary message of the ECA is that we can no longer simply ignore these attacks. An unanswered attack does damage. Just look at the difference between a Leisure Suit Larry game of the 1980's which needed no ratings, and the climate of today where a game that shows like a split second of bare butt can be a target. Things have obviously gotten worse as the market expands. So like the ECA, i get outraged when i see this kind of thing. I don't simply shrug my shoulders and figure it amounts to nothing because, as the formation of the ECA tells us, that level of complacency can be dangerous.
