Free Fun Inc. by Tom Chatfield

in games designed not for the kinds of players who comprised the bulk of the market in the 1980s and 1990s – self-identified ‘gamers’, usually male, who wanted hard-core action and equally hard-core kinds of strategy – but for a far larger emerging market of players for whom gaming means a variety of very different interactive experiences that often resemble nothing so much as a traditional board game or a school sports day.
    In practical terms, this has been reflected by the industry very rapidly getting its act together on what must be the least debatable part of the debate on games and safety: the need to protect children, and the regulation of violent content within games. Since its introduction in 2003, a ratings system known as the Pan European Game Information System (PEGI) has been adopted by thirty-two European countries and seems likely to spread still further; while in America a similar system run by the Entertainment Software Rating Board has been in operation since 1994. Most media observers would agree that it has taken some time for these bodies to establish themselves and gain the support of the industry. In this respect, however, increasingly vocal media concerns over the content of games have been a blessing in disguise: gaming has made substantial advances in recent years in ensuring that every major title released is rated, that most retailers will not stock unrated titles, and that advertising is also subject to rating controls. A 2008 Nielsen Games study of gaming in Europe suggested that the ratings are now recognised by over 90 per cent of game consumers.
    Produces of online games, meanwhile, are making very considerable efforts to ensure that their products offer strictly controlled environments as far as children and other vulnerable users are concerned. Take, for example, the British company Mind Candy, who produce one of the world’s leading online social games for children, Moshi Monsters (the game itself involves looking after, and showing off, a virtual pet monster). Its CEO, Michael Smith, is clear in his insistence that ensuring abusive adults and cyber-bullies can’t take advantage of their game is their highest priority as a company. ‘Like most of the industry, we take extreme care over this. Everything that is said between players in the game is viewed in public channels: there is no ability to communicate with anyone privately. We have a team of moderators who look over everything that is said and written in the game; children don’t give out their real names, or any personal identifying information.’ And what about financial exploitation? ‘The game is designed to be played for free, although you can get premium content for about £3 per month. And it’s designed to be played with parental input, so children can only play after their parents have separately approved this.’ It is, he explains, impossible to pay more than £3 per month to play, and there is no use of what Smith calls the ‘ethically more fragile model’ of advertising.
    Moshi Monsters won a National Parenting Publications Award for its work, but its standards are typical of online games aimed specifically at children, a global market that runs well past the hundred million mark in terms of users. Their business model, after all, relies on both the goodwill of parents and strict adherence to ratings guidelines. As Smith puts it, ‘It is frustrating, because people outside of the industry don’t understand it. The internet is far more important to younger children than television: it’s a no-brainer for the new generation. There are now hundreds of millions of children around the world playing safely online; they’re safer there than they are on their way to school or in a playground. We can’t and shouldn’t give unfiltered access to children: they do need limits, they do need supervision. Every responsible designer needs to be aware of this, and everyone that I’ve come across is.’
    It’s a