The following appeared in the editorial section of a national news magazine:"The rating system for electronic games is similar to the movie rating system in that it provides consumers with a quick reference so that they can determine if the subject matter

The proposal that an independent body should control the game industry and the companies that knowingly violate the rating system should be prohibited from releasing a game for two years is too harsh and will probably have unintended side effects to the electronic game industry. The editor is advocating the proposal by showing the shortfalls of the current electronic game rating system. However, the editor misses important aspects to substantiate the argumentation.

First of all, the proposed punishment for companies which are violating the rating system is too hard and will probably exceed its intention. If an electronic game company is prohibited from releasing any game for two years, the financial impact of such a penalty will probably be so high that the company will be almost doomed to go bankrupt. Such a penalty obviously exceeds the intention of regulating the industry and therefore not an appropriate proposal for the new system.

Even an independent body might be a good idea in order to make the electronic game rating unbiased, the costs of such a control solution will probably be too high with respect to its expected gains. The target group of such a ranking system is the parents buying games for their children. However, many parents are not really interested in the suitability of the games to their children. Moreover, if children want to buy a specific game, they would find a way to get their hands on it. Even if the independent body might be a good idea in order to make objective regulation, the costs and benefits of such a system are not feasible.

In order to substantiate the argumentation, the editor should first revise the proposed punishment. The penalty for companies that are not complying with the regulation must lead companies to obey the law without killing them. Moreover, the regulation system must be adjusted considering the business case behind it. For example, investing money to educate parents might be more effective than implementing a government body.

In summary, the editor first proposes a penalty which is highly likely to kill the electronic games industry on the long run. Moreover the proposed unbiased government body might be too expensive without any significant result.