The ESA will have to take that action itself. Maybe it will get a clue from it's members.
Right now Hollywood is desperate to break in to videogames. They know that games are an important part of the future, and want very badly to start making good movie based games. But so far they haven't had much luck.
As it stands, if the game industry couldn't continue making weak movie tie-ins, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. They are a handy cash cow, but as often as not they are abysmal games, no thanks to the movie industry itself.
How should companies like Nintendo or Sony (the game division) deal with the rampant piracy of games on their systems?
Just because someone thinks of a way to make money doesn't mean it has to work. If a business can only work by infringing on other people's freedom we have to ask if it's worth it.
Anyone can make money if they can get a law passed that outlaws doing it without them. That doesn't mean the population will support that law.
As Corey Doctorow pointed out in his speech at a recent conference, copying will only get easier. In this world of increasingly computerized things, corporations will continue to struggle with this core problem: Computers (of all types) are general purpose (at the architecture level) and execute instructions given to it. How can we make it so it doesn't execute code that we don't like?
As others have pointed out, if your profitability relies chiefly on the secret order of 1s and 0s and restricting access to that voodoo then you're in for a long uphill battle because all of computing can be summed up as the art and science of copying bits from one location to another as cheaply and as efficiently as possible.
In the case of video game developers we've seen a few models that take into consideration copyright infringement. Some games have demonstrated profitable virtual economies with the company taking a cut of the profit, and even a company like Nintendo sells its hardware at a profit so as long as people have a reason to purchase Nintendo hardware there is room for a company like Nintendo to exist. This isn't to say these are the only or the best solutions, but rather just pointing out that to stay profitable going forward there is no reason to believe outdated business models will continue to thrive.
The flip-side is rewarding good customers. By not having a hacked console, you can use online services (such as Xbox LIVE).
Although amusingly, I think the answer may actually be in free-to-play games. 2011, in my opinion, was the year F2P changed from evil Zynga social games and last-ditch MMO fallback to a serious triple digit growth area with games like League of Legends and Team Fortress 2. Expect to see F2P on Sony consoles soon. (Sony is more liberal with their online policy, which is why I'm predicting the first popular F2P on their systems. Microsoft is very domineering of Xbox LIVE and how their online play works, and Nintendo's online strategy is somewhere in the pre-fire stoneage.)
I guess the best way is to make online content delivery coupled with the physical product the norm for games products. That gives vendors a chance to make piracy more trouble than it's worth.
But there maybe are changes to law that can be made too.
1) The anti-piracy systems in the consoles are more advanced; got cracked later than before.
2) Online is more prevalent and it's much harder to play online with a pirated copy; getting your online account banned for piracy is punishing due to trophies/gamerscore. This is definitely the way that the games industry is heading, with a really strong push towards adding online value, DLC and IAP to even single-player games.
3) Games are usually not region locked and worldwide releases are more common: one of the major reasons to chip a console was to play import games, which would then allow you to play all those cheap knock-offs.
People I know who pirate games say they will only pirate the ones that aren't "worth buying". When a company makes something impressive enough, they like to reward that company with their money.
When those people have bought your game and sales drop off, lower the price! You'll never be able to get down to "free", but there are a lot of people who would buy a game for $5 who won't ever buy it for $60, no matter how long the price stays there. I have dozens of games on steam that I wouldn't have bought if they weren't 70% off.
I think console game makers would fare better if they did the same. They get mad about used game stores selling their old games for cheap when there's no reason they couldn't do the same thing and take that market back with the sales pitch of "hey, its new" and "you're supporting us by buying from us instead of GameStop".
All of that being said, I don't think it's quite as big of a deal as some would make it out to be. The game industry's already bigger than movies and music. I haven't heard of a company that made games everyone loved, then went under because of piracy. Anyone got an example?
The problem here is immediacy. Even with savage price drops, games are notoriously short-tailed. Gamers want them as soon as they come out, not a moment later. BEFORE they come out if possible - leaks are massively popular. Gamers will see the $70 price at launch, find they can't/won't pay that, then turn to bittorrent. They won't wait until it becomes affordable.
Personally, I'd rather not break the law, I have about 15 games on my Wii, and one or two get played a few times a year, so my itch to play Super Mario occasionally, gets scratched just fine.
I don't think there's any real evidence that cutting price affects price in any major way. Entertainment products are fairly price-inelastic* and collectors' editions are almost Veblen goods.
*Although they obviously respond well to sales and temporary price drops, permanent price cuts don't seem to help much.
Purchasing the game is significantly more convenient than downloading one from the community which may or may not have bugs or malware installed. The only reason that torrenting is competitive with the legal game market is because the price of a game far exceeds the added value it provides in the eyes of the target market.