Bobby Kotick Says California Law is "Beyond Absurd"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
So the leader of Activision has jumped to the defence of gaming as a whole?
Hmm... who would of guessed?
Hmm... who would of guessed?
Because LOL cats will never die.Jack and Calumon said:
Mr. Kotick.
Your evil is transparent. The only real reason you fight this is so you can continue earning megabucks for essentially doing fuck-all for the industry.
On a tangential subject: Anyone else want to watch Kotick and Schwarzenegger get into a No-Holds-Barred deathmatch?
Your evil is transparent. The only real reason you fight this is so you can continue earning megabucks for essentially doing fuck-all for the industry.
On a tangential subject: Anyone else want to watch Kotick and Schwarzenegger get into a No-Holds-Barred deathmatch?
There are already people responsible for deciding what 13 year olds are allowed to do. We call them parents. Are some parents irresponsible? Sure. But so are some elements of our government, and since little Johnny's parents can't dictate how I raise my child, I'd prefer that this particular power remain with them, not the knee-jerk reaction prone, self-serving law writing, security blanket over freedom preferring government.rockyoumonkeys said:
Our country was founded in the face of an oppressive government. Our forefathers very deliberately designed our constitution to prevent what is happening in court now. Free Speech is not something to throw away idly, or at all if we can prevent it. We have only two forms of media not currently protected by the 1st amendment: hardcore pornography and child pornography. The latter of those two is banned for obvious reasons: we cannot tolerate sexual exploitation of children in any form. The former is a bit fuzzier, and while I'm certain most would agree that leaving porn freely accessible to children is a bad thing, I'm not certain that undermining the Constitution was the right way to go on that one.
In any case, this is a debate that we can, and probably will continue until this case is resolved either way. But remember one thing: The Constitution is the document that defines us as a nation. No other law comes before it. This case, however you feel about the issue of selling games to minors, is about altering our existence as Americans(well, for those of us that are Americans). This isn't the beginning, and it isn't the end. It is just another of a long running series of laws that sacrifice a little freedom to gain a little protection. Protection from our enemies. Protection from ourselves. I am in favor of our government taking actions to help its citizens. I am in favor of laws that empower citizens to help themselves. But I cannot, and will not support any law that denies us the power to make our own decisions on when whether we need help. I can make my own decisions in life as a person and as a parent. If I need help, I'll ask.
Oh, I forgot that the founding fathers had video games in mind when they wrote the Constitution. Also, they owned slaves.
Uh, this law doesn't stop 13 year olds from getting the games either. The parents can still buy GTA for little Jimmy if they want to. This law does nothing but limit what can and can't go into a video game. It has nothing to do with this "think of the children" crap. It's a device to say that video games are merely toys and not artistic expression.rockyoumonkeys said:
The issue is distribution and sales. If K-mart, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Target, Sears etc... decide that the $1000 dollar fines are too big of a hit to their bottom line, guess who stops stocking "ultra violent" games? And when the video game publishers see that the largest retailers are not stocking "ultra violent" games, they stop funding their development as there's not enough return on investment. Thus no more "ultra violent" video games. Remember that "ultra violent" could contain stuff that's currently rated E 10+ or T, not just Manhunt or GTA or RDR or Halo or any superhero game or... Remember Ao rated games? See any around anymore? Nobody will sell them so nobody will make them.
This is how "ultra violent" video game is defined under this law. Vague no?California Civil Code sections 1746-1746.5 said:
Why not simply enforce the ESRB ratings with fines? Because it's not about keeping little Jimmy from virtual violence, it's about making video games toys and not free expression of ideas like movies, music, art, TV, comics, books etc... and don't deserve the protection those versions of free expression do.
Not only would simply adding fines to the ESRB ratings be just as effective as this law. This would would not require rewriting the 1st amendment, hiring a government board to rate games and hiring more civil servants to write up the tickets (ie: spending a ton of money on stuff they don't have the money to spend on) as the ratings are already done (by the ESRB) and enforcement can go to the FTC.
This "think of the children" crap is what the government is banking on to make this work. It's a decoy to make you look over there while I plunder your rights over here. If it was about the children, the law would simply enforce what's already there, and nobody would be complaining. It's why Canada and the UK seem to do fine with laws governing the sale of Mature content to minors and this US law has everyone up in arms. The Canadian and UK laws simply enforce the existing ratings system as law, they don't try to tell the developers what they can make or the publishers what they may publish. Which seems to be the more logical choice here? Hmm...
Why? Because some arbitrary council decided that everyone under a certain age is unable to handle something and as such they should restrict it? How does a certain group of people know when I'm ready to do certain things? Do they have a magical ball that tells them everything there is to know about the individual and decided that we all suddenly go through some sort of transformation at 18 years old that gives us the ability to handle cigarettes, alcohol, sex, voting and driving? I guess I must have blinked and missed it.ionveau said:
I agree with alot of posters that he is merely protecting his own profits and that is all. But so what, if his greediness makes it so we can ejoy our beloved past time then I'm fine with it. This is a perfect example of how the means justify the ends.
And I really have no problem with Mr. Kotick, he is merely expressing his own personal feelings most of the time, and everyone in business talks shit about the competetion some time or another. He's still infinitely better then Jack Thompson, or Michael... whatever the fuck his Aussie nazi assed name is.
And I really have no problem with Mr. Kotick, he is merely expressing his own personal feelings most of the time, and everyone in business talks shit about the competetion some time or another. He's still infinitely better then Jack Thompson, or Michael... whatever the fuck his Aussie nazi assed name is.
I still think we should take him into an alley and beat the crap out of him, this time I suggest we go a little softer on the goblin. Right now, we need him, but I'm sure that as soon as this is over he'll go back to being the same old twat we've come to lov...HATE!
Wow, Mr. Kotick I have no idea who you are, but you are pretty awesome right now. It's just too bad that most people don't listen to people who ACTUALLY know what they're talking about.
