Bobby Kotick Says California Law is "Beyond Absurd"

[Therumancer]

[GAH!]

Dude.

The two party system is a complete illusion right now. Both the GOP and the democratic party want the exact same things, the only real difference is how they'll try to get it. Governmental empowerment or corporate empowerment.

Your rights haven't been a real issue for a long, long time. The only way to maintain your rights is to keep switching back and forth between parties, as while their goals are identical, their methods are contradictory. So long as the GOP doesn't try something impossibly stupid like "PALIN FOR PRESIDENT" IN '12, switching over shouldn't be too difficult. As thanks to all the aggressive counter-spin (like blaming obama for W's mess) no one really remembers why they voted for Obama. I do, though. Network neutrality. Something ACTA has the power to end.

I'm not going to argue this simply because it would get well off the subject.

I will simply say that right now I don't think the problem is with one person like Obama, but with the Democratic party itself. That organization needs to be removed as much as possible for the time being. Nailing Obama, Hillary, or any other specific Democratic leader isn't going to accomplish anything because this isn't a problem tied to one specific person.

While I disagree with the goals being identical, but I will say that Republicans are far from saintly as a group themselves. While I tend to wind up agreeing with that side more (when it happens) my beliefs on differant things fall on both sides of the fence. I tend mostly to look at the people rather than the party nowadays.

What I'm saying is that the way the Democrats are operating right now, make them worse (organization vs. organization) than The Republicans. As they are right now The Republicans could not have gotten these balls rolling to begin with. What I'm proposing (despite my usual slant) is more of a reaction to current events, than some kind of massive attempt at conversion.

As far as Palin goes, I would not want to vote for her personally even though I don't hate her. However if I had to choose between her or Obama right now, I'd probably pick her. However had she been the "face" for the last presidential election instead of Mccain (ie her as President and Mccain as VP) I probably would have voted for Obama instead of Mccain as I did. She doesn't strike me as being presidential material.

 

[REAPER5594]

Thanks Kotick. you'll still be a douche in our hearts though.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

In fairness, the man might be a bit of a money whore, but he does do business quite well. He knows how to work the law, and what the law means. Though, judging by the amount of support the EMA and co are gathering, it looks like a sure thing that the law will be shot down once again.

 

[Magnalian]

Shoulda seen this one coming. Mr. Kotick may be a fat bastard, but he's also CEO of a company that would probably lose quite a bit of money should this law pass. For now, he is on 'our side', though it is a fragile alliance at best.

Finally. Now hopefully the two of them will go at each other until there's nothing left.

Perhaps in a children's card game?

On motorcycles?

 

[subject_87]

Bobby Kotick says something intelligent and sensible.. .the universe will collapse any moment now.

 

[ImprovizoR]

Of course he's gonna say that. For the same reason cigar companies used to tell people that cigars are healthy. For the same reason oil companies insist on using oil when there are cheaper and better alternatives. For the same reason...ah you get the idea.

 

[KaiRai]

I don't know what to hate more. This is frying my brain....

(He has a good point, but still a giant tool)

 

[Ih8pkmn]

-record scratch-

Wait- Kotick actually says something that gamers agree with?

IT'S THE APOCALYPSE!

Well, maybe not. So, Kotick, way to go. You just made your karma meter jump a little bit. Just a minuscule amount, mind.

November 2nd. Fear that date.

 

[Chappy]

He will only put in money and effort to the point where it will still profit him if he loses the case, I don't believe Kotick is the kind of man who would want to risk any time or money that he can't get back whatever outcome happens.

Still I'm sure he's got a private army of lawyers lurking somewhere so he will have his uses.

 

[jowo96]

Wow this guy sure has been making a lot of statements recently, but I again am not surprised by this statement and I don't get why we would be confused that this guy would be against a law which would restrict the sale of video games.

 

[The Lost Big Boss]

The enemy of my enemy is my enemy, who is now my friend.

 

[jonnosferatu]

It's kinda scary seeing Kotick's rational self-interest and...well, rationality...in an area I like.

 

[Thorvan]

the only reason hes shitting his pants is because if this passed CoD sales would take a massive hit. it'd still be popular but you know bobby and his money.

I concur with this bloke/ette, his only concern is the bottom line.

Indeed. Although it's great to have people care, especially those with money, it's slightly... discouraging? When we know that money's all he cares about. You're not gonna see any "artistic merit" counters from him.

 

[Physics Engine]

Okay, so you've explained all that, I still don't see where it even affects me. Instead of buying "M-rated", I'm buying "ultra-violent", big deal.

Your whole "free speech" thing is kind of a bunch of crap. Free speech shouldn't extend to you putting super violent video games into the hands of 13 year olds. Sorry.

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.

[...]

Thank you for a well thought out post (rather than just another Kotick bashing).

Folks - take a look at what's been going on in Australia. Look what happens when gov't steps in and starts deciding what YOU can and cannot purchase. Yes, you think that because you're 17+ you won't be impacted? As PEngine so elloquently demonstrated, you will absolutely be affected, and it may not stop at video games if this passes. You may eventually find other areas of your "entertainment" being impacted.

Oh, and this same logic could be applied to all of you Kotick haters...if you don't like the guy, quit buying his games, eventually the board of directors and (we) shareholders will toss him on his ass. Personally, I have no problem with how he runs the company. I don't necessarily enjoy what he says about gaming and how he treats some development studios, but I do enjoy the fact that my investment in his company is not floundering.

I've mentioned the bit about not buying Kotick's games myself, but given that people act like drug addicts, he treats them like them. I think when "Modern Warfare: Black Ops." comes out it's sort of going to prove that point. I am all for capitolism, but there is a point where I think you take exploiting the consumers too far.

Also the fact that Kotick is out for himself is pretty obvious, there is nothing good about these changes from the perspective of a businessman selling video games.

As I have pointed out (and just at some length in this thread as a political rant) this has been going on for a while actually. In the end this isn't about video games, your hitting the money right on the head that the whole "protect the children" thing is simply a way of trying to sell a power grab. Once the goverment gets the abillity to regulate free speech this way through the criminal system, it WILL snowball to other things through precedent. Look at what happened with cases like "Mapp Vs. Ohio" and the actual effect they wound up having over a period of decades.... things totally unintended by the original precedent, and also incidently contrary to the intents of our founding fathers who left behind examples of how they expected our "protection against unreasonable searches and seizures" to work. Albiet in that case it's one of those situations where the ruling actually limited goverment power, as opposed to expanding it (as this will). The point I'm making is about the sweeping nature of the changes.

As far as the ESRB goes, I thought it DID have the abillity to level fines already as part of the contracts retailers signed to sell the products. Part of the complaint and the reasoning behind the current case is that it's not working. The people pushing for the current changes basically argueing that any safeguards in place should not be a voluntary thing that helps, but something "ironclad" where nobody outside of that system should have to do anything (like parent) in addition to it. Utterly ridiculous both in concept and in a practical sense, no system the goverment puts into place is going to be any more effective.

Truthfully if this passes through the supreme court, I expect the first major "strike" we're going to notice when it starts snowballing is the goverment using the ruling to get it's hands into The Internet more tightly so it can regulate things like digital distribution and video game sales via mail order more directly, with all kinds of changes being forced and freedoms removed/limited to give them a practical chance of doing it. The goverment has already been chomping at the bit for things like this for a while.... as I've said, this isn't about the games, it's about power, and using games as the springboard/excuse to grab a ton of it.

Sorry for the huge quote pyramid, I didn't want to break the formatting.

In regards to the ESRB, their enforcement page (here [http://www.esrb.org/ratings/enforcement.jsp]) states the following about fines.

RATINGS
In the event of incomplete disclosure during the rating process which affected or could have affected the assignment of a rating or content descriptor, an ESRB enforcement action may be initiated, which could result in revocation of the original rating and the imposition of sanctions, including monetary fines.

[...]

Where warranted in order to ensure compliance with its directives, ESRB can suspend rating services altogether.

MARKETING
ESRB's Advertising Review Council (ARC) diligently monitors and enforces compliance with industry marketing guidelines across TV, print and online media vehicles. In the event that a game publisher inappropriately labels or advertises a product, the ESRB is empowered to compel corrective actions and impose a wide range of sanctions, including monetary fines where and when appropriate.

RETAIL
Although it does not have the legal authority to implement or enforce retailer sales policies with respect to computer and video games, the ESRB works closely with retailers and game centers to: a) provide in-store signage which explains the rating system; b) support their store policies pertaining to the sale or rental of Mature-rated games to minors; and c) help educate and train store associates and employees with regard to the rating system.

They don't have the power to enforce the ratings system at the retail level. Most stores do have their own policy regarding M rated games in an attempt to ease the minds of paranoid parents despite the fact that it's not illegal not to. What a horrible sentence, sorry.

Giving the ESRB ratings some legal backing is the logical choice here. There's no need to involve freedom of speech at all. Parents still have control, kids can't legally obtain "violent video games" and everything runs status-quo for the most part. But that makes sense so the government can't use it on principle.

 

[captaincabbage]

Hey, I guess even a pure-bred fucktard can get things right once in a while.

 

[lostzombies.com]

wait...no....The guy is still the bad guy. This law helps little kids stop getting their hands on adult games. We want this law to go ahead surely?

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Yea... hes really only saying that because it would greatly impact activision's most successful properties.

Speaking of, thats a pretty loaded week. ACTA on the 30th, defacto game banning on the 2nd.

I didn't think 1984 would come so suddenly!

You didn't think 1984 would be coming so suddenly as 26 years after 1984?

What kind of sense does that make?

 

[Trogdor1138]

Like others said, it's only because 15 year old kids won't be able to rush out and buy their shitty corporate inspired games every time they add on a number to the end of a title.

 

[Ldude893]

Congratulations Bobby, you just added 1 karma point to your karma. You now currently have -325 karma.

 

[Therumancer]

RETAIL
Although it does not have the legal authority to implement or enforce retailer sales policies with respect to computer and video games, the ESRB works closely with retailers and game centers to: a) provide in-store signage which explains the rating system; b) support their store policies pertaining to the sale or rental of Mature-rated games to minors; and c) help educate and train store associates and employees with regard to the rating system.

They don't have the power to enforce the ratings system at the retail level. Most stores do have their own policy regarding M rated games in an attempt to ease the minds of paranoid parents despite the fact that it's not illegal not to. What a horrible sentence, sorry.

Giving the ESRB ratings some legal backing is the logical choice here. There's no need to involve freedom of speech at all. Parents still have control, kids can't legally obtain "violent video games" and everything runs status-quo for the most part. But that makes sense so the government can't use it on principle.[/quote]


I just had to snip that, it was getting too huge.

I guess in the end this comes down to us having to agree to disagree. I do not consider making this legal anything to be logical. The entire purpose of our right to free speech is to have no regulation from the goverment at all. No matter how well intentioned it might be the entire idea is anethema to our way of life.

The ESRB does not level fines against retail businesses as you explained, so perhaps they should voluntarily add that to their policies if they can. Even if they don't, it's no big deal since policing this kind of content is the job of parents, anything above and beyond that is a voluntary public service, and should remain that way.

The only way I could see them doing anything to enforce this within our system, is to take advantage of damage that has already been done. Namely various desicians that the full rights of citizens do not apply to minors. This is used to enforce various draconian school policies on dress codes, expressions of "violence" (oh no! he drew a picture of a gun! ) and other things. An example of how well intentioned laws spiral out of control if you have been paying attention to how ridiculous this whole thing has gotten.

In that case however, the goverment would not be holding game companies, retailers, the ESRB, or anyone in the industry responsible. Rather the minor themselves would become the criminal, and in most cases the responsibility and punishment would then fall on the parents. So basically if Jr. is caught with an "M" rated game, the parents are then fined or sentenced. This is of course nonsensical, but it could work within that legal framework, and it would ultimatly wind up putting pressure on parents to parent properly and police their kids. After all of Jr. does something messed up, and then the authorities find out he had an "M" rated game they are going to be the ones that take the hit for it. Extra special motivation for them to watch their kids and be careful of what kind of media they wind up in possesion of.

Of course that couldn't work on other levels (aside from common sense) due to the fact that the goverment couldn't (and shouldn't) be setting the ratings, and I don't believe laws can be made relying on ratings like that which the goverment has no part in setting. Still it's a potential direction if someone really, really wants more goverment intrusion in their lives.

The bottom line though is that we're going to have to agree to disagree, because honestly I think kids getting "M" rated games, even if they were responsible for all of the things the anti-gaming lobby claims, is far of a lesser evil than the goverment being able to set ratings on media and enforce them within the criminal system. That destroys one of the foundations of our entire society and way of life, affecting literally billions upon billions of people as time goes on. Even in light of the most extreme arguements about games directly causing deaths, a few thousand deaths is a price well worth paying for the freedom of speech as it stands now. Of course the fact that I think those claims are by and large BS helps as well.