Check Out Video of Last Night's Violent Videogames Debate

[Baldr]

Congress(federal, state or municipal establishment) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Reason why most rating system in the US are non-mandatory and not legally binding.

 

[IrishBerserker]

Once they got past the introductions and got into the actual debate it was really interesting to hear the different sides of the issue.

 

[Matt_LRR]

Edit: To anyone who's not up to speed on american constitutional law, this fight isn't going to make sense - but it's a very important fight in terms of the recognition of games as a legitimate form of expression.

Ah damn, that just killed my entire post.

But one thing still doesn't make sense to me, why not take this up with the guys who sell the games, and not make them? But something has to be wrong with that idea, these guys would have jumped to that if it were the case..

The law would effect the retailers and the developers equally, and honestly, the result is the same either way.

Currently, the industry (game retailers and the ESRB) prevents minors from buying M rated games about 90% of the time.

If the law goes through, there will be a 1000$ fine associated with sales to minors.

So, in the instance of say, Call of duty, which sold 5 Million in the US, that's about 500,000 getting into the hands of minors. The financial risk associated with those sales is, under the proposed law, 5,000,000,000$. Yeah, five billion dollars in fines.

If you apply that fine to the game maker, then they stop making those games, because the financial risk is sufficiently high as to destroy any chance of those games meeting project approval during the design stage (why make an M game and risk 5,000,000,000$ in fines, when you could make a T game, and risk nothing?)

If you apply the fines to retailers, then the retailers refuse to carry the games, because there's too much risk of accidental sale to minors. (why sell M rated games, when T rated games carry no risk?", the net result of this is that game developers... stop making these games, because the marketplace, in which they might sell them, is gone.

Basically, such a law has a pronounced chilling effect on games that fall under the law's purview.

-m

 

[Wodan]

There is so much that can be said on this topic. But I think this is definitely not the place to waste ones breath on the issue because it would be preaching to the choir. I myself side very heavily on the side of the video game companies (Big surprise right?). Although one thing I would love to emphasize.

I applaud both sides for taking the time to discuss the issue in a mature and civil fashion. If only we could have this type of great, honest, and straight forward discourse on all controversial topics. Being able to have both sides sit down and speak about the issue together and next to each other in such a way really makes me proud and hopeful. Although this one discussion is not even close to the needed amount of discussion on the topic, I truly applaud the people involved.

 

[Xannieros]

I think you should be required to be 18 to purchase M-Rated games.

There needs to be a better way to teach parents about whats actually in a game... That ESRB rating that tells you if it has "Violence, Mild Language, ect" needs to be looked at. Sadly I don't think parents look at it anymore, and let their child convince them theres nothing wrong with it.

I don't see why theres a problem. With movies and other forms of entertainment you usually are required to be 18 to view or purchase "Mature" content.

 

[IrishBerserker]

The law would effect the retailers and the developers equally, and honestly, the result is the same either way.

Currently, the industry (game retailers and the ESRB) prevents minors from buying M rated games about 90% of the time.

If the law goes through, there will be a 1000$ fine associated with sales to minors.

So, in the instance of say, Call of duty, which sold 5 Million in the US, that's about 500,000 getting into the hands of minors. The financial risk associated with those sales is, under the proposed law, 5,000,000,000$. Yeah, five billion dollars in fines.

If you apply that fine to the game maker, then they stop making those games, because the financial risk is sufficiently high as to destroy any chance of those games meeting project approval during the design stage (why make an M game and risk 5,000,000,000$ in fines, when you could make a T game, and risk nothing?)

If you apply the fines to retailers, then the retailers refuse to carry the games, because there's too much risk of accidental sale to minors. (why sell M rated games, when T rated games carry no risk?", the net result of this is that game developers... stop making these games, because the marketplace, in which they might sell them, is gone.

Basically, such a law has a pronounced chilling effect on games that fall under the law's purview.

-m

Actually, unless I misheard Mr. Rose, the ESRB already does fine $1,000 if the retailer sells to a minor, in addition to having the employee fired.

 

[Matt_LRR]

I don't see why theres a problem. With movies and other forms of entertainment you usually are required to be 18 to view or purchase "Mature" content.

Not legally, you're not, unless it's porn.

-m

 

[The Random One]

Oh my... They talk so slowly... So monotone... Can't keep... Awake.. Eyes closing...

ghbyhihiulhiukhiukj

*zzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzz*

See? This is what videogames have done to you!

Won't anyone think of the children?

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

He called him a communist and told him to go back to Russia. Man after my own heart... *tear*

The Commie lost all credibility with me when he (more or less) said that video games are not 'speech' of the type that is usually protected. I was at least sympathetic up to that point.

 

[Jumplion]

I think you should be required to be 18 to purchase M-Rated games.

There needs to be a better way to teach parents about whats actually in a game... That ESRB rating that tells you if it has "Violence, Mild Language, ect" needs to be looked at. Sadly I don't think parents look at it anymore, and let their child convince them theres nothing wrong with it.

I don't see why theres a problem. With movies and other forms of entertainment you usually are required to be 18 to view or purchase "Mature" content.

Not in the US, where most of that stuff is just store or industry policy, not by government bureaucracies.

I see most Non-US residents are all "What's the big dealy-o?", but it'd be easier to understand if you actually live here. I assume that most forms of media in the UK are government regulated or something, I know the PEGI thing is. The thing is, most mediums (books, movies, music, games, etc...) are not regulated by the government except for things like porn and drugs which are not protected by the 1st amendment and whatnot.

If the law goes and passes, however, it effectively makes video games a "special" case in that somehow they are not like other mediums (books, movies, music etc...) and for some reason they must be regulated because they are not protected under the first amendment or Free Speech. That's not cool, obviously, but it could also lead to precedent for regulation of other mediums. It may work in the UK, but here in the US we've got our own freedoms that we enjoy that we don't want the government to get their dirty little hands in.

What makes it even more silly to me is that the video games industry is already regulating itself quite effectively, much better than movies or books or music or whatever, but somehow this is not enough for ant-video game activists.

 

[Scars Unseen]

The law would effect the retailers and the developers equally, and honestly, the result is the same either way.

Currently, the industry (game retailers and the ESRB) prevents minors from buying M rated games about 90% of the time.

If the law goes through, there will be a 1000$ fine associated with sales to minors.

So, in the instance of say, Call of duty, which sold 5 Million in the US, that's about 500,000 getting into the hands of minors. The financial risk associated with those sales is, under the proposed law, 5,000,000,000$. Yeah, five billion dollars in fines.

If you apply that fine to the game maker, then they stop making those games, because the financial risk is sufficiently high as to destroy any chance of those games meeting project approval during the design stage (why make an M game and risk 5,000,000,000$ in fines, when you could make a T game, and risk nothing?)

If you apply the fines to retailers, then the retailers refuse to carry the games, because there's too much risk of accidental sale to minors. (why sell M rated games, when T rated games carry no risk?", the net result of this is that game developers... stop making these games, because the marketplace, in which they might sell them, is gone.

Basically, such a law has a pronounced chilling effect on games that fall under the law's purview.

-m

Actually, unless I misheard Mr. Rose, the ESRB already does fine $1,000 if the retailer sells to a minor, in addition to having the employee fired.

The ESRB can't fine anyone. It's a private organization.

 

[IrishBerserker]

Actually, unless I misheard Mr. Rose, the ESRB already does fine $1,000 if the retailer sells to a minor, in addition to having the employee fired.

The ESRB can't fine anyone. It's a private organization.

Oh, ok. Then I guess I did mishear him.

 

[spartan231490]

I couldn't even make it past the first guy's opening statement. What a load of PR BS. The industry standards already prevent the sale to kids who are underage. If he really believed in "Sanity, not censorship" then he would be against this law, because the law is censorship and the current system works just fine.

 

[Nouw]

I am hardcore on the side of the games industry in this debate, but I'm not sure the fellow from activision was a wise choice to represent the industry. He's being a little more arrogant and dismissive than I like, and not nearly as well organized and clear in what he's saying as the guy from CSM.

Wait don't you need an ID or parent to buy an M rated game? Whats the problem?

the problem is that it's not LAW that you need an ID or parent to do so, it's merely industry policy, and opponents of videogames seem to think that's not good enough.

-m

Sometimes I wish some of the laws in America were implemented over here in New Zealand. It's illegal to provide, sell restricted games (oh boohoo there's violence) to minors and if you're caught playing them it's a fine and jail time.
[sub]Emphasis on if[/sub]

 

[Scars Unseen]

Edit: To anyone who's not up to speed on american constitutional law, this fight isn't going to make sense - but it's a very important fight in terms of the recognition of games as a legitimate form of expression.

Ah damn, that just killed my entire post.

But one thing still doesn't make sense to me, why not take this up with the guys who sell the games, and not make them? But something has to be wrong with that idea, these guys would have jumped to that if it were the case..

The law would effect the retailers and the developers equally, and honestly, the result is the same either way.

Currently, the industry (game retailers and the ESRB) prevents minors from buying M rated games about 90% of the time.

If the law goes through, there will be a 1000$ fine associated with sales to minors.

So, in the instance of say, Call of duty, which sold 5 Million in the US, that's about 500,000 getting into the hands of minors. The financial risk associated with those sales is, under the proposed law, 5,000,000,000$. Yeah, five billion dollars in fines.

If you apply that fine to the game maker, then they stop making those games, because the financial risk is sufficiently high as to destroy any chance of those games meeting project approval during the design stage (why make an M game and risk 5,000,000,000$ in fines, when you could make a T game, and risk nothing?)

If you apply the fines to retailers, then the retailers refuse to carry the games, because there's too much risk of accidental sale to minors. (why sell M rated games, when T rated games carry no risk?", the net result of this is that game developers... stop making these games, because the marketplace, in which they might sell them, is gone.

Basically, such a law has a pronounced chilling effect on games that fall under the law's purview.

-m

Even setting that aside, who rates the games if that law gets passed? It won't be the ESRB. Some government entity would be appointed. And since we then lose the relative impartiality of the ESRB, we run into a big problem. What happens when the California Games Rating Committee (CGRC) finds a game particularly offensive? Does the game just not get rated (and thus never released in the US)? The government can do that sort of thing if it isn't protected as free speech. What about indie games? If I make "Generica Fantasy 3" with Flash, do I have to submit it to the CGRC? Does all of Newgrounds go under review?

I mentioned this in an earlier thread, but if the law were to somehow pass, I would propose that someone make a simple game and then distribute it to others to make minute variations on. We then collectively send all of them in to whatever committee gets the job of censoring rating new games for a physical DDoS attack. Drown them in mediocre throw away games that'll keep them swamped from here to Futurama.

 

[Harbinger_]

Just to clarify The Supreme Court hasn't approved or denied yet.... Right?