Expert Warns of Possible Catastrophic Effects of California Videogame Law

[MarsProbe]

The fact of the matter is that Americans place a much higher value on the freedom of speech than the British do. That's why things like Holocaust denial are legal in the U.S.

*cough* Hello! What? Sorry, just don't know how to respond to that really, seriously, where exactly did you hear that? Just wondering if you actually know many British people at all. The majority of us would likely find such a statement to be rather insulting. Granted, we may not throw a hissy fit on the streets like the French do (nothing to do with freedom of speech, granted) but I can assure you we value or freedom of speech just as much as you Americans do!

 

[RollForInitiative]

I still don't understand what all the fuss is about. The rest of the worlds games industrys still appear to be going strong despite the fact that kids can't buy 18 rated games.

Can a kid in the states seriously walk into a shop and buy Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto?

Technically, it's not actually illegal to sell a minor a copy of an M-rated game. Most stores, however, will abide by the placed guideline not to do so. The problem outlined in the article was quite accurate; if selling M-rated games can potentially lead to litigation, certain major retailers will stop carrying them and that will have quite an impact on our sales. Losing sales means losing jobs and, last time I checked, I was in no rush to be out on the street.

Nor am I in any rush to dumb down my content to suit a T audience. I'm quite fond of making M-rated games and I'd like to keep doing it without coming under attack constantly.

Historically, the ESRB guidelines have been observed with a far greater degree of consistency than the movie or music industry guidelines have been so, seriously, maybe they could just leave us the Hell alone please? I've got games to make.

 

[Netrigan]

I wonder if such a ruling could have major effects on other industries as well. Video game retailers are already tops in terms of not selling M rated games, so a law targeting them would very likely be able to be expanded to apply to movies, DVDs, and CDs. All have come under government criticism and all have self-regulating boards rating content along with parental advisories. I don't see how it's such a big stretch to start requiring retailers to enforce these rules if the video game industry law is allowed to go into affect.

Assuming the video game industry doesn't win it outright (which I think is the most likely scenario), I doubt the Court goes any further than just requiring retailers to enforce their own ratings... which I think would spread to other industries since they'll probably rule that it does not violate the gaming industry's First Amendment Rights. That's a decent chunk of sales that would be lost, but since about half the kids who get these games have them bought for them by adults, that's like a 10% loss of sales for GTA IV.

Personally, I wish the game industry had a rating between M and A. In any rating system, the highest rating that is retailer death (try flogging a NC-17 movie and see how many doors close in your face), but I think a lot of games and movies cross the line into "no, seriously, this isn't for kids", without deserving to be ostracized. If only to make it easier for the retailer to warn a parent.

 

[Dastardly]

(Not trying to get explictly political)Anyone know: The Supreme Court is mostly Democrat right now, right? If it was Republican, I would be a little worried, but not as much if it's Democrats.

You realize it's California pushing a lot of this, right? It's a heavily dem/liberal state. This isn't a conservative "Get the devil off our screen!" movement. Hell, they tend to be in FAVOR of more guns (if we're going to generalize).

It's primarily a feature of the LIBERAL side of the coin to try to play "nanny state" games and squelch anything that they can blame for violence in today's youth... as long as it doesn't put the blame on the voter himself.

(I'm not a conservative, either. I'm just saying that this isn't one of their babies.)

 

[PotatoHunter]

This shit is getting really boring to see. Because of some parents not doing their parenting correctly, the videogame industry is getting hammered by all these dumb accusations that violent video games make kids more violent.

I mean god damn, I was playing Soldier of Forture 1 and 2 at a very young age (Can't remember when either was released but I played both when they released so YEARS ago), and those are still the most violent shooters I have ever played. My dad straight up told me, yeah this game's pretty violent, so don't take it too serious, have fun. And that's all it remained, just fun...I wasn't inspired to go shoot up a school or anything dumb lol.

And if your kid seems like the type to grow up to be a serial killer, then don't buy him the game. Or if you just think it isn't good for your kid, then don't buy it for them. But if you don't care, then the industry shouldn't be blamed.

 

[strum4h]

Fantastic. Why do all politicians feel that they can form what is considered tasteful and distasteful for us. This is only about people in power misusing it and in turn depriving good people of something they should already have. Repeat after me: I am free.

 

[ShadowKirby]

It's great to see that a bunch of you guys are okay with california politicians deciding what is a violent game (because that's what the law is about) and removing the medium's 1st Amendment protection.

It's great to see that a bunch of you guys are okay with california politicians putting violent games (which, under the new law, will include a lot more than the currently rated M games. They will be calling the shots, remember?) under the same category as porn, alcohol and tobacco. Yep, games whit violence in them, as damaging to kids 0-18(or is it 21?) as a potential lung cancer.

It's great to see that a bunch of you guys are okay with california politicians saying that games are less than movies, books and music. That those three can be protected speech, but video games have no speech, they are just some dumb products that say nothing of interest. Bioshock? Same as porn. GTA4? Like smoking 4 pack a day. Fallout 3? May as well just give a 40 oz. to an 11 years old.


It's not only about business. Who cares if retailers stop selling violent games (I say it again, not just M-rated games, everything that california says is violent) or not. It's about the perception of the medium. Do you really want the medium to free of protection? First they say it's too violent, then, the medium not being protected because it doesn't have anything to say anyway, they will say it passes "unamericain" values to kids. Maybe it's a bit of a doomsday scenario. It's not like america ever censored medias [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_code] right?


So you decide guys. Are games an expressive medium that should have the same protection that movies, books and music have, or should they be like porn, alcohol and cigarettes, products without anything to say.

It is more than business guys, it's about the public perception of the medium. Some of you may be okay being seen enjoying violent games like some addict enjoys is porn, but I'd rather be seen as someone who enjoys violent games like he enjoys violent movies who happened to win Oscars like No Country for Old Man, The Departed or The Lord of the Ring.

 

[Gerkuman]

Technically, it's not actually illegal to sell a minor a copy of an M-rated game. Most stores, however, will abide by the placed guideline not to do so. The problem outlined in the article was quite accurate; if selling M-rated games can potentially lead to litigation, certain major retailers will stop carrying them and that will have quite an impact on our sales. Losing sales means losing jobs and, last time I checked, I was in no rush to be out on the street

So this entire thing is based off a prediction that retailers in the US will become too scared of litigation to stock M rated games? That's a very... flimsy excuse. An appeal to consequences can only be made if the consequences can be proven to be likely. And in this case, they can't.

 

[KeyMaster45]

I still don't understand what all the fuss is about. The rest of the worlds games industrys still appear to be going strong despite the fact that kids can't buy 18 rated games.

Can a kid in the states seriously walk into a shop and buy Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto?

Firstly you can start buying M rated games at 17 just like R rated movies. Those are the restrictions already put in place by the ESRB and retailers across the country Simply put there is no need for such a law here because the industry already has taken the initiative and enforces it really well.

The problem with attaching fines for selling games to minors is that you have to take into account that parents will buy M rated games for their kids who are under 17. There's no way for retailers to police against that nor is there any practical way for the government to police such a policy.

Regardless of how well this all works in other countries the point of fighting against it(as I have come to understand) is that repeatedly video games are targeted as a scapegoat for politicians, bad parents, and censorship. If the game industry loses this case then legally video games can have strict censorship placed upon them by the government. It would effectively stop any chance of video games ever being considered art in the future. Art is immune from censorship under the first amendment failing in the Supreme Court would forever label video games legally as not a form of art in the United States and thus subject to heavy government censorship.(which as it stands today all we would be left with is everything from E10+ on down after the government got through with it)

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

(Not trying to get explictly political)Anyone know: The Supreme Court is mostly Democrat right now, right? If it was Republican, I would be a little worried, but not as much if it's Democrats.

You realize it's California pushing a lot of this, right? It's a heavily dem/liberal state. This isn't a conservative "Get the devil off our screen!" movement. Hell, they tend to be in FAVOR of more guns (if we're going to generalize).

It's primarily a feature of the LIBERAL side of the coin to try to play "nanny state" games and squelch anything that they can blame for violence in today's youth... as long as it doesn't put the blame on the voter himself.

(I'm not a conservative, either. I'm just saying that this isn't one of their babies.)

Thank you for clearing that up for me. Now I'm more worried. Science, I hate California...

Yes, video game violence is to blame. Not the gang violence in LA people hear about all the time, all the murders, and etc. TV is exponentially more violent than games.

 

[Estocavio]

I still don't understand what all the fuss is about. The rest of the worlds games industrys still appear to be going strong despite the fact that kids can't buy 18 rated games.

Can a kid in the states seriously walk into a shop and buy Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto?

Probably - It would explain alot. But really now, if the kids dont buy it, theyll use EBay, or digital distribution when it becomes much more common. All this will affect is Retail outlets - Either way, its ridiculous to try and limit the purchase of video games, because THEY WILL GET IT EITHER WAY - How else do PAL regions get 'banned' titles, besides buying them on the internet? Its the same thing - Only now California needs to learn to do it as well, for anything over PG.

 

[ShadowKirby]

(Not trying to get explictly political)Anyone know: The Supreme Court is mostly Democrat right now, right? If it was Republican, I would be a little worried, but not as much if it's Democrats.

You realize it's California pushing a lot of this, right? It's a heavily dem/liberal state. This isn't a conservative "Get the devil off our screen!" movement. Hell, they tend to be in FAVOR of more guns (if we're going to generalize).

It's primarily a feature of the LIBERAL side of the coin to try to play "nanny state" games and squelch anything that they can blame for violence in today's youth... as long as it doesn't put the blame on the voter himself.

(I'm not a conservative, either. I'm just saying that this isn't one of their babies.)

Thank you for clearing that up for me. Now I'm more worried. Science, I hate California...

Yes, video game violence is to blame. Not the gang violence in LA people hear about all the time, all the murders, and etc. TV is exponentially more violent than games.

Which makes me think, the biggest argument california is standing on right now is that games are different because they are interactive. If the law passes through, it means that any interactive medium is not expressive and therefore is not protected by first amendment. Guess what is interactive and could be censored... THE INTERNET.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

I thought the law would make it illegal for a store to sell a violent videogame to anyone underage. This means that potentially some teen games would be illegal to sell to minors.

But other than that littl (possible) correction, yeah I agree with this expert dude. Its not so much the law passing that will be important, but the effects the law will have on the video game industry. Plus there's that whole slippery slope thing where people will start to go "If we could ban those games, how about we ban these as well...".

 

[JDKJ]

So basically what you and the original person interviewed believe is that the games industry only really thrives off the sale of games to minors? That if minors are unable to buy M-rated games that whole market will simply 'collapse'?

First of all, nobody said anything about a "collapse". But it could definitely change and not in favour of high production value M-titles. I personally don't even really care that much, since the big companies haven't put out a single genuinely scary or interesting mature game since Silent Hill 2, but I also don't think that hampering their sales (see below) is the way to go about fixing that.

Second, it's not about selling to minors. It's about retailers having to ask for IDs and having to train and monitor their employees on one more thing, making them reconsider and re-evaluate whether the income from those games justify the administrative overhead AND the possibility of legal punishment if some illegal sales do happen. And the bigger the retail chain, the bigger the overhead and potential fines, therefore the bigger chance that games like Silent Hill will be pushed to some back corner of the shelf, if not dropped completely.

I didnt write collapse as a quotation, i was just emphasising the word considering what some people have been saying makes it sound like a collapse would be inevitable if this law came into effect. I am just saying that it has been blown out of proportion. Why not have a policy whereby the fine is placed on the individual selling the product rather than the retailer? That means that the retailer has no financial worries and merely has to focus on teaching the employee to not sell games to underage children. It took less than 5 minutes for me to be told the repercussions of selling a minor an 18 rated game, and its not exactly hard to ask someone for ID... Other businesses do it all the time, with alcohol and such, why has such a big deal been made of it with video games.

Are you kidding? Who's gonna wanna take a job that pays minimum wage but has the ever constant possibility of being subject to a $1000 fine? Would you?

 

[tk1989]

So basically what you and the original person interviewed believe is that the games industry only really thrives off the sale of games to minors? That if minors are unable to buy M-rated games that whole market will simply 'collapse'?

First of all, nobody said anything about a "collapse". But it could definitely change and not in favour of high production value M-titles. I personally don't even really care that much, since the big companies haven't put out a single genuinely scary or interesting mature game since Silent Hill 2, but I also don't think that hampering their sales (see below) is the way to go about fixing that.

Second, it's not about selling to minors. It's about retailers having to ask for IDs and having to train and monitor their employees on one more thing, making them reconsider and re-evaluate whether the income from those games justify the administrative overhead AND the possibility of legal punishment if some illegal sales do happen. And the bigger the retail chain, the bigger the overhead and potential fines, therefore the bigger chance that games like Silent Hill will be pushed to some back corner of the shelf, if not dropped completely.

I didnt write collapse as a quotation, i was just emphasising the word considering what some people have been saying makes it sound like a collapse would be inevitable if this law came into effect. I am just saying that it has been blown out of proportion. Why not have a policy whereby the fine is placed on the individual selling the product rather than the retailer? That means that the retailer has no financial worries and merely has to focus on teaching the employee to not sell games to underage children. It took less than 5 minutes for me to be told the repercussions of selling a minor an 18 rated game, and its not exactly hard to ask someone for ID... Other businesses do it all the time, with alcohol and such, why has such a big deal been made of it with video games.

Are you kidding? Who's gonna wanna take a job that pays minimum wage but has the ever constant possibility of being subject to a $1000 fine? Would you?

What do you think basically all retail jobs in the UK are subjected to....? What you may think of being a big deal in the states, that is asking for someones ID and not selling minors 18 rated games, is the norm over here... I just dont see what the fuss is about. I sold games, i didnt sell an 18 rated game to a minor, i wasn't fined £1000. Its that simple.

 

[Agayek]

I still don't understand what all the fuss is about. The rest of the worlds games industrys still appear to be going strong despite the fact that kids can't buy 18 rated games.

Can a kid in the states seriously walk into a shop and buy Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto?

The law allows the government to decide ratings for games, and, for all intents and purposes, bans retailers from selling M-rated games (the major retailers might continue to sell them until the first lawsuit hits, then they're all gone). This essentially means that the government has complete control over the content of games, and can censor any game they don't happen to like, with little to no justification.

If you see no problem with that, you've bigger concerns.