Games on Trial

[TraderJimmy]

I wish John Galt was here...

How dare you make a literary reference?! And to Rand, of all authors?! Do you make literary references for a living?! Or do you have a degree from Stanford?! If the answers are "no" and "no," then just ramp down the attitude!

Well excuse me good sir or madam, but Ayn Rand is my favorite author, I shall reference her whenever I feel it to be appropriate! And I am still in high school, I shall not be receiving my degree for at least 4 and a half years. Present your degree before the good people of the Escapist and I shall gladly agree that my referencing was not the most appropriate for the situation. Good day to you!

It was an inside joke of the kind where you just had to be there to appreciate. Fret not. As far as I'm concerned, you can refer to Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" to your hearts content (but others here may not appreciate it, so be forewarned). And I like Rand, too. Perhaps not my favorite (I'm an Orwell kinda guy), but some good stuff nevertheless.

No worries, I knew you were joking, that why I used the word "shall" so much. Orwell's not my cup of tea, lord, reading Animal Farm was torture! If someone doesn't like my references they can kiss my ass for all I'm concerned, and for some reason I don't think that the average Escapist is familiar with Ayn Rand's works, and if you liked "1984" I would recomend "Anthem" by Mrs. Rand.

I think everyone on the internet is familiar with Ayn Rand's works after about a month-two months in a forum. Don't flatter yourself.

OT: something, something, censorship is bad in this case. Some of those Supreme Court Judges sound hella cool.

 

[Kratenser]

ERM, why has California suddenly declared war on the video games industry? Sorry, i dont live in America so im not really sure of some of the political issues over there but, over here in Britain we more or less allow anything and everything. The government over here is more concerned with getting us out of the recession than imposing ridiculous laws which, in the long run, wont make a bloody difference anyway ^^

 

[JDKJ]

I wish John Galt was here...

How dare you make a literary reference?! And to Rand, of all authors?! Do you make literary references for a living?! Or do you have a degree from Stanford?! If the answers are "no" and "no," then just ramp down the attitude!

Well excuse me good sir or madam, but Ayn Rand is my favorite author, I shall reference her whenever I feel it to be appropriate! And I am still in high school, I shall not be receiving my degree for at least 4 and a half years. Present your degree before the good people of the Escapist and I shall gladly agree that my referencing was not the most appropriate for the situation. Good day to you!

It was an inside joke of the kind where you just had to be there to appreciate. Fret not. As far as I'm concerned, you can refer to Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" to your hearts content (but others here may not appreciate it, so be forewarned). And I like Rand, too. Perhaps not my favorite (I'm an Orwell kinda guy), but some good stuff nevertheless.

No worries, I knew you were joking, that why I used the word "shall" so much. Orwell's not my cup of tea, lord, reading Animal Farm was torture! If someone doesn't like my references they can kiss my ass for all I'm concerned, and for some reason I don't think that the average Escapist is familiar with Ayn Rand's works, and if you liked "1984" I would recomend "Anthem" by Mrs. Rand.

I think everyone on the internet is familiar with Ayn Rand's works after about a month-two months in a forum. Don't flatter yourself.

OT: something, something, censorship is bad in this case. Some of those Supreme Court Judges sound hella cool.

I dunno about that. Perhaps I haven't been hanging around here long enough to be an authority on the issue, but if what limited experiences I have had are any useful indication, then I'm inclined to agree with LarenzoAOG.

 

[rsvp42]

But, of course, those store policies are driven more by external pressures and corporate image concerns more than anything else. I'd imagine that if they ever lost their minds and decided to sell M-rated games to whomever wanted to buy them and argued that there's no law against them doing so, then a horde of white, middle-class, middle-aged, suburban mothers would descend upon their annual shareholder meetings in a convoy of minivans and quickly make them regret that decision. Otherwise, and as long as to do so showed a profit at the bottom line, they'd be selling M-rated games to kids hand over fist.

But that's beside the point, isn't it? The fact is their company policy already restricts who can buy the games. Making that same rule into a federal law shouldn't really change anything for retailers or their revenue. I can't imagine they're seeing massive profits from illegally selling to minors, so nothing should change. Maybe digital distribution could run into problems with age verification, but there's probably simple enough ways for sellers to ensure that their asses are covered. Shouldn't it be just as illegal for a kid to buy a Mature game as it is for a store to sell them one?

 

[Mr. Omega]

My opinions:
(Biggest concern bolded)
I find it very concerning that the ESRB was only mentioned twice in a 72-page transcript in a case about keeping violent games away from minors.

Both sides were ripped apart by the Justices, IMO, but that's them doing their jobs. The thing is, the guys siding with California sounded EXTREMELY ignorant about the medium. I mean Jack Thompson levels of ignorant, but at least they made the EMA lawyer have to answer some tough questions. It's just a shame the guy had such trouble answering. The ones siding with the EMA weren't exactly game-savy, but at least they knew enough about how the medium and it's relation with the law, and law itself. It exposed some of the biggest flaws of the California law. This could honestly go either way...

On a side note: Postal 2 was a footnote in gaming history. Not even a footnote. Yet these guys seem to treat this game like it's Mario: Gaming's mascot. THEY are glorifying Postal 2, not the game industry.

 

[JDKJ]

But, of course, those store policies are driven more by external pressures and corporate image concerns more than anything else. I'd imagine that if they ever lost their minds and decided to sell M-rated games to whomever wanted to buy them and argued that there's no law against them doing so, then a horde of white, middle-class, middle-aged, suburban mothers would descend upon their annual shareholder meetings in a convoy of minivans and quickly make them regret that decision. Otherwise, and as long as to do so showed a profit at the bottom line, they'd be selling M-rated games to kids hand over fist.

But that's beside the point, isn't it? The fact is their company policy already restricts who can buy the games. Making that same rule into a federal law shouldn't really change anything for retailers or their revenue. I can't imagine they're seeing massive profits from illegally selling to minors, so nothing should change. Maybe digital distribution could run into problems with age verification, but there's probably simple enough ways for sellers to ensure that their asses are covered. Shouldn't it be just as illegal for a kid to buy a Mature game as it is for a store to sell them one?

Not to avoid the question actually posed, but if you take as a given the studies that indicate 2 out of 10 attempts by the underage to purchase age-restricted games are successful and extrapolate that to the sales of a nationwide brick and mortar super-chain, I'd bet we're talking about a nice chunk o' change.

 

[Altorin]

It's always postal 2 they go for.

Postal 2 is such a small blip on the gaming radar that it really shouldn't even be in the debate. It's ancient, we all know it's horrible, and its gimmick doesn't last long even in the hands of children. But politicians LOVE it, because they can point to it and say "Look at that horrible games industry, look what they did".

Does Anyone own that, that thing.

I honestly don't know anyone that does, and I know a lot of PC gamers. It's one of those games that people pirate for a couple lols, get tired of, and delete.

But politicians keep bringing it up like it's the ONLY THING THAT GAMING HAS EVER PRODUCED

 

[LarenzoAOG]

I wish John Galt was here...

How dare you make a literary reference?! And to Rand, of all authors?! Do you make literary references for a living?! Or do you have a degree from Stanford?! If the answers are "no" and "no," then just ramp down the attitude!

Well excuse me good sir or madam, but Ayn Rand is my favorite author, I shall reference her whenever I feel it to be appropriate! And I am still in high school, I shall not be receiving my degree for at least 4 and a half years. Present your degree before the good people of the Escapist and I shall gladly agree that my referencing was not the most appropriate for the situation. Good day to you!

It was an inside joke of the kind where you just had to be there to appreciate. Fret not. As far as I'm concerned, you can refer to Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" to your hearts content (but others here may not appreciate it, so be forewarned). And I like Rand, too. Perhaps not my favorite (I'm an Orwell kinda guy), but some good stuff nevertheless.

No worries, I knew you were joking, that why I used the word "shall" so much. Orwell's not my cup of tea, lord, reading Animal Farm was torture! If someone doesn't like my references they can kiss my ass for all I'm concerned, and for some reason I don't think that the average Escapist is familiar with Ayn Rand's works, and if you liked "1984" I would recomend "Anthem" by Mrs. Rand.

I think everyone on the internet is familiar with Ayn Rand's works after about a month-two months in a forum. Don't flatter yourself.

OT: something, something, censorship is bad in this case. Some of those Supreme Court Judges sound hella cool.

I'm not "Flattering myself" I just assumed that a site devoted to gaming may not be frequented by those that study Objectivist philosiphy, and I may have been wrong to assume but until today I hadn't talked to one.

 

[Yankeedoodles]

Well if that's an accurate breakdown of the views of the justices on this matter then I'm not really worried. Ginsburg and Thomas and almost certain to side in favor of the EMA and against California. Ginsburg was a chief litigator of the ACLU and I would have a hard time seeing her decide a case in favor of restricting free speech. Thomas, on the other hand, is likely to live up to the joke of doing whatever Scalia does. As far as Kennedy goes, I have no idea.

It's an interesting breakdown with the justices failing to fall into the typical "liberal" vs. "conservative" camps we've come to expect from the Court.

BTW does anyone else find the image of a Supreme Court justice talking about Mortal Kombat in open court hilarious?

 

[JDKJ]

I wish John Galt was here...

How dare you make a literary reference?! And to Rand, of all authors?! Do you make literary references for a living?! Or do you have a degree from Stanford?! If the answers are "no" and "no," then just ramp down the attitude!

Well excuse me good sir or madam, but Ayn Rand is my favorite author, I shall reference her whenever I feel it to be appropriate! And I am still in high school, I shall not be receiving my degree for at least 4 and a half years. Present your degree before the good people of the Escapist and I shall gladly agree that my referencing was not the most appropriate for the situation. Good day to you!

It was an inside joke of the kind where you just had to be there to appreciate. Fret not. As far as I'm concerned, you can refer to Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" to your hearts content (but others here may not appreciate it, so be forewarned). And I like Rand, too. Perhaps not my favorite (I'm an Orwell kinda guy), but some good stuff nevertheless.

No worries, I knew you were joking, that why I used the word "shall" so much. Orwell's not my cup of tea, lord, reading Animal Farm was torture! If someone doesn't like my references they can kiss my ass for all I'm concerned, and for some reason I don't think that the average Escapist is familiar with Ayn Rand's works, and if you liked "1984" I would recomend "Anthem" by Mrs. Rand.

I think everyone on the internet is familiar with Ayn Rand's works after about a month-two months in a forum. Don't flatter yourself.

OT: something, something, censorship is bad in this case. Some of those Supreme Court Judges sound hella cool.

I'm not "Flattering myself" I just assumed that a site devoted to gaming may not be frequented by those that study Objectivist philosiphy, and I may have been wrong to assume but until today I hadn't talked to one.

Who's got time for Objectivist Philosophy when there's always Psychophysiology?

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Alito's argument is flawed, though, since the portrayal of violence in movies is equivocal to that in video games, neither of which being something that would not have been imagined at the time of writing the constitution. And Scalia appears to have no read some of Grimm's Fairy Tales, being some of the most violent literature commonly available to children.

 

[Sirisaxman]

It's always postal 2 they go for.

Postal 2 is such a small blip on the gaming radar that it really shouldn't even be in the debate. It's ancient, we all know it's horrible, and its gimmick doesn't last long even in the hands of children. But politicians LOVE it, because they can point to it and say "Look at that horrible games industry, look what they did".

Does Anyone own that, that thing.

I honestly don't know anyone that does, and I know a lot of PC gamers. It's one of those games that people pirate for a couple lols, get tired of, and delete.

But politicians keep bringing it up like it's the ONLY THING THAT GAMING HAS EVER PRODUCED

I own it. It came with my copy of Postal the movie for free. Don't play it much, though. Tends to get old rather fast.

 

[SamElliot'sMustache]

I'm (somewhat) surprised that two opposites like Scalia and Kagan could agree that this law seems pretty bad. It definitely shows this is a non-partisan issue, despite a select few people trying to point the finger at liberals or conservatives as wanting to infringe on free speech.

And which game was being referenced with the schoolgirl torture bit? If California's argument is based on some obscure (or even semi-obscure) pile of trash that even gamers barely know about, it's kind of hard to argue that little kids will want to get their hands on that game, isn't it? In which case, publishers are being responsible enough to not advertise such material to kids in the first place.

I guess in addition to being unconstitutional, the law just doesn't have any justification to exist.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

I wish John Galt was here...

How dare you make a literary reference?! And to Rand, of all authors?! Do you make literary references for a living?! Or do you have a degree from Stanford?! If the answers are "no" and "no," then just ramp down the attitude!

Well excuse me good sir or madam, but Ayn Rand is my favorite author, I shall reference her whenever I feel it to be appropriate! And I am still in high school, I shall not be receiving my degree for at least 4 and a half years. Present your degree before the good people of the Escapist and I shall gladly agree that my referencing was not the most appropriate for the situation. Good day to you!

It was an inside joke of the kind where you just had to be there to appreciate. Fret not. As far as I'm concerned, you can refer to Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" to your hearts content (but others here may not appreciate it, so be forewarned). And I like Rand, too. Perhaps not my favorite (I'm an Orwell kinda guy), but some good stuff nevertheless.

No worries, I knew you were joking, that why I used the word "shall" so much. Orwell's not my cup of tea, lord, reading Animal Farm was torture! If someone doesn't like my references they can kiss my ass for all I'm concerned, and for some reason I don't think that the average Escapist is familiar with Ayn Rand's works, and if you liked "1984" I would recomend "Anthem" by Mrs. Rand.

I think everyone on the internet is familiar with Ayn Rand's works after about a month-two months in a forum. Don't flatter yourself.

OT: something, something, censorship is bad in this case. Some of those Supreme Court Judges sound hella cool.

I'm not "Flattering myself" I just assumed that a site devoted to gaming may not be frequented by those that study Objectivist philosiphy, and I may have been wrong to assume but until today I hadn't talked to one.

Who's got time for Objectivist Philosophy when there's always Psychophysiology?

Someone who REALLY likes Objectivism.

 

[JDKJ]

Alito's argument is flawed, though, since the portrayal of violence in movies is equivocal to that in video games, neither of which being something that would not have been imagined at the time of writing the constitution. And Scalia appears to have no read some of Grimm's Fairy Tales, being some of the most violent literature commonly available to children.

Alito should just leave the originalism to Scalia, the biggest proponent of originalism to ever grace the Court. I'm not so sure Alito's got the firmest grip on the concept. But maybe Scalia and Thomas won't let him in the clubhouse unless he brings it up every now and then.

 

[Rad Party God]

ERM, why has California suddenly declared war on the video games industry? Sorry, i dont live in America so im not really sure of some of the political issues over there but, over here in Britain we more or less allow anything and everything. The government over here is more concerned with getting us out of the recession than imposing ridiculous laws which, in the long run, wont make a bloody difference anyway ^^

That's exactly the problem we have here in America (when I say America, I mean the whole continent instead of only referring to the USA), the politicians are extremely close minded and many, many people who support them also are. I just hope this law is just dismissed as soon as Arnold-Mr. Steroid-head-Schartzenegger gets his mouth out of his ass.

 

[Yankeedoodles]

ERM, why has California suddenly declared war on the video games industry? Sorry, i dont live in America so im not really sure of some of the political issues over there but, over here in Britain we more or less allow anything and everything. The government over here is more concerned with getting us out of the recession than imposing ridiculous laws which, in the long run, wont make a bloody difference anyway ^^

You must be new to the conversation. Your country already has this sort of law in place and has had it for quite a while. It matters whether the States adopt it or not because retailers might stop carrying M rated games for fear of being sued in case someone accidentally sells a game to a minor. If retailers in the US stop carrying these games then publishers might not produce these games for consumption anywhere as the US makes up the a gigantic chunk of the video game market. For more info I'd suggest looking at some of the Escapist's past articles. It seems like nearly half of them this year have been about this court case.

 

[kouriichi]

Do the thing Kane and Lynch 2 did.
Put the blurry, pixled effect over gore.
It not only stops the violance from being center stage,
but it adds and air of comedy.

 

[Thorvan]

I wish John Galt was here...

Who is John Galt?

In the end, all this law will do is increase piracy, and lower the coming generations appreciation of the games industry itself.

Actually, I'm fairly surprised that the issue of piracy didn't come up. If I want RapeLay, I will go and torrent it eventually, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Not only does this hurt the games industry significantly, which is especially bad news considering our economic state, you've gone from the slim possibility of giving maybe one in about ten thousand children bunched panties, to making a large number of them bloody kleptomaniacs. Real smooth, California.

Oh, and the OP forgot to mention what was probably the best line in the entire case, Scalia's response to the Mortal Kombat bit;

Kagan; "Mortal Kombat, which is an iconic game, which I am sure half of the clerks who work for us spent considerable amounts of time in their adolescence playing?"

Scalia; "I don't know what she's talking about."

 

[rsvp42]

But, of course, those store policies are driven more by external pressures and corporate image concerns more than anything else. I'd imagine that if they ever lost their minds and decided to sell M-rated games to whomever wanted to buy them and argued that there's no law against them doing so, then a horde of white, middle-class, middle-aged, suburban mothers would descend upon their annual shareholder meetings in a convoy of minivans and quickly make them regret that decision. Otherwise, and as long as to do so showed a profit at the bottom line, they'd be selling M-rated games to kids hand over fist.

But that's beside the point, isn't it? The fact is their company policy already restricts who can buy the games. Making that same rule into a federal law shouldn't really change anything for retailers or their revenue. I can't imagine they're seeing massive profits from illegally selling to minors, so nothing should change. Maybe digital distribution could run into problems with age verification, but there's probably simple enough ways for sellers to ensure that their asses are covered. Shouldn't it be just as illegal for a kid to buy a Mature game as it is for a store to sell them one?

Not to avoid the question actually posed, but if you take as a given the studies that indicate 2 out of 10 attempts by the underage to purchase age-restricted games are successful and extrapolate that to the sales of a nationwide brick and mortar super-chain, I'd bet we're talking about a nice chunk o' change.

But won't that happen anyway? I'm sure a heftier legal fine might keep cashiers on the ball more, but you can't stop every person determined to trick the system. But even so, let's imagine that stores do lose a lot of money as a result of this law passing and having to be more strict about game sales. Why would they then stop selling mature games altogether? Then they'd be losing even more revenue on the products, not just revenue lost from illegal sales. I'm not saying this won't have an effect or couldn't snowball into something worse, but the idea that stores will stop selling mature games entirely sounds crazy.

I guess the idea is that potential fines from infractions would deter them from carrying the games? But that's the reason I asked "Shouldn't it be just as illegal for a kid to buy a Mature game as it is for a store to sell them one?" Because once stores have the proper safeguards in place (as this law would require, I assume), why should they be fined for a kid with a fake ID or some crap? Ultimately, this should just mean that stores will be a little more strict than they already are. If it somehow bullies stores into not carrying the games, without even punishing the kids that are actually breaking the law, then it's a crap law.