Games on Trial

[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.

 

[SilverKyo]

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 ^^

Politics, plain and simple. I don't even think California expects to win, but they can use this to say they did and gain votes through the people who fear/don't understand video games, and only hears about the violent/fringe games from sources like Fox News. The people arguing probably already realize it's all a load of bovine manure. They see a (relatively) new media that isn't as established as movies or televisions for them to take pot shots at "for the children" and get the soccer mom vote. Politics is sickening.

 

[KEM10]

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.

I noticed that too. I read the whole transcript and I thought that should have been the major defense for getting rid of this bill.

Also, it looks as if the CA guy was slowly backing down the whole time. So, worst comes to worst, it looks like all that will happen is the next GTA or GoW or what have you will be up front by the cigarettes.

 

[KunkMast3rFl3x]

Attention all Parents:
You have the control. You are The example. You should KNOW better.
If your child wants something and you KNOW it's wrong (or even if you don't want them to have something) and you say N.O. It's so simple.
The problem is kids are smart for being uneducated. They know you can't really do anything to them. I remember the exact day that "spanking" was taken out of the picture. I pushed the envelope. Fortunately the fear of disciplining was there most of my life I wasn't a complete loss. There's nothing to frighten children with today. God went outta style, disciplining is out and counting to "3"...HAHA! Yeah. Right. What's left. Children need to feel fear of a reprimanding for bad behavior. Until then they'll just keep whining and begging till they get their way and parents will cave and buy them that M rated game (or whatever).
Take back your fear parents. Put the pants back on and Tell your kids "No! You're not old enough." or "Get a job. Then you can buy whatever you want."

*my statements are free to anyone who wishes to use them. they are also based on my work in grocery and video game retail. If your a parent I am not judging you specifically. However take heed and pay attention to your kids after school activities. Children are the future.*

 

[rsvp42]

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.

Possibly, but wouldn't such kids be pirating anyway? With or without the law, kids that can't get their parents to buy them Mature games may try to pirate them instead. I mean, I was carded at Target trying to buy Bioshock and I'm 22 with facial hair. How will actual kids fare? I guess I'm missing how this will affect store policy in any new way. Regardless, piracy probably won't increase much.

 

[rsvp42]

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.

Retailers still sell plenty of alcohol and cigarettes. Kinda the same concern there, right?

 

[RikSharp]

Attention all Parents:
You have the control. You are The example. You should KNOW better.
If your child wants something and you KNOW it's wrong (or even if you don't want them to have something) and you say N.O. It's so simple.
The problem is kids are smart for being uneducated. They know you can't really do anything to them. I remember the exact day that "spanking" was taken out of the picture. I pushed the envelope. Fortunately the fear of disciplining was there most of my life I wasn't a complete loss. There's nothing to frighten children with today. God went outta style, disciplining is out and counting to "3"...HAHA! Yeah. Right. What's left. Children need to feel fear of a reprimanding for bad behavior. Until then they'll just keep whining and begging till they get their way and parents will cave and buy them that M rated game (or whatever).
Take back your fear parents. Put the pants back on and Tell your kids "No! You're not old enough." or "Get a job. Then you can buy whatever you want."

*my statements are free to anyone who wishes to use them. they are also based on my work in grocery and video game retail. If your a parent I am not judging you specifically. However take heed and pay attention to your kids after school activities. Children are the future.*

welcome to the escapist!
a point that is right on the money too.
this law is stupid. all we need is for parents to be parents.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Okay, maybe it's because I don't get out much, but could someone please point out to me these legions of 8- to 14-year-old children who are going out with $60 cash or a credit card to buy these M-rated games?

Oh, wait, they don't exist. Who's buying these games for the kids, then? The parents.

And, here, we come down to the REAL crux of the matter. Fellow gamers, our primary enemy is the lazy parent. The parent so terribly suited towards the job of rearing a child that he/she would rather invest time and energy towards forcing the entire world to be sanitized for his/her child's "well-being". These are the parents who are against sexual education in schools, who protest books with controversial topics, who want to see television shows and movies with adult themes shot down. Lazy parents don't read ESRB labels or box descriptions; rather than practice discretion, they just want any game more complicated than Super Mario Bros. banned so that their kids can't ask for them. They want to spend eighteen years continuing their OWN adolescence, avoiding any problems or "uncomfortable talks" with their child, so that they can dump the naive and unprepared brat on the world at large for US to deal with. They've got better things to do than care for their own offspring, after all; American Idol is on tonight!

And who enables the lazy parent? Why, the pandering politician, who'll be all too happy to wreck some small industry that doesn't contribute to his/her campaign funds in order to get the lazy parents to pull his/her lever come Election Day.

 

[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.

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.

I imagine that -- like any rational business actor -- it'll boil down to cost-benefit and risk-reward analysis. If the greater costs occasioned by having to comply with a new regulatory scheme, should it come to pass, are more than offset by the profits generated by compliance, then comply they will. If it won't, they'll exit the market.

Your analogy of alcohol sales isn't misplaced. For a long time there was little to no enforcement of those age-restricting laws (and this goes back to when it was 18 years-old in most states). Then, for whatever reasons, a significant crack down by law enforcement began in the 1980s. But 7-11s didn't stop selling beer because of the potential risks and actual costs of prosecution and fines. They retooled their employees, slapped the "WE I.D." stickers everywhere, and kept on making money offa beer sales. I'd be surprised if a similar story doesn't unfold for the video game industry. But, again, whether it does or doesn't is, I would think, going to be a function of risk and reward, cost and benefit.

 

[Sheaphard117]

I've just had the greatest thought.

The biggest court case over video games in America (possibly the world)
And JACK THOMPSON isan't involved!
That guy must be fuming!

 

[SpinFusor]

"We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them... We protect children from that."

Uhhh, I'm no justice, or law student of any stripe..... but couldn't the same scenario be played out in film, or literature, and be sold to a minor without any actual legal repercussions?

I mean, isn't that the crux of this case? That movies, and books, and such are all protected under the first amendment. That they can tackle extremely mature subjects, from shovel beatings, to rape, to murder, etc. But that they all willingly self regulate to keep inappropriate content away from people it isn't fit for.

The ESRB has, in the same way, self regulated. Consoles have parental controls on them (voluntarily, I believe). Stores, though they could stand to be a little more vigilant, are also self policing when it comes to selling to minors. *and parents could maybe help out a bit......* I don't see how Justice Roberts (or any legal scholar) could believe the videogame industry deserves to be treated any differently.

Of course what should I expect from a person who immediately equates video-games with schoolgirl torture sims..... Someone who obviously has no knowledge or concept of the large majority of games that are fairly benign, or at worst as violent as an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie.

 

[newdarkcloud]

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.

The thing is, these safeguards are already in place. The law itself is redundant and punishes retailers for no good reason. This case will determine just how "protected" games are as free speech and could set a dangerous president for future laws.

 

[-|-]

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.

Quite right. Don't listen to the nay sayers - you are the one of the few people on here to fully understand rand's works. You are a genius, and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise.

 

[Skorpyo]

UPDATE!

As of right now, my fingers are crossed so hard, they've broken.

 

[Cyanin]

Justice Sotomayor is officially the coolest fucking supreme judge that ever lived.

Gotta admit when i heard about this at first i didn't think some of the judges would be this good for video games, and i'm impressed. Kinda what ya gotta expect from the SUPREME COURT though..

 

[sjt]

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.

this ---^

this would be the first time Scalia & I have agreed on ANY case much less one related to video games!

Also in the last paragraph, broad is misspelled as board. ^_^

 

[FungiGamer]

I've just had the greatest thought.

The biggest court case over video games in America (possibly the world)
And JACK THOMPSON isan't involved!
That guy must be fuming!

My god, it'll turn into a Phoenix Wright game

Lawyer: (It's no good, I'm out of evidence and the Californians are siding with the law... I can't do anything else...)

Judge: Very well, I find this law to be...

*screen starts to fade, then....*

Jack Thomas: OBJECTION! *surprise plot twist* This is unconstitutional and I have the evidence to prove it (for once)!

Lawyer: But.... why?

Jack Thompson: If anyone is going to outlaw games it's going to be me and my crazy logic!

*Case won..... for now*

 

[Calamity]

Funny that the pro Cali. judge that said the founding fathers couldn't have seen video games coming continues to hold that stance after it was completely rebuked by this gem here from Scalia,

"This same argument could have been made when movies first came out. They could have said, 'Oh we've never had violence in Grimm's fairy tales, but we've never had it live on the screen...' Every time there's a new technology, you can make that argument."

Apparently common sense is nothing in the face of someones political agenda.