Games on Trial

[JDKJ]

How about if a parent doesn't want their kid to play a game they tell them they can't?

That would be responsible.

The problem is that this law is writen to "protect" parents that do not review what their children ask for. The parents that walk into Game stop with scribbled christmas lists and ask for games without understanding the ratings system or even looking at the ESRB designations.

The CA law only affects kids who walk into gamestop and ask to buy games. If a parent buys violent games for their kids it's still legal.

No it doesn't. If it passes, given time parents won't be able to walk into GameStop and buy the game for their kids because GameStop won't stock the game. Neither will Walmart, Target, Best Buy, and so on.

That makes no sense.

For starters those companies all ready don't sell M games to minors (or at least gamestop doesn't) as their company policy, even though it's legal to sell them those games.

And besides Wal mart and Target all ready stock things that are illegal to sell to minors. Alcohol and cigarettes.

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.

I think Australia has gotten it (mostly) right, with the exemption that we need an R18+ for games. MA games should NOT be sold to 10 year olds, its common sense. IF the child is mature enough then the parent or adault guardian can buy it on their behalf, the law is for the majority and in general kids are not even meant to play Gears of War, Grand Theft Auto or Killzone 2. While yes games are freedom of speach like the rest, all media should be rated and only sold to those that fit in the age category. Rating something and banning it is a different matter, and I'm against banning stuff/censorship.
Abit of common sense that says that a kid is not allow to buy a game or movie made for adaults would be nice in the states for a change.

I don't understand why there's such a big fuss. Can't they just say that games with 'obscene violence' are R-rated (Or whatever the American equivalent is) and can only be purchased by adults upon presentation of a driver's license or proof of age card? It works for cigarettes and alcohol. No major restructuring would be necessary on anyone's behalf.

What am I missing?

Precisely, it wouldn't effect games sales much, unless EA and Ubisoft are admitting their trying to sell violent games made for 15+ to 10 year olds? Fact is that it's making the game store follow the ratings that already exist.

Common sense in the States? Ha! There's a much better chance of finding Amelia Earhart.

And the difference is the $1000 fine. If, for whatever reasons, California's Video Game Police decide to crawl up the asses of video game retailers and rigorously enforce the law (assuming it's upheld) by, for example, conducting sting operations, and the issuance of those $1000 fines become a common occurrence, then it's not beyond the realm of possibility that some retailers will call it a day and concentrate their energies on less problematic products.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both parents of young children, also seemed to support California's position. Roberts seemed to be most concerned with protecting children from violence in general

Hmm, that's probably because it's the parents damned job to take care of their kids, not the governments.

"We have here a new medium that cannot possibly have been envisioned at the time when the First Amendment was ratified. To say...because descriptions in a book of violence were not considered a category of speech that was appropriate for limitations at the time when the First Amendment was violated is entirely artificial."

You're only thinking of the violence in the games, think about what else the game industry has done for mankind. If you need me to I'll lead you out of the tunnel you're stuck in and too the light.

This case is seriously frightening, and we really need to stand up and remind the court that just because the medium is new, it doesn't mean it should be regulated.
They just need to look back to history and see that this has happened before, and they should just remind parents and states that parenting isn't their job.

 

[JDKJ]

Could someone please clarify this for me.

So this law basically makes it illegal to sell M rated games to minors? The thought behind that is really not th...

The fear is that, essentially, Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, GameStop et al. would simply remove M rated games from the shelves. rather than risk getting fined. Considering that a) brick-and-mortar retailers probably sell the highest proportion of console games, and b) the next rating down from an M (PEGI equivalent: 18+) is a T (PEGI equivalent: 12+). This would pretty much mean that party games take over a FPSes as the "default" genre within six months, rather than in the next console generation.

Ah, thanks for the answer. Still, isn't that kind of assuming things will end in a worst case scenario? Is there anything apart from speculations that point towards retailers taking M rated games off the shelves? They already have a policy against selling M rated games to minors right? So what's gonna change? If they weren't selling violent games to children in the first place, it's not like they're gonna make less money once the law passes, if the only thing that changes is the consequences of failing to enforce the policy, isn't it just as reasonable to assume they will put more pressure on employees as resorting to take the games off the shelves?

Also, doesn't the ESRB have an equivalent to the PEGI 16+?

Could someone please clarify this for me.

So this law basically makes it illegal to sell M rated games to minors? The thought behind that is really not that bad is it? The M is there for a reason, nobody is arguing against that right?

Am I getting it right when I say that people are afraid of what will happen when there can be legal repercussions of accidentally selling the wrong game to the wrong person? Wouldn't that just result in stricter store policies? How is it going to affect the industry in a bad way?

edit: and why are people talking about censoring? Does restricting sales classify as censoring or is there something here that I missed?

The fear is that, essentially, Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, GameStop et al. would simply remove M rated games from the shelves. rather than risk getting fined. Considering that a) brick-and-mortar retailers probably sell the highest proportion of console games, and b) the next rating down from an M (PEGI equivalent: 18+) is a T (PEGI equivalent: 12+). This would pretty much mean that party games take over a FPSes as the "default" genre within six months, rather than in the next console generation.

There's also Americans on this forum that think that you either have Freedom Of Speech or you're in 1984 territory, no middle ground. It's the sort of argument the Tea Party would make, frankly.

Also, for those who are wondering, the game mentioned by the judges is Postal 2 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_2], a game released seven years ago exclusively on PCs (all OSes too!), which is a format which will probably be entirely unaffected by this law thanks to the magic of digital distribution [http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/postal_2_complete].

Whether from the "Official Handbook of Tea Party Arguments" or not, as a matter of pure English language, to restrict access to speech, be it video games or "Lady Chatterley's Lover," is correctly called "censorship."

And, as a matter of American politics, the Tea Party idiots are, in theory, opposed to Big Government and its regulations and interventions. They'd supposedly be opposed to any law that effectively makes the government a nanny for children.

 

[MDSnowman]

This law shouldn't exist, period. It's simply an attempt to wipe one's backside with the 1st amendment and ignore some of the greatest principals the country was founded on.

In the end of the day parents needs to take responsibility for what their children are buying. If your child asks for a copy of Grand Theft Auto IV, then it falls upon you, as the parent, to know what they're asking for.

Frankly, that's the easy part, the hard part is keeping a tab on what a child may buy on their own, or trade with friends for. Then it requires you to do that kind of homework on the fly. It also requires that the parent is willing to accept the fact that their child went and actively sought out this game. It's not anyone's fault but the kid's.

The fact is many parents today don't have inclination to take that kind of interest in their children. Trust me, I work in the education field and the sheer amount of apathy I see from parents is disturbing. They can't be bothered to keep sick children home, look at their work, return notes, or even take the smallest degree of interest in what their child does all day.

If this naturally extends to the games they give their children to play with then naturally they WANT someone else to decide what's right for them, and to make it someone else's fault that they didn't take an active enough interest in their child's life.

 

[Delusibeta]

*snip*

It's speculation of the worst case, but considering that's a scenereo mentioned on the first page of this article, it's not an uncommon speculation. And no, the ESRB does not, as far as I know, have an equivilant to PEGI 16+. Yet. Of course, you can argue that M is the equivilant to 16+ and AO is equivilant to 18+, but considering AO is pretty much the same as if Germany refused a rating on it, it's a poor arguement.

Ironically, AO is also (currently) the only ESRB rating AFAIK that is legally binding. Hence the aforementioned worst case if California gets to legally bind the M rating as well.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

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.

Anyone can get it off of a torrent. That's bad enough already. They aren't going after Postal 2 only. They also happen to be going after MadWorld, which to me just strikes me as fucking retarded. It seems as though they're only just going after the most violent looking games.

 

[JDKJ]

*snip*

It's speculation of the worst case, but considering that's a scenereo mentioned on the first page of this article, it's not an uncommon speculation. And no, the ESRB does not, as far as I know, have an equivilant to PEGI 16+. Yet. Of course, you can argue that M is the equivilant to 16+ and AO is equivilant to 18+, but considering AO is pretty much the same as if Germany refused a rating on it, it's a poor arguement.

Ironically, AO is also (currently) the only ESRB rating AFAIK that is legally binding. Hence the aforementioned worst case if California gets to legally bind the M rating as well.

No ESRB rating, from "E" to "AO," is legally binding. A wholly private regulatory scheme cannot, as a matter of law, be legislatively granted the force of a public law. To do so is unconstitutional because it effectively replaces the judgment of elected legislators with the judgment of some private entity who is in no way beholden to the electorate. You can call this some sorta Tea Party argument, if you'd like, but to me, at least, it makes perfect sense.

 

[Furbyz]

I don't understand why there's such a big fuss. Can't they just say that games with 'obscene violence' are R-rated (Or whatever the American equivalent is) and can only be purchased by adults upon presentation of a driver's license or proof of age card? It works for cigarettes and alcohol. No major restructuring would be necessary on anyone's behalf.

What am I missing?

This isn't really about minors playing games. There's a much bigger picture here. This has to do with Games First Amendment rights, i.e. are they protected by freedom of speech?

Imagine what would happen if these laws pass. First of all, there will have to be strict definitions of what is and isn't acceptable. Then to complicate things more, these laws will be defined at the state level, meaning that you could have very different standards to follow when making a game. That severely narrows what a designer can do. Games with violence (and lets face it, there are a lot) become riskier to make. That could shake the whole industry, and set the whole medium back a generation. They would be regulated by people that don't know and don't care about games.

The biggest insult though, is that this isn't even a question for other media. The Godfather and The Great Gatsby both depict murder and other immoral behavior, but they're both considered great pieces art. But violence in a video game? That's not acceptable

Actually, the Supreme Court decided that Motion Pictures were protected under the First Amendment, as they served as a vehicle to effectively carry an idea, in 1952. You see, it's not that no one has asked that question about movies, it's just that the answer has long been decided. Now it's Video Games turn. And while you are correct about those laws being decided at a state level you don't take into account that local government could also impose censorship laws. Which would be a whole different kind of hell. However, that should be irrelevant since, more than likely, there is no way that games won't be held as protected by the First Amendment. Which would render governmental censorship boards impossible.

I wouldn't be surprised to see any tests for deciding if something is too violent, though. The ESRB's self-regulation might need to be stepped up and education of Joe Blow Parent is a must.

 

[Ashoten]

make sweeping generalizations because that is what ignorance breeds.

Exactly, and well also that we as gamers sort of don't always show that we are as intelligent and normal and behaved just like anyone else which hinders peoples opinion of us. not saying all of us are hooligans but those who are have a bigger impact than those of us who aren't.

Unfortunately that's the case in every demographic. Where people are judged by one bad example out of 100 otherwise good examples. The nature of the news medium is to be sensational and outrageous to attract attention.

 

[hitheremynameisbob]

There's also Americans on this forum that think that you either have Freedom Of Speech or you're in 1984 territory, no middle ground. It's the sort of argument the Tea Party would make, frankly.

Look, nobody thinks that this would be a big form of censorship. Nobody thinks that it's going to lead to big brother and doublespeak in ten years. But this is missing the point. Some people are looking at this law and saying "what's the harm?" but you can't make law just on the basis of "why not?" There has to be good reason, justification, and logic behind your decision to restrict anything, and as it stands there is very little in play here. Specifically, they are trying to say that video games AND ONLY VIDEO GAMES are harmful enough to warrant censorship. That's just ridiculous. No study says that. What some studies say is that violent video games can do harm to minors, but not one says that movies, books, etc... do not do the same thing. Even if video games do more damage then these others, which hasn't been shown, it's still silly to regulate one and not the others. It's bad legislation, period.

And then there's the matter of what message this sends about games. Games aren't like movies and books. Games hurt kids! While this law may not restrict much, it could lead to more. Once you have a decision from the SUPREME COURT that says video games are okay to regulate, you will see, gradually, stricter and stricter attempts at controlling them. And even if the currently proposed $1000 dollar fine isn't enough to make the big retailers take them off shelves, once you declare that regulation is okay there's no guarantee that this will be the worst restriction we see. It has the potential to get harsher, and it probably will. How much harsher is a question of the power of the groups that want to censor games and how much legislative support they can drum up, but let's put it this way: they've managed to get at least ten states to try and restrict game sales already, and this is without the Supreme Court having said that it's okay to do it.

As to the suggestion that it has worked alright in other countries, without big retailers limiting their stock on these games: most other countries aren't the US. I seriously doubt that any other country has such a strong interest group presence arrayed against video games. The reason things may be different here will be that we have dozens of parents groups, religious organizations, ect... who legitimately do want games to be censored. Even then, I'm sure other countries have their fair share of these groups, but they likely don't have the sort of legislative clout that they do in the US. These groups are the driving force behind laws that restrict games, and if emboldened by a victory, there's really no telling how far they're willing to push this.

Again, refer to the first paragraph here. "Why not?" is not justification for legislation restricting free speech, even if only doing so in a very small way. Unless it can be shown that the decision to single games out is rational, and not being done simply because they know they can't win against other mediums, this law has no place on the books.

 

[acosn]

ESRB has the highest compliance rate of any self imposed rating system in the market. You're more likely to get through an R rated movie than you are to buy an "M" Rated game. I'm bloody 21 and they still card me.


The rating system is for all intents legally binding. If a store doesn't want to sell you a game on the basis that you're not old enough, they're not going to sell it to you. There's no legal ramifications if your parent does for you though. If that's what you mean.

 

[mobsterlobster]

I live in the UK, and I once worked for a store called Argos. When people were buying video games or movies that were rated 18 or 15, I always had to point it out to the customer, even if they were obviously over the age, just to let them know. Why can't that be the law? That way, an ignorant parent buying a rated R game for their child will know it's unsuitable before they buy it. Then it's the parent's decision to buy the game.

 

[jono793]

I fail to see the issue here. All California is attempting to do is put legal weight behind a classification system that already exists. We've had a similar situation here in the UK with the BBFC classifications (with PEGI supposedly taking over at some point in the near future). While there were certainly teething problems, British game development is hardly stifled by a climate of censorship.

As for: "major game retailers," having "to restructure their entire business model to ensure minors are not sold games," that's exactly the sort of shrill exaggeration that polarizes the debate! At most, games retailers would need to re-train their staff to ask for ID when selling an M rated game, something that could be achieved in a single orientation day!

 

[vallorn]

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 ^^

actualty our old game review board (the BBFC) was a government body. it did a pretty decent job until it was replaced by Pegi(damn you EU!).they banned 2 games in the last 10 years and one of those was Guess what! Postal 2!

its illegal here to sell 18 games to under 18's the other ones are guidelines for parents.

 

[addeB]

"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..."

Does a game like that even exist?

 

[ThePurpleStuff]

A simple solution here parents, "DON'T. BUY. IT!" Your two year old child should have those shitty v-tech video games they make, not the next Call of Duty and Halo games. Are they so dumb and so uncaring they'll just pick up a game that is obviously not meant for kids and just toss it at their child's feet? "That'll keep you quiet for a while, welfare check." God, its shit like that that really makes me wish none of this generation ever became a parent and the human race would evolve into some sort of smart, super being.

 

[JDKJ]

There's also Americans on this forum that think that you either have Freedom Of Speech or you're in 1984 territory, no middle ground. It's the sort of argument the Tea Party would make, frankly.

Look, nobody thinks that this would be a big form of censorship. *snip*

What tickles me is how no small amount of those outside of the United States seem all too willing to use the "Tea Party" brush to paint Americans who disagree with them. While, conversely, it would be just as easy to paint them with the "British National Party" brush -- but I don't see anybody doing that.

 

[JDKJ]

ESRB has the highest compliance rate of any self imposed rating system in the market. You're more likely to get through an R rated movie than you are to buy an "M" Rated game. I'm bloody 21 and they still card me.


The rating system is for all intents legally binding. If a store doesn't want to sell you a game on the basis that you're not old enough, they're not going to sell it to you. There's no legal ramifications if your parent does for you though. If that's what you mean.

How is the ESRB's rating system for all intents legally binding? It's a completely voluntary system. If a store wants to sell you a game despite the fact that you're not old enough to buy it, there's no law that says they can't and no legal ramifications if they do.

 

[Sad Face]

Correct me if I'm wrong...but didn't Arnold Schwarzenegger make a fairly decent living off of pretending to kill people? A bit of a moot point I know considering he was an adult at the time...except didn't he also star in video games aimed at children where you killed people?

It all seems a little willy nilly to me, poorly investigated.