Gearbox: Industry "Bullies" Should "Move the F*ck Aside"

[Motiv_]

Well said, Gearbox.

What a good deal of legislators need to realize, in my humble opinion, is that there are laws and policies in place that already regulate the games. They're doing it as good or better then any other industry in my experience, and there've been alot worse said, done and implied in books and movies.

There are private policies that regulate the sale of video games but there are no laws that do so -- not unless and until California's law is upheld by SCOTUS.

Yeah, I kinda misspoke there, thanks for correcting that, but my point stands that there is no need for such a law, as the ESRB and the retailers themselves have very strict policies when it comes to selling M rated games to under 18's. In fact, according to a recent article, they do so better than any other form of media.

Source: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.232928-Retailers-Turn-Away-80-of-Kids-Trying-to-Buy-M-Rated-Games

 

[wickes666]

hell, game stop/e.b already doesn't sell M games to people under 17, so i really dont get where all this paranoia is coming from.

 

[Zero_ctrl]

"While he admits the studio's Duke Nukem Forever definitely walks that line, he believes that it's important to challenge neutral regulatory bodies like the ESRB from time to time with such products to know where that line is."

Well said.

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

This truly infuriates me because it is raping our first amendment rights as some subjective third party decides that I am personally and morally offended by something and should not be even allowed to go within 300 yards of the item in question lest I be tainted. I feel that as a society, we do not need a bunch of uptight, sententious, fear-mongering hypocrites dictating what is tolerable for purchase and exposure through our own free will.

I find it disgusting that it comes down to the government attempting to play the role of parents who have every opportunity to stop children from going near offensive or inappropriate material. There is a logical gap that is astounding because how many 12 year olds can afford a television, internet connection, a video game console, video games, movies, music, ect., on their own and without any help whatsoever? These petulant, indolent parents are the ones who pay for the big ticket items; they should control or at the very least monitor what little Timmy puts within 20 inches of that Xbox 360 disc tray. The only laws that need to be enacted are ones of accountability, something that America is losing a grasp on rapidly.

But this isn't even just about video games because this is our first amendment right under fire. Should the "for the children" distorted morality argument prevail over one entertainment medium, will there every be an end to the ludicrous scapegoating and persecution of "corrupting" material? Will books, music, and movies be the next target of these sanctimonious politicians? Our liberties should not be put aside for the appeasement of the ignorant vocal minority who wish to strike down anything contradictory to their ossified mindsets clouded in assumption and irrationality.

Should the entertainment industries be forced to acquiesce to the legal consequences imposed by the law, they will undoubtedly self-censor and crumble their respective mediums. The United States economy is affixed to intellectual property provided by the likes of these entertainment industries, and the government's interference will thrust these industries into the abyss to struggle against stigma and biased law.

The parties in question supporting the California law are not legislators for the people, they are myopic, pandering worms cowering to the vocal dismay of the self-righteous and insufferable "morality" mob. To sync with a buzz-word for votes, they are willing to expose the nation to vast ramifications impacting our constitutional rights, the economy, and the exported entertainment products that other countries receive from America. As I mentioned earlier, we need accountability. The parents bitter over what their children play, watch, hear, or read must look in the mirror and either rise to the challenge of being a responsible parent or abandon their vacuous umbrage. They have the resources. They have the means. Do not waste tax dollars because they cannot read a simple description on the back of a box and not use electronics to babysit their own offspring.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

Oh noes! America might end up having the same system that Europe has in regards to selling vidogames to minors!

Holy Cthulu zombie balls!

[sub]Seriously, it's not even that big a deal...[/sub]

We'll just send some of our laws your way, it's not that big of a deal = P. You guys need more guns, we'll fix that.

 

[cerebus23]

Bottom line is that when this goes to the sc the arguments will be see we got this (phony) study that says games make kid more violent, depressed, nerurotic, schitzo, yadda yadda.

THe other side will say look we got these studies that show no correlation between violent video games and more aggressive behavior, and we have general crime data that shows no major uptick in violence in children, crime rates are generally down period, so how can games that have skyrocketed in popularity over the last 20 years and gotten deciedly more graphic and adult in the last 12 years or so, is there no emperical crime data to support this idea that they are making children more violent?

Bottom line it is a first amendment issue, do games enjoy the same first amendment protections that books and movies enjoy? If the sc says they do then this issue will be put to bed for a good long while. Lest until graphics advance to the point that they become almost real, and then i could see another mounting challenge maybe 15 20 years down the line. But short term i think these crusaders will be stopped in their tracks if the industry can successfully that games like any other medium in this society deserve reasonable first amendment protections under the law.

And if games do cross some line this generation or next then it quite simple retailers will not carry them. If a game manages an "X" rating, i am sure the esrb must have some rating similar to that then there is no way in hell that walmart and gamestop etc would carry it, so gamemakers are already working within a framework the polices how much they can push the line, noone will want to put out a game that will never see any major retailers for distribution, it would be suicide for the amounts of money that games cost to produce, where your average porno flick is cut rate and dirt cheap to make so they can afford to have limited release.

So yes dnf will push the nc-17 line but it will hardly be so over the top and graphic that they would shoot themselves in the head after the amount of time and money went into dnf. The industry is perfectly well self regulated.

 

[boholikeu]

hell, game stop/e.b already doesn't sell M games to people under 17, so i really dont get where all this paranoia is coming from.

Paranoia from which side? From gamers against the new law, or paranoia from parents?

If you are talking about people that are against the law, they are against it because it would effectively make video games the first entertainment medium that's fully regulated by the government.

 

[paragon1]

I'm really hoping the Supreme Court rules in favor of the industry because then we'll have some serious legal precedent backing us up.

 

[Asehujiko]

Todays headline: Randy Pitchford says something everybody knows already.

 

[JDKJ]

Well said, Gearbox.

What a good deal of legislators need to realize, in my humble opinion, is that there are laws and policies in place that already regulate the games. They're doing it as good or better then any other industry in my experience, and there've been alot worse said, done and implied in books and movies.

There are private policies that regulate the sale of video games but there are no laws that do so -- not unless and until California's law is upheld by SCOTUS.

Yeah, I kinda misspoke there, thanks for correcting that, but my point stands that there is no need for such a law, as the ESRB and the retailers themselves have very strict policies when it comes to selling M rated games to under 18's. In fact, according to a recent article, they do so better than any other form of media.

Source: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.232928-Retailers-Turn-Away-80-of-Kids-Trying-to-Buy-M-Rated-Games

Just to play Devil's advocate and not to state a personally held position, there is a benefit to be realized by California's law that isn't realized by the current private regulatory scheme. Specifically, by recognizing violent video game content as harmful to minors and effectively placing it in the same category as cigarettes, alcohol, and pornography, for an adult to then purchase and provide that content to a minor (which the current regulatory scheme doesn't in any way prevent or discourage) could quite possibly be a criminal offense (i.e., contributing to the delinquency of a minor or child endangerment, etc.) -- much like it is similarly criminally offensive to provide cigarettes or alcohol to a minor.

The "study" you cite only measures the success rate of attempts by those under 17 years-old to purchase M-rated games. What about all the adults who, for whatever reasons and whether well-informed or ill-informed when doing so, purchase M-rated games and furnish them to those under 17 years-old?

 

[Albino Boo]

Hmm great PR, allowing yourself to quoted swearing at politicians, that's going to help lots isn't it. Insulting politicians that have the ability to pass a constitutional amendment is very dumb piece of strategy and don't be surprised if they don't turn around and F**k you too and screw the the hard core games industry into the ground. Randy Pitchford has just scored a massive own gaol with freinds like that the games industry doesn't need enemies. How do you think the the public would reacted if the head of BP said well the law says compensation is capped so if you think you're going to get more money you can F**k off? If the games industry wants to keep unregulated then it needs stop sounding like bunch of 18 year old freshman politics majors. The only way counter attempts at regulation is sound sober responsible businessmen fighting against the imposition of unnecessary laws instead of escapees from the Howard Stern show. In short Randy Pitchford just grow up.

 

[HotFezz8]

no it won't end there. its like the darwinism debate (that is whether or not it should be taught), or religion generally. some retards just won't accept it.

 

[DTWolfwood]

its a simple issues their constituents can get behind quickly. Namely the soccer moms and housewives. they have the most time on their hands and are the most vocal about anything that may or may not affect their kids. So being bored they are probably more likely to vote. With that said, the politicians who are for the bill don't even know the ESRB exist and merely using the issue to persuade gullible voters to their side.

Its an ez scapegoat for these retards to divert some unwanted attention to their own political incompetence.

Now if only we can get the age group of males between 18-25 to get up off their asses and vote out these numskulls we would be in great shape. But a las, we can't be bothered with voting XD

 

[poiuppx]

Scum like those trying to push these BS laws deserve to not only be out of politics, but on the street, living in a rotting cardboard box, and subsisting on half-dead cockroaches and drainage pipe water. Trying to effectively kill a major industry that exists to produce fun, not for some legit moral reason, but ultimately because it looks good on polling day according to their experts, is pathetic and disgusting. Maybe they should take a look at the ESA figures and decide if they really want to piss on that many voters. Or maybe that's asking too much; they'd need to take their heads out of their stench-ridden asses first.

...so yeah, I agree with the aformentioned quotes from Pitchford.

 

[poiuppx]

Hmm great PR, allowing yourself to quoted swearing at politicians, that's going to help lots isn't it. Insulting politicians that have the ability to pass a constitutional amendment is very dumb piece of strategy and don't be surprised if they don't turn around and F**k you too and screw the the hard core games industry into the ground. Randy Pitchford has just scored a massive own gaol with freinds like that the games industry doesn't need enemies. How do you think the the public would reacted if the head of BP said well the law says compensation is capped so if you think you're going to get more money you can F**k off? If the games industry wants to keep unregulated then it needs stop sounding like bunch of 18 year old freshman politics majors. The only way counter attempts at regulation is sound sober responsible businessmen fighting against the imposition of unnecessary laws instead of escapees from the Howard Stern show. In short Randy Pitchford just grow up.

...because no one has ever been motivated to do something for or against in politics by venom, anger, spite, and harsh language. Never ever. Pitchford just did something that has never ever had any positive impact in the political realm. And no other outcome can come from him saying this other than hurting the industry and its case, because if the politicians have been paying such wonderful attention to the industry and what it says/does so far, surely it'll latch onto this like a lamprey to a tasty meal. Y'know, as oppossed to continuing to make up BS, spread lies and half-truths, and attempt to paint the video game industry as one beard shy of a massive corrupting terror cell, all for personal glory. Because hey, they can do SO much worse than actively attempt to cripple the industry and spit on everyone both in it and who enjoy it.

 

[Albino Boo]

Hmm great PR, allowing yourself to quoted swearing at politicians, that's going to help lots isn't it. Insulting politicians that have the ability to pass a constitutional amendment is very dumb piece of strategy and don't be surprised if they don't turn around and F**k you too and screw the the hard core games industry into the ground. Randy Pitchford has just scored a massive own gaol with freinds like that the games industry doesn't need enemies. How do you think the the public would reacted if the head of BP said well the law says compensation is capped so if you think you're going to get more money you can F**k off? If the games industry wants to keep unregulated then it needs stop sounding like bunch of 18 year old freshman politics majors. The only way counter attempts at regulation is sound sober responsible businessmen fighting against the imposition of unnecessary laws instead of escapees from the Howard Stern show. In short Randy Pitchford just grow up.

...because no one has ever been motivated to do something for or against in politics by venom, anger, spite, and harsh language. Never ever. Pitchford just did something that has never ever had any positive impact in the political realm. And no other outcome can come from him saying this other than hurting the industry and its case, because if the politicians have been paying such wonderful attention to the industry and what it says/does so far, surely it'll latch onto this like a lamprey to a tasty meal. Y'know, as oppossed to continuing to make up BS, spread lies and half-truths, and attempt to paint the video game industry as one beard shy of a massive corrupting terror cell, all for personal glory. Because hey, they can do SO much worse than actively attempt to cripple the industry and spit on everyone both in it and who enjoy it.

If you think self indulgent posturing and swearing is the way to change the mind of middle America, then you are deeply mistaken. Middle America responded to the reasoned tones of of Martin Luther King not the violent rhetoric of Malcolm X. All middle America have seen from the video games industry stupid juvenile poses about how they a legal right to do what they like. They just said yeah we don't give a sh*t about your concerns and we have legal right to sell violent and sexually explicit products to your children. Thats just a plain dumb political position to take, you will always lose the battle for public opinion. They sit and except the premiss of the question every time, if you let the opposition set the terms of the debate then you have lost before you started. If they made the debate about why are legislators attempting to imposes these foreign laws on the American public they would get public support from the man and woman in the street. Instead they chose behave like its Berkeley in 68.

 

[pwnzerstick]

"The defintition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result" -Albert Einstein
Therefore I think we can safely assume that these people are insane

 

[RaikuFA]

i love gearbox even more now

 

[Icarion (aka Stockholm)]

Hell Yeah! You tell 'em Gearbox! Those fuckers should get the fuck off of OUR bus. I am curious as to what side supports this legislature. If its the tea party, well, look up hypocrisy if you don't know what it is. In America there are rights for a reason. (not to sound like a crazy constitutionalist)

Well not really, considering that the same rule applies to movies too, which are already a recognised art medium. The fact that games can be art isn't the issue, the selling of inappropriate material to minors is.

Not quite sure what you mean. The movie industry here is self-regulated as well, and they actually have a lower success rate than the ESRB.

To quote an earlier article from the Escapist:

An amicus brief [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_brief] was filed yesterday by the Attorneys General of Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia, claiming that the states are "vitally interested in protecting the welfare of children and in helping parents raise them" but that the decisions by various appeals courts to strike down laws like the California's "unreasonably restricts their authority to do that."

That alone is horrifying in my eyes, because I'm adamant that the government should NEVER do the parent's job. If parents want to keep games out of minors hands, then they need to pay more attention themselves.

I mean does this mean the government should screen priests? Should they pass laws against the Church? because God forbid the Church had regulations. Should the government allow a person to spend thousands of dollars on a degree and then turn around and say "You MIGHT be a pedophile therefore you cannot teach"? I mean just two examples but you get the idea