Jaffe: Gamers' Rights Efforts are "Pointless and Naive"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Sure, the porn industry does alright in the US in comparison to other countries, but a more valid and useful example is comparing it to Hollywood. Which one of those two do you think makes more money? Hint: not porn.Jamash said:
The big problem is how much it costs to make an action game. What's it cost to shoot porn? Can't be more than a few thousand bucks. A big-budget action game costs several million dollars to make - if they start facing serious problems with distributing and selling their games the entire genre of big-budget violent games may lose its profitability entirely, and we'll see them go extinct. Sure you get some "cult" status as something that's cool because it's "bad" but really, that can't compete with Hollywood's several BILLION dollars of annual revenue.
The US is a republic. It never was a democracy [http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html] 
Jaffe makes a point which i was thinking myself. But then again we may not affect the cases outcome with the supreme court but we can sure as hell vote out the politicians that support it come next election. Assuming you can get our age group to actually vote lol
Jaffe makes a point which i was thinking myself. But then again we may not affect the cases outcome with the supreme court but we can sure as hell vote out the politicians that support it come next election. Assuming you can get our age group to actually vote lol
No, we didn't, but now you're seeing the problem here - "porn" and "R rated fims" are two different things in the US. Selling porn to kids IS illegal because it's classified as "obscene", but R rated films (as in, some tits allowed, but nothing else) are not. Instead we have the MPAA, an industry-run, private organization that rates films, but the adherence to their rating are strictly voluntary. What California is trying to do is throw violent games in there with the porn, and thus expand our definition of "obscene" to include violence, but only in games. That's ridiculous, of course, but that's what they're trying to do. Of course, if they succeed it may one day extend to movies and such as well, but that's missing the point - I don't want to see it happen at all, because when it does, as I've just noted in another post, many game studios go from being Hollywood to being the porn industry, and it's a lot easier for Hollywood to make, say, "Avatar" than it is for Playboy to do it.Danzaivar said:There's no law against selling an R rated film to kids? Seriously?
You guys outlawed booze, but skipped kids buying porn?
He's right, the courts don't base their rulings on public opinion. In fact, I think I said much the same thing when they were asking people to make an appearance the day of the hearing. That said, I'm fairly confident the court will find in our favor, Schwarzenegger's case is too flimsy. Also this Supreme Court has a long track record of being extremely business friendly, and while I usually find that to be a problem, in this case it's definitely in our favor.
Still WAY smaller than the video games industry.Jamash said:
Don't play the "equivalence game" just because this-is-this and that-is-that doesn't mean this-is-that.
The AMERICAN PART of pornography industry may be the richest but it is still worth less than the US Video Games industry. Not to mention artistically worthless.
Artistically and economically this law will be either the best or worst single thing to happen to the US games industry and by extension the rest of the world. Either protect gaming or condemn it.
Put it this way, look at how video games are censored in the UK. Now look at the state of the UK video games industry. It is an utter shambles, the industry's greatest defenders have said it is all over and is beyond any possible recovery and will only get worse. We don't have a single major UK games publisher, only a few studios haemorrhaging talent overseas or owned by foreign companies.
That's what treating games like dangerous substances has done. It has made gaming uninvestable in finance, indefensible in politics and fair game in EVERY ASPECT of the press. There is the unassailable and poisonous idea in UK Media that censorship is not only inherently good but NECESSARY! Especially for games.
This is true, but "democracy" has two different definitions, really. I mean, yes, technically we are not a democracy as in the strict, "system of government" definition, but you can also treat it as a generalized descriptor for any representative system of government. It's generally used that way nowadays, regardless of its more traditional definition. When the UN says it's committed to "spreading democracy" they're not saying they want to spread that type of government, but rather a set of ideals and values organized into some sort of free, representative system. I know, I know, they should just say that, but it's realityCryo84R said:
No porn is government regulated. Refer to this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech] as to y Porn isn't protected under the constitution.Danzaivar said:There's no law against selling an R rated film to kids? Seriously?
You guys outlawed booze, but skipped kids buying porn?
R Rated movies on the other hand isn't ^-^ its basically all in the private sector to prevent kids from getting them movies. It isnt a crime to sell R movies to kids, but it is to sell Porn to kids. (mind you the regulatory committee that oversees the movie industry can hand out fines to violators if the violators had previously agreed to follow the committee rules, afaik)
Ah, right. I see what you guys are worried about now. It's really weird how the most liberal state can also be the most draconian sometimes.hitheremynameisbob said:No, we didn't, but now you're seeing the problem here - "porn" and "R rated fims" are two different things in the US. Selling porn to kids IS illegal because it's classified as "obscene", but R rated films (as in, some tits allowed, but nothing else) are not. Instead we have the MPAA, an industry-run, private organization that rates films, but the adherence to their rating are strictly voluntary. What California is trying to do is throw violent games in there with the porn, and thus expand our definition of "obscene" to include violence, but only in games. That's ridiculous, of course, but that's what they're trying to do. Of course, if they succeed it may one day extend to movies and such as well, but that's missing the point - I don't want to see it happen at all, because when it does, as I've just noted in another post, many game studios go from being Hollywood to being the porn industry, and it's a lot easier for Hollywood to make, say, "Avatar" than it is for Playboy to do it.Danzaivar said:There's no law against selling an R rated film to kids? Seriously?
You guys outlawed booze, but skipped kids buying porn?
That's a really messed up ratings system. And I thought Australia's was bad.
Online petitions and real-life rallies may not sway the Supreme Court's decision, but they can pressure the politicians. The court case is whether government can ban the selling of games under certain conditions, not whether they must. Even if the bans are allowed, gamers, as voters and activists, can push politicians not to create them in the first place or repeal those in place.
David Jaffe continues to miss the point.
The point of all of this ruckus is to make our voices heard. People need to see that we are not going to be apathetic when it comes to these types of issues. These asshat legislators and politicians need to see that we are not basement dwelling outcasts that just take anything they give up the tailpipe. Even if it's all just symbolic, the effort is still worth it.
For a game developer, I kinda expected him to be somewhat more supportive of this.
The point of all of this ruckus is to make our voices heard. People need to see that we are not going to be apathetic when it comes to these types of issues. These asshat legislators and politicians need to see that we are not basement dwelling outcasts that just take anything they give up the tailpipe. Even if it's all just symbolic, the effort is still worth it.
For a game developer, I kinda expected him to be somewhat more supportive of this.
It's complicated, for sure, but at least so far they've mostly done a good job. Australia just regulates the hell out of everything and makes getting games there a pain in the ***, from what I understand. The ESRB may seem strange, but recently they've been doing a pretty good job at encouraging their ratings to be taken seriously. Most major retail outlets will card customers and do actually refuse to sell Mature rated games to kids. It's really a shock to a lot of people that the court is hearing this case at all here, because so far our lower courts have unanimously rejected the previous attempts (there have been more than a few) to do this. Usually the supreme court doesn't weigh in on things that seem this clear-cut, but what can you do.Danzaivar said:
If we didn't have things like these to encourage gamers to focus on external enemies & get them motivated to do things as a group, then they may start looking at themselves, realise what a wasted life they've had taking being gamers so seriously, & go do other things. We can't have that!
that's what Jaffe's missing. The point of the petition is not to attempt to sway the court with public opinion, it's to establish the fact that Americans in general and video game consumers in particular consider games to be a form of free speech, that they would be negatively affected by legal restrictions on that form of speech, and that government has no legitimate interest in restricting it.Andy Chalk said:
Oh, so that's the point. I also never got what the reaction of American gamers was all about.hitheremynameisbob said:
In that case I have to argue that this law not so much affects the industry itself but rather the (perception of) gamers. After all, pornography is a lucrative industry despite being "obscene". The core gamers will continue to play and new/casual gamers are pretty much unaffected, so money will keep coming.
I also have to note that a statement like Mr. Jaffe's is rather naive, of course the group that is affected by this should make their voices heard, whether those voices directly change anything or not.
This guy brings up a very good point
JUMBO PALACE:
I'm sorry some of us are not so cynical and jaded as to think that we have no say in the future of our own countr
lol you obviously failed government class, there's a reason it's called the court and not the congress.
JUMBO PALACE:
I'm sorry some of us are not so cynical and jaded as to think that we have no say in the future of our own countr
lol you obviously failed government class, there's a reason it's called the court and not the congress.