Oh I agree that the porn analogy isn't perfect. I wasn't the one who originally used it, but whatever. But I'm not talking about social stigma - I'm talking about retailers who actually stop carrying violent games. There's a big difference there, and when big name stores stop carrying violent games it's going to be a huge turn for the worse for profits. I think THIS will be the biggest problem facing the industry, not the stigma (which I also think will be a [problem, but not, as you say, a huge one). And sure, some obscene art still gets made, but you're missing the point that it's a whole lot easier for something that only costs a couple thousand bucks to turn a profit than it is for something that costs several million. Even small changes result in big numbers at this level of investment.Staskala said:Really?
I think the porn industry is incredibly diverse and constantly exploring new things.
Kidding aside, yes, saying that it won't affect the industry was a little short-sighted, but the comparision with the porn industry is rather exaggarated. The porn industry is having a hard time not because of its negative stigma, but because noone cares about professional porn. There are thousands of sites on the internet where you can watch porn for free, so why would you take on the embarassment of buying a sex tape in a store?
The video game industry won't suffer the same problems just because it recieves a similar stigma. Surely there will be repercussions, but the extent won't change an awful lot. It will scare off new customers to a certain extend, but most new customers use casual games, which will be unaffected, as a gateway anyway.
Still, no repercussions are obviously better than a few, so let's continue to hope for the best.
Any by the way, a lot of art is also considered obscene, so maybe we'll get somewhere after all
Jaffe: Gamers' Rights Efforts are "Pointless and Naive"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
The problem is even though it is illegal (in the UK) to let even your own child play a game they are not old enough for (as ruled by BBFC's* Age ratings) that law in unenforceable and even harder to prosecute. And that's the way it is, parents buying mature games for little kids, most are not even aware of the law. The only time there is any challenge of age rating is at sale for WHO PAYS, store clerks are not legally required to inform people they must not let under-age people access this game... yet.Okysho said:
The problem you might find is the ESRB's M-rating is not completely analogous to 18-rating in the UK. For example COD4 and Halo 3 which are 17+ in USA are restricted to only 15-and-over in the UK. Probably because ESRB's rating jumps from 13 (T for teen) to 17 while most FPS games fall about in the middle in terms of appropriateness, ESRB then over-rates. Cinema ratings are much the same.
*PEGI ratings are NOT yet legally binding. A 6 year old can buy a game rated 18 by PEGI and it wouldn't be illegal for any store to sell to them. And PEGI is the new European standard... so what does this mean? Expect legislation soon.
The art comment was just a joke, as for the rest I have also edited my previous post.hitheremynameisbob said:
Though I must also say that I as a non-American can't believe that a rating system would be so grave over there that games would be banned from retailers.
Maybe it is likely to happen in the 'states, but I've never seen any other country do this.
While I broadly agree with your point, I do think that the worst case scenario if this passes is that FPSes will be replaced by Party games as the "default" genre on the consoles in this generation rather than the next.hitheremynameisbob said:
However, PCs will be able to sidestep the legislation because of their increasing emphasis on Digital Distribution and websites (e.g. Amazon, Play et al.), which rely on credit cards (and PayPal, but that can be got rid of) and that implies that the buyer is over 18, which sidesteps any enforcement of ratings.
He's pretty right about this, actually...
And I quote myself: Zeig Heil! Heil ze ZUPREME KOURT!
And I quote myself: Zeig Heil! Heil ze ZUPREME KOURT!
Tell that to these guys [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103423-72-Percent-of-Adults-Support-California-Game-Law-UPDATED].derelix said:
OT: While it's true that the Supreme Court should rule on what's in the law (and this law California is trying to pass is so obviously against the first amendment that even a 6 year old could see it), what the people have to say does make a difference, and often the loudest voices get the attention, regardless of whether or not what they are saying is intelligent. So what we need to do is make sure that we are not only talking louder than the opposition, but smarter as well.
Again - do big retail chains where you live carry porn? Not here. They would be legally allowed to do so - yes, I am aware of that, but they choose not to for two reasons. Firstly, because of the stigma surrounding these things - they will carry all sorts of other magazines but not porn because it damages their image. Secondly, because they're afraid of legal action. Walmart doesn't rely on violent games to stay profitable, so it's not really necessary for them to keep stocking them. Age restrictions are impossible to enforce. You can tell your employees to card but they won't always do it - current policy demonstrates this, because they're already telling their employees to card and they're still only succeeding at preventing underage people from buying games like 80% of the time. If it's suddenly illegal to fail to do this, then Walmart has to start worrying about all the fines they will INEVITABLY have to pay when they fail to fully abide by the law. They also have to worry about lawsuits, which will be even more costly and which will further damage their reputation. Will it make violent games less profitable? Definitely. Enough to get them to stop carrying them? I don't know, but I don't want to mess with the possibility.Staskala said:
Don't you see though? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're agreeing with me 100% right here. OF COURSE game devs are going to respond by watering down their games to make them conform with the regulations. But think about it - why will they do this? Because they'll be feeling the pressure from retailers who don't want to stock the higher-rated games. What other incentive could they possibly have? They're not all that worried about reaching a broader audience, because the way things work right now the sale is already effectively restricted to people of the proper age through the voluntary system. This is exactly why I'm against this. Violent games won't be as profitable, so they won't make them any more, and thus gaming is diminished. I don't know what point you thought I was trying to make if not this.Staskala said:
Of course I am agreeing with you, I never said anything else.hitheremynameisbob said:
I just thought you were exaggerating a bit, that's all.
Though I honestly didn't know that this would affect retailers this much in America.
Point taken, it would be much worse than I imagined.
Just because the Supreme Court isn't determined by the people's voice, it doesn't mean we don't stand a chance. Keep in mind their job is to determine the constitutionality of an issue brought forward to them. This bill taken at its simplest is frankly, unconstitutional. For one it unlawfully makes a volunteer organization(The ESRB) into a lawmaking force for California, something it was never meant to be done. The ESRB was and should remain a form of recommendation for adults to determine whether their kids should be exposed to it. Same as for movies and music. But through this it will force gamemakers alone, with no affect on other media like motion picture, television, books, and radio, to consider the consequences of including situations in a game that would get it rated M or higher. People over 18 will not stand idly by and be carded for games as they are for alcohol, firearms, and tobacco. Therefore most won't want to purchase the game. Therefore gamemakers would have to censor themselves in order to get the game sold. It institutes a police system for a form of speech, not a controlled substance. That is the inherent flaw in this and why it will be found unconstitutional.ProtoChimp said:
Keep in mind also that this is just a California law. It has no jurisdiction over other states or federal. Speaking out now is all the more important so legislators over the US know our position on this law so they take that into consideration before making such a law themselves in other states. If this is found unconstitutional then the matter is settled as it is worded and we shouldn't have any worries. But if it passes then you can bet other states might start thinking it is a good idea to follow suit. They need to know NOW that it is not a good idea and to keep California politics to California.
That is why it is NOT "pointless and naive." And it saddens me that a person whose job will be affected by this law is so cynical and defeatist. David Jaffe would be better served by either going to Washington now and speaking out, letting legislators in his state and for his state know his position, or resign his job now.
It's been said many times before and I will say it now: All for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Policing games is an evil act as it suppresses those freedoms that allow us to grow in our mind and imagination.
Yeah, it's true. The Supreme Court is not supposed to yield to the will of the people anyway. That's just not how a representative democracy works. In a representative democracy you elect people to write the laws (the Legislative) and then when those laws are confusing people that have hopefully been appointed out of their competence will see how those laws are supposed to work (the Judiciary). For better and worse Supreme Court judges are not an elected position so they don't and shouldn't care about us (unless I'm getting the way America's political structure is set up to a huge degree).
Sending controllers to Leeland was pointless and naive, sure. No one was expecting Leeland to tearfully retract his proposal and issue a national apology on EGM. But I saw it as a way to mobilize gamers for something so that they don't go out and call someone a fuckwad like gamers are bound to.
Sending controllers to Leeland was pointless and naive, sure. No one was expecting Leeland to tearfully retract his proposal and issue a national apology on EGM. But I saw it as a way to mobilize gamers for something so that they don't go out and call someone a fuckwad like gamers are bound to.
It's alright, I got a bit hot under the collar, bad day is all.Staskala said:
One thing that a lot of people don't appreciate about the ESRB is that it was specifically formed because the industry was worried about exactly what I'm talking about. The ESA's member companies (then it was the IDSA) were worried that congress was about to impose a federal ratings board on them, and when the industry was told to regulate itself, everyone started falling over themselves to come up with a private rating system. They were panicked about the prospect of a government-run one precisely because it would mean that there would suddenly be this huge incentive to not stock many of their products. Of course, since then the industry has changed shape dramatically - now it derives much of its profits from things that wouldn't be considered obscene under any definition, but this just makes it all the more important to not give them any more reason to censor themselves - they see a clear alternative available. The second a major retailer gets tired of dealing with legal fees from having to fight off over-zealous parents angry that the cashier earning minimum wage didn't card their 16-year-old and pulls the violent games from its inventory, a bunch of them are just going to say "well fine, we'll just make Mario Party clones" or something along those lines. You see what I'm saying though - even if this is an extreme scenario, I'm opposed to anything that pushes us closer to the edge of it.
Edit:
The reason I thought you were disagreeing with me was because you seemed to be saying that the whole censorship thing ("the reason I'm opposed to this") was something different from what I was worrying about. But it's not - it's just the logical response from developers to the response from retailers to the legislation. Just taking things one logical step further, is all.
I genuinly think that if poloticians saw the number of votes they would lose after passing this law, they would shut it down. after all, they don't care about how many people they piss off, they care about getting re-elected. this whole thing is about the "concerned parent" vote they could get. if registered voters who were against it really did outway any benefit then they would stop supporting this law.
of course, they think all gamers aren't going to vote but will instead stay in their parents basement.
of course, they think all gamers aren't going to vote but will instead stay in their parents basement.
What a naive position to take! No one is voicing their opinion or concern to either the Supreme Court or any foundations that support minority concerns. To insert context for people voicing their opinions to politicians who clearly ARE swayed by public opinion is clearly a lack of context as to what these people are talking to.Andy Chalk said:Jaffe: Gamers' Rights Efforts are "Pointless and Naive"
The always-outspoken David Jaffe says efforts by gamers to make themselves heard on California's upcoming Supreme Court case are "pointless and naive."
On November 2 the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments on California's proposed law to God of War [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101654-When-Games-are-Sold-Like-Guns-An-Interview-with-the-ECAs-Hal-Halpin], thinks it's a waste of time.
"While I understand and appreciate and support the emotion and feeling behind gamer's desires to sign petitions and write their representatives to let their views be known on the California games bill in front of the Supreme Court, am I the only who who thinks such efforts are pointless and naive?" he wrote on TwitLonger [http://www.twitlonger.com/show/6it7dd]. "The Supreme Court does not rule based on how a vocal majority - let alone a vocal minority like gamers and other media folks - feel about a case in front of them. At best the court will use solid judgment, facts, and president to make a decisions. At worse they will let their own political agendas rule the day. But either way, what do they care what the public thinks?"
"They didn't care that a majority of Americans wanted a recount for the Presidential election in 2000, you think they'll care that 3000, 5000, 10,000, hell even 5 MILLION people sign some petition?" he continued. "Again, perhaps there is value and I'm missing something but from my view it just seems like a big exercise to make people feel like they are making a difference when - in the end - none of our views on this will matter one bit. The Supreme Court is not a democracy where the people vote on the laws they want enacted."
He has a point. The Supreme Court will, hopefully, rule on law and precedent, not sensationalism and shouting. But there's no doubt in my mind that he's also missing something. The Supreme Court is not a democracy but the United States is, and a lot of what makes it tick is influenced directly or indirectly by citizens who speak out. The die may be cast in this particular case but encouraging political engagement among gamers is never a waste of time. Are campaigns like the one to send game controllers to Leland Yee [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104144-Mail-Your-Busted-Controllers-to-Leland-Yee] a bit goofy? Sure. But they also send a message: We're here, we vote - and we take this stuff seriously.
via: GamePolitics [http://gamepolitics.com/2010/10/21/jaffe-facts-will-impact-scotus-decision-not-petitions]
Permalink
Mr. Jaffe should start to think before he types crap in the public forum especially as someone with more built in audience than your average blogger. If an organization asks you to send something to your local politician don't confuse the issue by saying they are talking to the Supreme Court.
Seriously... English comprehension!