Staskala said:
If you respond 5 hours later, please also read my other comments.
Like I said, I didn't know that America could possibly make such a big deal out of it. Most other countries also enforce mandatory ratings systems and you can buy games just fine at retail stores. And no, you also can't buy porn there.
It is the worst case scenario, but not something that will happen with certainty. Though the possibility is apparantly higher in the 'states than anywhere else.
The US is wierd, ain't it? There's a few reasons for this, not the least of which is the way the first amendment was built, with the obscenity clause being pretty much the only feasible way to deny something its protection if it's got halfway competent lawyers defending it, and even then it isn't easy. Unfortunately, this means that any media the federal government wants to regulate has to be lumped into the same box as some other stuff that's come before, even if it's not nearly as bad as that. Case in point - hard core porn is probably a lot more deserving of government regulation than Call of Duty, but the way our constitution works they don't have much other choice but to go after it this way, unless you want to amend the damned document, which takes a hell of a lot more work. So while I wouldn't be necessarily opposed to some regulation, the way they've been forced to do it is just unacceptable to me. It's overly harsh and leaves little in the way of room for compromise.
Part of what makes the anti-game movement so strong here is the much higher rates of violence in the US. "Concerned parents organizations" and such are actually pretty formidable forces when they mobilize around something like this because everyone is always hearing about school shootings and such. The news media is just as much to blame as anything for highlighting incidents of teen violence as much as they do, along with many other factors, but for whatever reason - yeah, people here really care about that ****. It's ridiculous in a lot of ways, and there's not much conclusive evidence to back up the link between games and teen violence, but people sure as hell make a stink about it over here, and they have been for almost twenty years now. It's not even necessarily that the majority of the population thinks that the link exists - it's just that the portion that does (for whatever reason) has become far more vocal than the portion that doesn't. This is why we've seen laws attempting to restrict the sale of games pass through the legislature in at least eight states. Thankfully the courts have killed every single one, but these groups aren't going to stop trying until there's clear NATIONAL precedent that says they pretty much can't really win.
Another difference is that the US is much more litigious than other countries. The rate of lawsuits compared to many other Western countries is pretty damned high. People will sue for just about anything here, including selling little Timmy a game he shouldn't have been able to buy and doing "irreparable harm" to the stupid kid. Big retail brands have to be constantly worried about silly lawsuits from things like this - settling those cases will be expensive and will really be a slap to their public image. Right now, they don't need to bother themselves over this because they're not doing anything wrong by selling these games to minors, at least legally. If they suddenly have to worry about real penalties for doing it, though, they may decide that it's just impossible to enforce perfectly (which it is) and that it's just not worth stocking them any more. While I doubt they're going to face significant trouble from the government over this, what they'll really be worried about is getting sued.
Technically they're vulnerable to this now, anyway, but the legal record, at least for the moment, says that they're not doing anything wrong because every time the matter has gone before court the judge's opinion has said something along the lines of "I find no conclusive evidence that games are harmful to children or are in any other way objectionable." If the supreme court provides an opinion that contradicts any part of that, though, the floodgates may just open, and lawsuits against retailers who fail to fully enforce the regulations (I.E. All retailers) will have a chance at success, and that may just be what it takes to make them conclude that it's not worth the trouble. I'm sure they'll still stock non-obscene games that they can't possibly be sued over, of course, and hence that's what developers will make.
You're right that it's more of a danger in the US than other countries. It's partly because we've put ourselves into a difficult position with the way we've structured the first amendment and its obscenity clause, partly because some people here are particularly vocal about the video game violence issue, and partly because we love suing people, among other things. Basically, though, the ESRB is doing a pretty decent job of regulating it as things stand, even if their ratings aren't legally binding. I see no good reason to go from that to something that may cause real damage to the industry.
