When Games are Sold Like Guns: An Interview with the ECA's Hal Halpin

[Gladion]

Say goodbye to all Steam Sales because Steam can't PROVE you're eligible. Goodbye to Mass Effect because it contains nudity. Hello to Micro$ost, Sony, Nintendo having to have ALL of your details on file so that you can prove, at any time, that you're eligible to play that version of that game.

Political situation? Say goodbye to all flight simulators sold in the aftermath of 9/11?
Mewtwo? Nope. World of Warcraft? Addictive, so your time on it will be logged and you will be forced offline.

This is being extremely paranoid now. I realized you agreed this is a worst-case scenario but it's not even that, it's as possible as China going on a nuclear rampage tomorrow. Prohibiting retailers to sell software meant for adults to kids does NOT lead to that scenario. Many European countries already have regulations like that for years and they did not turn into this fascist dictatorships you're describing here.

What does the online retailer do to protect themselves against £5000 fine (per customer). They can't, without all of your details...

Amazon in Germany works this way: You order an 18+ rated product, it gets delivered, the mailman checks your ID, done. If you're paying with a credit card, this step is unneccessary since minors aren't allowed the use of credit cards.
Some Austrian online-shops want you to scan your ID (you can blacken the photograph/current residence etc. only name/date of birth/ID-number are required) and send them to you via email. Only bad thing is that you have to pay 5 Euros extra
It's not as impossible as you may think it is and they also don't need all of your details.

Edit: Oh yeah, the Steam Store is also fine because the only way you can pay there is via credit card - can't get a credit card if you're under 18, therefore no further checks needed.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

This is being extremely paranoid now.

Honestly? I wish it were the case. Take a quick look at half of the news stories in the Escapist's back catalog about how the media reports video games.
Now imagine if they had something that could be done about it. Micro$oft actually did get investigated by the FBI over Flight Simulator. Steve Jackson Games had their entire catalog seized over the printing of GURPS Cyberpunk. That's not actual paranoia anymore. I really wish it was.

Amazon in Germany works this way: You order an 18+ rated product, it gets delivered, the mailman checks your ID, done. If you're paying with a credit card, this step is unneccessary since minors aren't allowed the use of credit cards.

Germany who have the highest rate of banned games? Also how can you tell if it's not a minor using a "borrowed" credit card?
Even the postman system falls down if an 18 year old "collects" it from the door.

Edit: Oh yeah, the Steam Store is also fine because the only way you can pay there is via credit card - can't get a credit card if you're under 18, therefore no further checks needed.

Problem is that you can get a card at a really early age here. Natwest/TSB Solo Debit card, which can be used for some credit purchases, can be gained at 11.

Especially as my credit card is the only proof of ID I have. No passport, no driving licence, no gun licence...

 

[DTWolfwood]

"The ways in which it will impact things, it will impact lives of professionals, like the 45,000 people that are here, it can easily impact retail and how you interact with retailers, so instead of shopping for games like you shop for DVDs, you'd have to shop for them like you'd shop for guns."

best line to explain the situation! Hope the Justices really see what is going on here and vote this case down!

If it wins, the case would instantly become precedence for anything else the Government want to regulate. Killing the First Amendment effectively >.<

 

[fletch_talon]

I must have interpreted something wrong because last I checked, keeping immature kids from playing games intended for more mature audiences is a good thing.

I don't think it's a question of age, more a question of maturity. Age is just an arbitrary number. It's for a parent to decide if their child is mature enough to handle a game that is above their age rating.

Until we can create a system that can determine the maturity of a child, age is the best we've got.
A 15 yr old may be as immature as a 10 year old, but a 10 year old will not be as mature as an average 15 yr old. Its also a case of mental development, yes a 14 and 15 year old are going to be at a very similar stage in mental development, they're both likely to be beyond the impressionable stage of, say, a 10 or 11 year old.

Basically we need a system to be in place. You say its up to the parents. I agree to an extent, unfortunately parents can't always be relied on to parent, not to mention kids are quite capable of buying things without a parent present. At least with this in place, we don't have to worry about unsupervised children buying things that aren't meant for them. Much like with alcohol and cigarettes. Parents (older brothers, older friends, hobos, etc.) will certainly still circumvent the law and buy things for them, but it diminishes the issue despite not completely eradicating it.

Keeping kids away from mature games is a good thing.
But "intended for mature audiences"? Nope...this is saying "Only allowed to those who can prove that they are not only above a certain age (no matter what their maturity designates), look over that certain age, can prove their above that certain age

Here in Aus game stores ask for ID. I don't know about America, but here, most high schools seem to give out school ID cards. If you need to prove you're over 15 but don't have a driver's/learners license that does just fine. If you need to prove you're over 18, you likely have a driver's license, otherwise we have 18+ cards that can be applied for.

will prove that they are not allowing any minors to ever have access to that game (really tough for parents)

I think you consider your government to be stupider than it is, or could conceivably be. There is no way to prove that. Just as there is no way to prove you aren't buying that alcohol or those cigarettes or porn for a minor. Yes if you get caught providing a minor with these things (unsupervised) then you can be charged but it will be very hard to prove. I sincerely doubt anyone is stupid enough to think enforcing age ratings is going to eliminate the problem, what it will do is prevent kids from buying games without their parents knowledge.

that they have a right to be able to see that game, that the games themselves are suitable against any political upheaval past/future and that this MUST be carried out.

I'm not 100% sure of what you mean by this. If you meet the age requirement then you have the right.
As for political upheaval, do you mean if a government wants to tighten restrictions, or change what qualifies a game for a certain rating (or if it gets rated and released at all?). If this is what you mean, then again that's not something you can enforce, otherwise I don't know what you mean.

Say goodbye to all Steam Sales because Steam can't PROVE you're eligible. Goodbye to Mass Effect because it contains nudity. Hello to Micro$ost, Sony, Nintendo having to have ALL of your details on file so that you can prove, at any time, that you're eligible to play that version of that game.

To possess a credit card, or to sign up for accounts like that you are supposed to be 18 or at the least have parental permission, again something that can't necessarily be enforced. I live in Australia, we (as far as I know) legally enforce age restrictions on movies and games. We still have access to Steam and companies do not have our details on file.

Political situation? Say goodbye to all flight simulators sold in the aftermath of 9/11?
Mewtwo? Nope. World of Warcraft? Addictive, so your time on it will be logged and you will be forced offline.

Now this is just sounding like stereotypical American (even if you're not) paranoia. A constant fear that the government is incompetent. They're asking to be able to restrict game sales to minors based on a rating recieved before it is released. Once a game has been rated M15+ and released, they can't (again to best my knowledge) then reverse the decision because of an event like 9/11. Games like flight simulators might be censored due to things like 9/11 but that's already happening/happened because publisher's are smart enough to know that it can potentially bring negative press.

This is the way they're getting it through the courts. NO-ONE wants a 4 year old kid playing a blood-drenched game, but some 17 year olds? Maybe. Not under this ruling. You'd need to take an ID Card or a Passport everytime you wanted to play a game.

Who doesn't have their license or ID with them when they go out? And personally I don't see a reason why a 17 yr old can't wait a year to play an 18+ game. If its really that vital, as I said above, they can't enforce the law well at home. As long as the kids don't go broadcasting the fact that they're playing 18+ games their parents can buy them for them and the law is none the wiser.

And if a High School shooting takes place? Guess who's just been edged closer to the top of the suspect list.

Except they don't record ID they just check it for proof of age. Just like they don't record your details when you buy spraypaint/knives to track down graffiti artists/knife murderers (its illegal for a minor to buy spraypaint or knives here in Aus).

 

[fletch_talon]

Now I read most of this, and my understanding of it is that they want it to be possible to punish people for providing minors with access to mature rated video games...

And we're supposed to be against this?

I must have interpreted something wrong because last I checked, keeping kids from playing games intended for more mature audiences is a good thing.

I BELIEVE the general idea is that media industries in America are self-regulating, but this would make it an actual crime to sell games to minors. Honestly, living in England, where this already happens (without the sky falling, too!), I don't see the problem - it all strikes me as a knee jerk 'but they get to play with their own ratings!' rather than a rational 'well... Kids shouldn't get their hands on 18 rated games unless their parent feels they're ready.'

Also, self regulation is only good when it works. From the ammount of American kids clogging up the team chats of 18 rated games, it clearly doesn't...

I agree. As I said in a previous post, Americans have this stereotype (so it seems) of not trusting their own government. The whole right to bear arms seems to be based around the fear of the government becoming corrupt and using the army and police (made up of the public) to oppress them.

I don't see why the American government is more likely to go overboard with these laws than the Australian or English (British?). Especially when they're constantly reminded of how badly the public would take it if they did.

 

[Gladion]

This is being extremely paranoid now.

Honestly? I wish it were the case. Take a quick look at half of the news stories in the Escapist's back catalog about how the media reports video games.
Now imagine if they had something that could be done about it. Micro$oft actually did get investigated by the FBI over Flight Simulator. Steve Jackson Games had their entire catalog seized over the printing of GURPS Cyberpunk. That's not actual paranoia anymore. I really wish it was.

This Flight Simulator thing was an extremely special case and had nothing to do with youth protection - same goes for the SJG-case - and how old is the latter one? 20 years? 25? It also didn't have any effect on anything whatsoever.

Amazon in Germany works this way: You order an 18+ rated product, it gets delivered, the mailman checks your ID, done. If you're paying with a credit card, this step is unneccessary since minors aren't allowed the use of credit cards.

Germany who have the highest rate of banned games?

This is not true - it's an extreme oversimplification of what is happening here. The only things really 'banned' in Germany are child pornography and Nazi stuff. Please just take my word for it now because it'd take really long to explain it correctly and it seriously does not have any importance in this discussion.

Also how can you tell if it's not a minor using a "borrowed" credit card?
Even the postman system falls down if an 18 year old "collects" it from the door.

In this case, the postman will only hand the product to the person who ordered it, it's not like anyone can take it just like any other regular package.
I also agree the system is not perfect, but I'm not protecting it or arguing in its favor, I'm just saying there is a system active right now that does not lead into dictatorship.

Edit: Oh yeah, the Steam Store is also fine because the only way you can pay there is via credit card - can't get a credit card if you're under 18, therefore no further checks needed.

Problem is that you can get a card at a really early age here. Natwest/TSB Solo Debit card, which can be used for some credit purchases, can be gained at 11.

Wow, at 11! I knew credit cards are far more common in the US, but I didn't know THAT. This surely proves to be a problem alright. :/

 

[lomylithruldor]

Problem is that you can get a card at a really early age here. Natwest/TSB Solo Debit card, which can be used for some credit purchases, can be gained at 11.

Credit card at 11? Glad I'm not living in the US.

so instead of shopping for games like you shop for DVDs, you'd have to shop for them like you'd shop for guns.

If that's true, the problem lies more on how you shop for guns than how you would shop for a game if the law pass. You only need an ID to buy a gun? That's crazy! Are they thinking that driving a car is more dangerous than having a gun?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Here in Aus game stores ask for ID. I don't know about America, but here, most high schools seem to give out school ID cards.

I'm UK, and ardently against ID cards for a number of reasons. The two main ones being that confidential files get lost on trains here, and that we already have the most spied on community in the world.

And, like I said, I have my credit card as ID, and that's it. (Though I haven't been 18 for quite some time)

I think you consider your government to be stupider than it is, or could conceivably be.

I'll admit that, but then they've proved it over a number of things.

For instance, our bus stop service, which cost ten million dollars to put in; and hasn't worked for the past ten years, is being scrapped and replaced with a brand new one.
Reason given? Dogs peed on the posts and it shorted the electrics.
Funny how it's worked in ten other cities up and down the country.

Yeah, I think it's fair to say I don't have a lot of trust in them.

I sincerely doubt anyone is stupid enough to think enforcing age ratings is going to eliminate the problem, what it will do is prevent kids from buying games without their parents knowledge.

Seriously? Listen to Michael Atkinson, Jack Thompson, Keith Vaz, Alan Titchmarsh or a number of other "commentators". They've all said similar things. If you want, I can dig you up clips, but I'll need some time. I'm meant to be cleaning.

that they have a right to be able to see that game, that the games themselves are suitable against any political upheaval past/future and that this MUST be carried out.

I'm not 100% sure of what you mean by this.[/quote]
Basically, even in these 'enlightened' times, we still have jerks like Tim Langdel, the Xbox Live suer, the woman who heard "Islam is the Light"...who have their cases strengthened by judgements like this.
Faux News and the Daily Mail would run entire week's worth of Game Hate Campaigns off of this.

Now this is just sounding like stereotypical American (even if you're not) paranoia. A constant fear that the government is incompetent.

Is it still a fear when proven?

This is the way they're getting it through the courts. NO-ONE wants a 4 year old kid playing a blood-drenched game, but some 17 year olds? Maybe. Not under this ruling. You'd need to take an ID Card or a Passport everytime you wanted to play a game.

Who doesn't have their license or ID with them when they go out?

Like I say, me. I really don't want to be carrying a piece of paper that says exactly who I am. Especially one that could get easily pickpocketed and that would cost me £40.

And if a High School shooting takes place? Guess who's just been edged closer to the top of the suspect list.

Except they don't record ID they just check it for proof of age. Just like they don't record your details when you buy spraypaint/knives to track down graffiti artists/knife murderers (its illegal for a minor to buy spraypaint or knives here in Aus).

Illegal for us to buy a lot of things. But your Boots/Tescos smartcard carries a lot of information. Shopping habits, purchase limits, etc. And Data Mining is BIG business now.

Dupont already got in trouble for checking their employee details for cancer sufferers in their family and deliberately hiring people without a genetic pre-disposition, so they could boost their health record.

I'm not saying everyone is out to get you, me or gameplayers in general. I'm just saying that this form of legislation is dangerous in that it allows more ways for the World to turn towards the Atkinson/Langedel laws and further away from Lincoln/Kennedy.
(And it really annoys me that I couldn't find a decent UK politician to put against Lincoln...perhaps Ashdown?)

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Wow, at 11! I knew credit cards are far more common in the US, but I didn't know THAT. This surely proves to be a problem alright. :/

Credit card at 11? Glad I'm not living in the US.

I'm UK. I'm unsure of the debit card for US, but the US credit card is 18.

If that's true, the problem lies more on how you shop for guns than how you would shop for a game if the law pass. You only need an ID to buy a gun? That's crazy! Are they thinking that driving a car is more dangerous than having a gun?

That's what we do agree on. And games aren't THAT dangerous.

 

[Therumancer]

Here we go.

I agree this is a BIG deal, but it goes beyond video game consumers and the industry, down to the fundemental right of the goverment to impose morality based censorship on private media. Hence why this had been shot down so many times before.

I find it disturbing that it has been taken this far, however I suppose it doesn't surprise me with the general switch of govermental power. Arnie is a Republican, but with the current situation in the White House and House Of Representitives, it strikes me as being the ideal climate for them to win at the supreme court. Having a sympathetic Republican bring the case makes it seem more universal than it really is.

Very interesting, and while I still respect Mr. Schwartzneger I am a bit disappointed.

I seriously hope this is defeated easily, because I fear for what it will mean not just with video games, but with free speech in the US in general.

 

[Jared]

I think, although there are some good ideas behind this, it does seem a little, brutal? I think a suysrtem of control does need to be put in place, but, why let it go to court and what not. Why not try and develop a system which protexts children, publishes, parents and anyone that has to interact with the sale of games?

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Simply because I'm allergic to 'alarmist' thought, anyone care to elaborate on how this is in any way functionally any different from the AO rating us yanks have?

The few games that have gotten the AO rating recently have been toned down for store shelves, then later had the offending content released in a patch.

Not to mention, every retailer has toyed with the policy to not sell M games to people clearly below the age of 18. These experiments lasted exactly as long as it took for one parent to get pissed off at their day being interrupted by the need to go buy whatever game for their children.

This law would simply prevent parent ire from weakening the resolve of retailers, and force them to re-instate their own policies.

Not to mention, considering how irrelevantly small any realistic fine may be, retailers may just go the "shock jock" route, and argue that for every fine they pay, they sell a thousand copies.

Also, film studios do just fine with targeting the pg-13 rating, then releasing "unrated" home versions.

 

[oranger]

Blah blah blah more regulation leading to more control of our identity in corporate hands...
and what happens when you need a credit card just to buy a game with cash? all those gamers forced into owning a credit card...or how about a new national registry system, taxed of course, so that we can buy our games with a simple ID card? good christ that's creepy.
Sign the damn petition people.

 

[Catchy Slogan]

IMHO, this is just some people trying to use everything else as a scapegoat for thier own poor parenting. It's the parents responsibility to watch thier children, not the governments.

 

[fletch_talon]

I'm UK, and ardently against ID cards for a number of reasons. The two main ones being that confidential files get lost on trains here, and that we already have the most spied on community in the world.

And, like I said, I have my credit card as ID, and that's it. (Though I haven't been 18 for quite some time)
...
Like I say, me. I really don't want to be carrying a piece of paper that says exactly who I am. Especially one that could get easily pickpocketed and that would cost me £40.

If someone is really eager to know your name, age and address, there are probably easier ways to find out than stealing your wallet. Not to mention I don't see the purpose of stealing a license or ID card unless they look exactly like you, that's why its photo ID, so someone can't just (hypothetically) walk into a gun store and buy a rocket launcher using your ID.

I also assume you don't carry over £40 in your wallet at any time for the same reason? What about your credit card? If someone has that can't they use that to make online purchases (until you realise its been stolen). ID is important, if you want to get anywhere that is 18+ only then you require photo ID... At least you do here, maybe its different in the UK.

Maybe I'd understand your fears more if you explained what it is you think they'll do with an ID card.

Seriously? Listen to Michael Atkinson, Jack Thompson, Keith Vaz, Alan Titchmarsh or a number of other "commentators". They've all said similar things. If you want, I can dig you up clips, but I'll need some time. I'm meant to be cleaning.

I think there's a difference between what they're saying and what they're thinking. They're assuring the fearful public that increased legal enforcement on age ratings will put an end to minors playing mature rated games.
I'm pretty sure that they're intelligent enough (regardless of what you think about their beliefs) to see that this isn't the case with alcohol and cigarettes, and won't be with videogames.

Basically, even in these 'enlightened' times, we still have jerks like Tim Langdel, the Xbox Live suer, the woman who heard "Islam is the Light"...who have their cases strengthened by judgements like this.
Faux News and the Daily Mail would run entire week's worth of Game Hate Campaigns off of this.

I really don't see the connection. If anything this law could help games. Finally everytime someone says the game made me do it, we can reply by pointing at the rating saying he wasn't supposed to play it, and the law that is intended to enforce that. It would legally be the parent (or alternate adult source) who is accountable for allowing the child access to a game.
Just like the media doesn't blame alcohol when a kid gets drunk at a party, someone had to give the kid the booze.

Illegal for us to buy a lot of things. But your Boots/Tescos smartcard carries a lot of information. Shopping habits, purchase limits, etc. And Data Mining is BIG business now.

I'm not sure what those are, I'm assuming, rewards cards or credit cards of some kind? I use cash, and bank debit card. If they really want to know what I'm buying, let them. The most they can use it for is to see what people my age, my gender, my race/nationality are buying, and market towards that. Now that I know that my purchases could be monitored, I might choose to pay cash for any sex toys or sexy lingerie I buy, though to be quite honest, I doubt anyone who knows me has access to that info, and I don't know why anyone else would care.
Maybe if I bought a bunch of guns and ammunition as well as chemicals known for use in homemade bombs, then I'd get a knock on my doorstep. In which case, fair enough, its unlikely that such purchases are going to be coincidental so if the police want to ask me what I plan to do with it then I feel safer knowing that they do so.

Dupont already got in trouble for checking their employee details for cancer sufferers in their family and deliberately hiring people without a genetic pre-disposition, so they could boost their health record.

That's certainly wrong. But there's a big difference.

A potential employer has access to employee details. A shop does not, however, have access to customer details, you want to buy a game that's R 18+? You hand over your license, they compare the picture, look at the date of birth and hand it back. At no point are they permitted to record the data on that card unless you allow them.
So unless all register staff are going to be trained to swiftly memorise customer details, or photographic memory is in the job requirements, you're pretty darn safe.

I'm not saying everyone is out to get you, me or gameplayers in general. I'm just saying that this form of legislation is dangerous in that it allows more ways for the World to turn towards the Atkinson/Langedel laws and further away from Lincoln/Kennedy.
(And it really annoys me that I couldn't find a decent UK politician to put against Lincoln...perhaps Ashdown?)

I wouldn't call it dangerous, I wouldn't even call it risky. The term "slipper slope" gets tossed around a lot, when a more accurate analogy would be going down a slight incline in a cart with decent breaks. Yes eventually you will reach a speed where your breaks will be useless, but if your cautious, you can stop at a point where that's not a problem.
Ok so its not a great analogy, but I hope it gets my point across. Basically the attitude a lot of people seem to have is equivalent to saying animal abuse laws are a horrible idea, because it leads to the banning of the meat industry. We can defend an animal's rights not to endure unecessary and excessive suffering, whilst still breeding and killing cattle for food.

The key is finding the balance. We eat meat and need to eradicate pests, so we can't claim killing an animal is wrong, we can however ensure that they only endure (no excessive) pain if its necessary, in self defence, for food or for pest control.

Or to get back on topic.
People enjoy games and they have not been proven to be harmful (provided they are enjoyed by individuals of appropriate age and maturity), so we can't ban them or prevent their sale without reason.
We can however ensure, to the best of our ability that individuals of an inadequate maturity level (measured as best we can, by age) do not have access to specific games.

Yes if they go beyond this and try to pass a law that says you must apply for a license to own violent videogames so the government can suss out who's going to go on a school shooting, then its time to worry. Right now, based on my understanding of this law, all they can do is tell little kids to bugger off when they try and buy KillSlaughter Sex Romp 2: Twin Tower Terror.

 

[Chipperz]

"The ways in which it will impact things, it will impact lives of professionals, like the 45,000 people that are here, it can easily impact retail and how you interact with retailers, so instead of shopping for games like you shop for DVDs, you'd have to shop for them like you'd shop for guns."

best line to explain the situation! Hope the Justices really see what is going on here and vote this case down!

If it wins, the case would instantly become precedence for anything else the Government want to regulate. Killing the First Amendment effectively >.<

See, it's that line that terrifies me. If all you need to get a gun is a (potentially fake) ID or an older friend, then there's more wrong in America than a slightly more strictly enforced age rating on games.

From what I understand though, to get a gun, you need to have ID, background checks, no prior convictions, and a specialist license. To get games, you'd need to walk up to a counter, produce some ID (if you don't look over 18. If you do, you can ignore it. In England, shop staff are told to look for people that look under 25), exchange money, and walk out. This is exactly what happens with DVDs.

Should we be arguing that music should be age-restricted to make things more fair on movies?

 

[Russ Pitts]

so instead of shopping for games like you shop for DVDs, you'd have to shop for them like you'd shop for guns.

If that's true, the problem lies more on how you shop for guns than how you would shop for a game if the law pass. You only need an ID to buy a gun? That's crazy! Are they thinking that driving a car is more dangerous than having a gun?

Whether or not the process for buying a gun is flawed is not at issue here, but I can tell you how it works if you don't know.

When you wish to purchase a gun in most states of the US, you must first fill out a sheaf of federal forms, present your identification and then wait while the seller copies all of your information and then personally calls a telephone hotline to initiate a federal background check. The government then checks your ID for any record of felony convictions and various other "red flags" that would make you a bad candidate for owning a gun. Should this check not turn up anything bad about you, you will then be asked to sign more forms, pay for your purchase, and then be personally escorted off the gun seller's premises and only then be given your gun.

The entire process takes anywhere from 30 minutes to over an hour, during which time you and the seller are legally bound to conduct no other business apart from the buying/selling of that one item.

So, if the question is "does the federal government need to regulate game sales" then the answer has to begin at "do we want game purchases to be mired in THAT level of red tape?" For me, the answer is "absolutely not."

 

[InsanityRequiem]

Signed the petition long ago, so I'm doing my part somewhat!

But for the people that are saying why is this happening, it's because if this is passed, then politicians can make more laws against video games.

1) First it's to protect the children by making it illegal to sell to minors.

2) Then they will make a law that states that games showing blood is illegal.

3) Then it'll be followed by the sight of a gun anywhere.

4) Violence of any sort, will be made illegal.

5-#) Then the politicians will go after everything else. Nudity, words, etc.

If one were to look back throughout media history, heck, all the way back to the first book, the people in power have always tried to do something to limit free speech.

1500s-1800s there were literal book burnings. In today's age, video games are the books of the past. If this passes, there would be renewed 'book burnings' called for by politicians.