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

[Irridium]

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.

Which is why almost every gaming establishment already doesn't sell to minors. The ESRB and many retail outlets already stop kids from getting violent games. In fact, they stop kids from getting violent content better than any other form of entertainment.

This law is completely redundant and pointless. And if parents don't want their kids playing the games, then maybe they should actually be a parent and not buy them the games.

Its not the government's job to watch after the kids and regulate what content they get, its the parent's job, and only the parent's job.

Also, I believe Andy once mentioned that Canadians can sign this petition as well, so get on it!

EDIT:

I also recommend everyone to watch Moviebob's video on game violence.

 

[Irridium]

I am not seeing the problem...

Here in the UK it's illegal to sell a DVD to someone who doesn't meet the age classification. They should do it with games too. A parent can buy their 15 year old, say, Kill Bill or GTA4, but the kid can't go in and buy it himself. I'm honestly not seeing the problem. As long as the highest rated games don't have to be censored.

Also, the article seems filled with hyperbole. He says a lot of stuff, but he doesn't really say anything. He doesn't support any of his statements. He'd make a great politician.

Well then allow me to try my hand at this.

We don't need this law because the industry already regulates itself. If you go into a store and try to buy a game, if you look underage even the slightest they will ask for proof of age. Virtually every store does this.

Plus, it seems the games industry is better than all other forms of media at keeping violent content out of the hands of minors.

If this law gets passed, that means games are no longer protected by the First Amendment. Which means all sorts of restrictions by all sorts of people could be put in place. The U.S. could eventually turn out like Australia. And while it my not actually go that far, the possibility is always there.

 

[fletch_talon]

Which is why almost every gaming establishment already doesn't sell to minors. The ESRB and many retail outlets already stop kids from getting violent games. In fact, they stop kids from getting violent content better than any other form of entertainment.

This law is completely redundant and pointless. And if parents don't want their kids playing the games, then maybe they should actually be a parent and not buy them the games.

So what harm does it do if its so redundant and pointless? I'm sure most stores do enforce the ratings, now those stores, and more importantly the ones that don't have even more incentive to do so.

Its not the government's job to watch after the kids and regulate what content they get, its the parent's job, and only the parent's job.

It is the government's job. Just like its their job to enforce the age restriction on buying alcohol and cigarettes, to set and enforce the age of consent for sex, to set conditions and age requirements for driving on public roads.
Yes it is the parent's job to parent their child, and it is their responsibility to control what their children have access to. The government is now making it easier for them to do this because now there's less chance of their children buying games they don't have permission for.

Parents are a big part of preventing children from playing adult games, but they aren't capable of preventing it entirely. Unless of course you're suggesting children be under absolute control by their parents (not letting them go to shops unsupervised, not allowing them to spend their own money, routinely searching their room for M15+ games, etc.). If that's the case I'd say you're solution is worse.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Last one for the day

If someone is really eager to know your name, age and address, there are probably easier ways to find out than stealing your wallet.

That's not what it's for. It's the card more than the information that's valuable.

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.

No, but they can reverse-engineer it and change it; that's why it's valuable to steal.

I also assume you don't carry over £40 in your wallet at any time for the same reason?

Damn straight.

What about your credit card?

Hidden away underneath some used tissues. Not saying exactly where.

If someone has that can't they use that to make online purchases (until you realise its been stolen).

Nope, they'd need my address, phone number etc.

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.

I can live my life quite happily with no ID. That's why I like it.

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

Ok, it's best summarised as Data Mining [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining] in that companies will (like your credit checks) keep information on you, so as to save storage medium. This information isn't able to be viewed by you unless you invoke the DPA, but it's already been released that Boots store your medical details, so if Dupont/Boots did a deal, they could hire/fire based on non-confidential medical records.

That's the problem. The next time you go in and buy a pack of aspirin, your card registers you as "headache sufferer". Anytime that card gets scanned, it gives the scanner that information but never lets you know.

If that's not bad enough, what about things that are only theories? Buy butter and you get marked with Heart Attack risk? (Boosting your Insurance costs) or even when false information gets out.

Like I say, just across the road is a ten million pound project that's had to be scrapped because it couldn't work with radio signals.

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.

Regardless of their intelligence, the frothing over these things is atrocious. Take a look at this clip and tell me that you don't see where I'm coming from.

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.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1158649/Drunken-teenage-mob-goes-rampage-girls-15th-birthday-party-publicised-internet.html

Note that the only place that serves booze mentioned, wasn't serving it to them. Uh-huh.

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?

Yep, smart cards. The ones with the chip. So you don't mind that by buying MewTwo on your credit card or GAMESTOP card, that they've marked you as "Possible Army Material". Or condoms as "Sexually Active". Or a number of other things that they can, and do, do.

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.

Ok, for a start, our IDs have biometrics, smart chips and are read by a machine. I work a till and I can tell you the name, security code, PIN code, start/end dates and a good proportion of the number in about a 5 second glance. A glance I'm supposed to perform to check details.

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.

Card readers do it awfully well.

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.

See, there's the BIG point.

WE can.

WE just don't.

WE are leaving it to THEM.

THEY have proven themselves incapable of protecting OUR rights in the past.

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.

They always could. They were just getting hassled by the parents who wanted to get KSSR2:TTT for the little bastard that's crying for it.

What we're doing here is putting pressure on the retailer, blocking the rightful consumer but still not dealing with the root cause, which is the adult's refusal to LOOK AT THE RATING.

Stupidity can't be held legally responsible.

Unfortunately, like DRM, the legitimate customer suffers so people can SEEN TO BE CARING, while the illegal customer just changes his habits to stealing.

 

[Irridium]

Which is why almost every gaming establishment already doesn't sell to minors. The ESRB and many retail outlets already stop kids from getting violent games. In fact, they stop kids from getting violent content better than any other form of entertainment.

This law is completely redundant and pointless. And if parents don't want their kids playing the games, then maybe they should actually be a parent and not buy them the games.

So what harm does it do if its so redundant and pointless? I'm sure most stores do enforce the ratings, now those stores, and more importantly the ones that don't have even more incentive to do so.

But it doesn't need any more incentive. If a worker sells a violent game to a kid, he gets fired. No ifs, ands, or buts. This law is a pointless waste of time and money.

Its not the government's job to watch after the kids and regulate what content they get, its the parent's job, and only the parent's job.

It is the government's job. Just like its their job to enforce the age restriction on buying alcohol and cigarettes, to set and enforce the age of consent for sex, to set conditions and age requirements for driving on public roads.
Yes it is the parent's job to parent their child, and it is their responsibility to control what their children have access to. The government is now making it easier for them to do this because now there's less chance of their children buying games they don't have permission for.

Parents are a big part of preventing children from playing adult games, but they aren't capable of preventing it entirely. Unless of course you're suggesting children be under absolute control by their parents (not letting them go to shops unsupervised, not allowing them to spend their own money, routinely searching their room for M15+ games, etc.). If that's the case I'd say you're solution is worse.

The only way kids can really play a violent game is to either A)go over to a friends house to play it, or B) have their parent buy it for them.

A can't be helped, but it doesn't happen very much. B on the other hand happens quite a bit. I'm not saying parents should be completely strict with their children, I'm saying parents should look into what their kids are doing more. Its already insanely easy for parents to figure out if a game is appropriate for their child. All they have to do is look at the rating, which takes less effort than is needed to breath. And a quick glance on the back of the game case shows whats in the game. Plus the cashiers have to tell the parents what is in the game. After that, its completely up to the parent, and is the parent's full responsibility.

If they don't like their kid playing the game, maybe they shouldn't have bought it for them after having plenty of warnings.

Plus, the only way a kid can own a mature game is if the parent says its OK. If a parent doesn't want their kids to play mature games, then all they have to do is not let their kids buy mature games or buy the games for the kid.

 

[Albino Boo]

Lets be clear about all this, there is a huge amount sound and fury and both sides and it all signifies nothing. The reason the law has been proposed is a cheap sop to the conservative right, with full knowledge that, if passed, it will be largely ineffective. Has the US laws about the age for purchasing alcohol led to the imposition of a police sate or have they stamped out the underage drinking?

The games industry is screaming first amendment rights because they are worried that a law age restricting games will reduce sales of games that focus on sex and violence to 15 year old boys who actually buy them.

Both sides are engaged in cynical posturing for their own benefit. One to buy votes the other to protect profits, neither care about any moral argument.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Just like its [..the governments...] job to enforce the age restriction on buying alcohol and cigarettes, to set and enforce the age of consent for sex, to set conditions and age requirements for driving on public roads.

No. That's Fascism.

The Government's job is to set restrictions, not enforce. That's the Police's job. Once you get a Government enforcing, that is past the slippery slope into freefall.

 

[Wolf Devastator]

I'm still a little confused... so why are they bringing this up now? Are they just doing it so that nothing bad happens 'down the line'?

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

Because I don't see any evidence of games being sold like guns coming, all I've seen so far is games being sold like DVDs, with no one really monitoring the process. I'd like to see some evidence to these statements, it seemed he was pulling them outta thin air without telling me how that would actually end up happening, if they were to not do something about it.

What is this hoping to accomplish, other than making the government more aware that they should do something about the game industry governing itself.

Anyone want to enlighten me?

 

[Irridium]

I'm still a little confused... so why are they bringing this up now? Are they just doing it so that nothing bad happens 'down the line'?

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

Because I don't see any evidence of games being sold like guns coming, all I've seen so far is games being sold like DVDs, with no one really monitoring the process. I'd like to see some evidence to these statements, it seemed he was pulling them outta thin air without telling me how that would actually end up happening, if they were to not do something about it.

What is this hoping to accomplish, other than making the government more aware that they should do something about the game industry governing itself.

Anyone want to enlighten me?

If this law passes, little by little games would get more and more restricted. Little by little games will have giant restrictions placed on them. In fact, the U.S. may turn into Australia in terms of games. Even if that doesn't happen, if this law is passed, its a very big possibility.

The fact is that its all a major possibility if this law gets passed. It may not be this way now, but things will change if people like Leland Yee get their way. Imagine if Jack Tompson had his way. Thats what we will have to deal with.

 

[Wolf Devastator]

If this law passes, little by little games would get more and more restricted. Little by little games will have giant restrictions placed on them. In fact, the U.S. may turn into Australia in terms of games. Even if that doesn't happen, if this law is passed, its a very big possibility.

The fact is that its all a major possibility if this law gets passed. It may not be this way now, but things will change if people like Leland Yee get their way. Imagine if Jack Tompson had his way. Thats what we will have to deal with.

Oh so wait, are we signing a petition 'against' the law that's trying to get passed? That makes more sense, no wonder I'm confused...

 

[NapalmStix2Kids]

Great, so now I have get a gaming licence.

 

[Irridium]

If this law passes, little by little games would get more and more restricted. Little by little games will have giant restrictions placed on them. In fact, the U.S. may turn into Australia in terms of games. Even if that doesn't happen, if this law is passed, its a very big possibility.

The fact is that its all a major possibility if this law gets passed. It may not be this way now, but things will change if people like Leland Yee get their way. Imagine if Jack Tompson had his way. Thats what we will have to deal with.

Oh so wait, are we signing a petition 'against' the law that's trying to get passed? That makes more sense, no wonder I'm confused...

Yeah, we're signing against this law. So sign!

 

[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 >.<

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?

<.<

you have completely missed the point haven't u? He is making a point that LIKE guns, GAMES will be regulated by the Government instead of privately regulated as it is now. It will be a federal crime to sell to kids a mature game (whatever the government decides to use as a rating, assuming they don't steal directly from the ESRB) Not the point that its going to be as ez as it is to pick up a gun, which isn't... <.<

Music is self regulated and has ratings as far as i know. (havent bought music in decades). So is movies. As of right now, the videogames industries self regulatory (voluntary) ratings are the best of any media in terms of compliance [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96551-FTC-Finds-High-Levels-of-Compliance-With-Videogame-Age-Ratings]. SO what the Videogame industry is doing ACTUALLY WORKS. having Videogames (Media) to be regulated like Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is wrong and the statement is merely to levy the situation in hyperbole.

Plus the ATF will have to become ATFV if this wins XD

 

[Dogstile]

Aren't guns really easy to get in the US?

Bravo good sir! Bravo, you just took a serious topic and made me laugh my ass off.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I'm disappointed that free speech advocacy is so easily dismissed as paranoia. What's next? Rights of the accused?

There are already western countries which ban games. Ban them. At what point does my paranoia begin to reflect reality? Am I going insane?

 

[Dogstile]

I am not seeing the problem...

Here in the UK it's illegal to sell a DVD to someone who doesn't meet the age classification. They should do it with games too. A parent can buy their 15 year old, say, Kill Bill or GTA4, but the kid can't go in and buy it himself. I'm honestly not seeing the problem. As long as the highest rated games don't have to be censored.

Also, the article seems filled with hyperbole. He says a lot of stuff, but he doesn't really say anything. He doesn't support any of his statements. He'd make a great politician.

Well then allow me to try my hand at this.

We don't need this law because the industry already regulates itself. If you go into a store and try to buy a game, if you look underage even the slightest they will ask for proof of age. Virtually every store does this.

I totally agree with you there. I can go to a pub and get served but every time I try to buy a game I get asked for ID

 

[Brotherofwill]

The reason why is because if this law passes, if we fail, the repercussions would be profound and significant in ways that don't impact other forms of entertainment. .... 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.

Isn't buying guns very easy in the US? Sorry, I went there.

Both sides are engaged in cynical posturing for their own benefit. One to buy votes the other to protect profits, neither care about any moral argument.

So true.

 

[CD-R]

Signed. I suggest everyone do the same.

 

[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?

<.<

you have completely missed the point haven't u? He is making a point that LIKE guns, GAMES will be regulated by the Government instead of privately regulated as it is now. It will be a federal crime to sell to kids a mature game (whatever the government decides to use as a rating, assuming they don't steal directly from the ESRB) Not the point that its going to be as ez as it is to pick up a gun, which isn't... <.<

Music is self regulated and has ratings as far as i know. (havent bought music in decades). So is movies. As of right now, the videogames industries self regulatory (voluntary) ratings are the best of any media in terms of compliance [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96551-FTC-Finds-High-Levels-of-Compliance-With-Videogame-Age-Ratings]. SO what the Videogame industry is doing ACTUALLY WORKS. having Videogames (Media) to be regulated like Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is wrong and the statement is merely to levy the situation in hyperbole.

Plus the ATF will have to become ATFV if this wins XD

No he doesn't. That's not what he's saying at all.

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

That is his statement. The difference between governmental control and independant control of video games is exactly nothing in practice, with the slight difference that stores might start being a bit more aware of checking for IDs if a fine is in place, and even then, that'll only happen for a while. Shopping for games will still be exactly like shopping for DVDs, which is about as far removed from shopping for guns as buying ice cream is from alcohol.

This may, however, affect how American games are marketed and possibly made, depending on how overboard American developers go on this. As evidenced on this very thread, the idea of governmental control is awash with bizarre beliefs that it will herald the end times, and will suddenly stop all games that are even remotely violent from being made, so we might see a few less World War 2 and Modern/Near Future shooters for a bit as developers overreact and start believing that the government has banned all on screen killing of human beings.

Honestly, the most likely outcome of this is that tighter and betterregulated controls on American game stockists mean less American kids in multiplayer games, and even then, that'll just be for a while.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Isn't buying guns very easy in the US? Sorry, I went there.

Yes, you're the fourth or fifth to go there. Buying guns in the U.S. is easy relative to buying guns in European countries, but difficult relative to buying entertainment media in the U.S.

Both sides are engaged in cynical posturing for their own benefit. One to buy votes the other to protect profits, neither care about any moral argument.

So? While true, this is more relevant to politics in general than the specifics of this debate. That is always the case and regardless of motive, we still must live with the Court's decision.