Innocuous California Game Ratings Bill Passed

Thanks to GamePro for its article noting that a newly revised bill "that requires video game retailers to clearly display signs of the game ratings has been passed by the state senate in California." The bill, "now waiting to be signed by Governor Schwarzenegger", was originally paired with a more controversial bill which "called to define 'atrocious or cruel' video games as 'harmful matter to children'", but that pairing failed to advance, despite support from bill sponsor Leland Yee, leading to a straightforward "requirement to have game ratings clearly displayed, and also have information about the ratings system readily available to parents purchasing games."

Comments

Good news...

[dmayle]

I think we can definitely see this as good news. Anything that increases the amount of information to the end user is a good thing, as it allows for informed purchasing decisions, and anything that prevents consumers from getting what they want can generally be considered a bad thing.

This seems to give something to both camps. The educationally conservative will be able to avoid what they consider sensitive material, and the rest of us will be able to buy the next Grand Theft Auto game...

Re:Good news...

[black mariah]

Exactly. I welcome ANYTHING that will keep idiots off the ass of gamers. I like my GTA as much as the next guy, and I don't want some dipshit buying their 7 year old the game and then getting pissed because there are hookers and drugs. Stores should have been prominently displaying rating information for a long time. I generally don't like laws such as this, but it makes it so much better for those of us with at least half a brain to continue about our carnage without morons butting in.

Re:Good news...

[FlimFlamboyant]

On the surface, I suppose it seems harmless. I have no problem with game ratings, though I am leary of the government mandating such things. I am especially leary of the bill they tried to attach to it, which is a common tactic; pair a radical bill with a "reasonable" one that will make the governor/president look bad if he vetos it. Every "reasonable" step that the goverment takes under the guise of "protecting" our children advances their ultimate goal, which is to basically raise our children for us.

At this rate, it's only a matter of time before playing Doom 3 in front of your kids will be considered child abuse, and you'll have the DCFS busting down your door to take them away (I'm not advocating playing Doom 3 in front of your 6-yr-old, by the way).

Just remember, these bills may seem harmless right now by themselves, but eventually, they'll really start to add up.

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign.

[Bluesman]

I'm about to move out to California. What's it like out there? There must be warnings every three feet.

I recently installed a new drain pipe in my bathroom sink. It came with this warning label:

"This product is known by the State of California to contain materials known to cause cancer in labratory tests. Plumbers must notify the customer of this before installation."

Isn't this all going a bit far? I'm concerned that my dirty water and used toothpaste might get cancer, but let's assume a bit of common sense.

Re:Sign, sign, everywhere a sign.

[ConceptJunkie]

Good luck is all I can say. You couldn't pay me to live in that kooky state. I heard the northern part is OK, but you're still subject to the nanny-state tyrrany. California seems to want to legislate things that can only work through the free market (like alternative fuel quotas), and they fail time and again. I could not deal with that smothering benevolence. Of course, it could be worse. At least California didn't put a poet in charge of Homeland Security like NJ.

Still, this particular piece of legislation seems like a good idea because it increases information without reducing access. I avoid these kinds of games myself. Mostly I have no interest in violent games, but I have to support other people who want to purchase them (reluctantly because I think some of these games are morally harmful, but it's a free country).

But it's not only about the kids. It's important for everyone to be informed.

Re:Sign, sign, everywhere a sign.

[harrkev]

You can have California. I lived there for three months a few years ago. Yuck!

Informing the consumer is a good thing, but when EVERY SINGLE STORE IN EXISTENCE there has signs up warning about carcinogens, it looses its effetiveness. "Gee, we just purchased a bottle of typing correction fluid for the secretary. Now we need to add a carcinogen warning to our front door."

That law now requires every business to cry wolf, which means that you are more likely to ignore real threats.

BTW: Where I worked, alkaline AA batteries were considered hazardous waste, and could not be thrown in the trash can. I had to take them home to throw them away!

Re:Sign, sign, everywhere a sign.

[Colazar]

"Hazardous waste" is too strong a term, but you shouldn't be throwing batteries in the trash anyway, if you can help it. They do pollute. If your work wouldn't let you throw them away, there had to have been an alternate way to dispose of them.

We save them up and when we have a bagful, just take them to the nearest library, where they've got a collection center.

I'm not in CA, btw, but I am on the left coast.

Re:Sign, sign, everywhere a sign.

[macdaddy]

California. What can I say about California that no one else has? Let me see. One town in California tried this past year (might have succeded by now) to outlaw .50 caliber rifles. They were all up in arms about how they could be used to shot the large refinery fuel tanks near their community. For starters rounds much smaller than a .50 caliber round will puncture a steel storage tank. Hell a 30-06 loaded heavy will puncture the tank at 200 yards easy. Their logic was that no one had any legitimate reason to own a .50 caliber firearm. I've only ever seen .50cal blackpowder rifles. That's a popular sport and has entire hunting seasons dedicated to it. 50AE J+P rounds also make an excellent personal defense round. Basically that city council fell prey to the typical sensationalism pumped out by anti-gun groups which is commonly amplified by the media. Fun stuff. There's no logical reason to ban .50cal weapons. Much smaller rounds can cause just as much damage. It was probably just some campaign rhetoric to get some councilmeber re-elected.

I also happen to know a little bit about how California created its banned weapon list. IIRC the list was compiled for California's AG and possibly California's Lt. Governor from a few years back. I recall reading about correspondence between the two that talked about the creation of the list. They basically said they didn't want to involve the state's bureau of investigation to have them look at their statistics and give their professional assesment. The reason being was that it would take longer than they wanted to wait and the recommendations by the CBI wouldn't support the position these two individuals wanted to take. So basically lets ignore the pros and make our own uneducated decision. Genius in action. So how did this dynamic duo create the banned weapon list? Well it was really quite simple. Too simple. They took a book of firearms (blue book for guns?), flipped through it, and picked out the guns that looked (LOOKED) dangerous. In case you didn't get that the first time let me repeat myself. They picked out the guns that *****LOOKED***** dangerous regardless of whether or not they really are. They banned weapons that looked like assault [sic] weapons (I'm intentionally using the phrase "assault weapons" incorrectly but in the same way commonly misused for political reasons). If they happened across a picture of a deer rifle in an ominous-looking synthetic stock they banned the gun outright (after all we all know it's the mean looking stock that makes the big bad piece of pipe more deadly, right?). They didn't however ban the same weapon, a common deer rifle, in a wood grain stock. Identical actions. Different stocks. I guess the gun isn't lethal when it has a dark walnut stock. Go figure. My personal favorite was a shotgun they banned. I can't for the life of my remember what model it was but it looked a lot like the grease gun (M3A1). It looked like four pieces of pipe, 2 for the stubby handles and 2 screwed together for the barrel and chamber. A gun like that can only be described as fugly. The gun wasn't the heavy duty 10-gauge or the quite common 12-gauge badass. It wasn't the not so common 16-gauge (I have a 16ga Savage) or the ubber common 20ga. Forget about the small 24ga or the tiny 28ga. The banned shotgun wasn't even a 32ga or the teeny freaking tiny 36ga (actual, not relic). The banned shotgun was a .410. A .410 !!! That is damned tiny. Think pencil. It gets even better. This oh so lethal .410 shotgun is somewhat unique. It doesn't use a tube magazine like most shotguns. It can't use a drum magazine like you see in the gangster movies. This ubber dangerous shotgun in a single-shot breech-loading bolt-action shotgun. One shot. That's all you get. Then you have to eject the spent cartridge, pop in a new one, an

govern^H^H^H^H^H^Hterminator

[madaxe42]

I wonder how games oriented around the govern^H^H^H^H^H^Hterminator will be rated.... This entire system is nothing new - it's been like this in europe a long while with ESRB ratings... You can't buy a game if you're underage, much like trying to rent porno. Not that I'd know. erm....

atrocious or cruel' video games as 'harmful matter

[kabocox]

Why not atrocious or cruel' movies as 'harmful matter to children and adults!

It seems reasonable

[fiftyvolts]

This seems reasonable enough to me. I am of the opinion that we don't need laws to ban kids from obtaining violent video games, but rather put the responsibility on the children's parents. However, even the most caring parents can be damn near clueless when it comes to games.

Putting big visible warning labels on packaging won't make won't reduce my enjoyment of that game. They'll give clueless parents a chance to raise their kids the way they want, and let those who think their kids are ready allow their children to play them.

Re:Ratings

[bodgit]

This is thing with these ratings ideas, you can slap warnings and ratings over games as much as you want, but it still doesn't stop shops like GAME selling them to kids, (and lets face it, the majority of places like this are staffed by kids that probably aren't old enough themselves to buy it either, let alone sell it).

But more importantly, it doesn't stop parents buying these 'unsuitable' games for their kids, I myself have also been in GAME, and witnessed parents buying games like Vice City, etc. for kids who are barely teenagers, just because the kids are tugging at their parents' arms screaming "I want! I want!", and the parents are just giving in to get a quiet time. I've never seen a parent examine the box, nor have I ever seen a sales representative inquire if the game is actually for the children and that it might not be suitable.

Why aren't books rated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or paintings of naked people? Michelangelo's David might make children violent, or sexual deviants! Why, if they read Lord of the Flies, they might crush fat kids with giant rocks! Someone, please think of the children!

Re:Why aren't books rated?

[Korvac]

Children tend not to read willingly these days, so ratings are pretty moot. It may also be assumed that children who DO read (and comprehend) have a tighter grasp on things.

It's a different world from where you come from...

[Mongoose Disciple]

I lived in California for a few years during the dot.com era, like probably a lot of people.

Legislation-wise, it's really different out there. California is often the first state to try a new law for something. As you might expect, some of those experiments work out pretty well, and some don't. It's the price you pay for innovation, so to speak.

I'll tell you this, though: I sure as hell miss the California smoking laws. I wish I could spend half an hour in any local bar or club and not come out smelling like an ashtray.

Re:It's a different world from where you come from

[MindStalker]

Well there are smoke free bars out there that are created by people who want that choice. But as they arn't public facilities I personally don't think its my place to tell a private buisness what they can do. Though we already tell them that what types of foods they can sell. How many exits they must have and so much other shit, so I guess its just more of the same.
(Note I'm not advocating the removal of all these laws, some of them are probably good, I think its just that we seem to always think we need these laws intead of really examining how nessesary they are.)

Big visible warning

[Chemisor]

> Putting big visible warning labels on packaging

Doesn't a gory image of a blood-spattered dismembered zombie with blood-shot eyes and half-flayed decaying skin, reeling from a shotgun blast that put a ragged, gaping, gore-dripping hole in its torso, qualify somewhat as a visible warning label?

Re:Ratings

[delus10n0]

sales representative inquire if the game is actually for the children and that it might not be suitable.

They train the employees at GameStop to do this very thing. Whether or not they remember to ask is another matter..

When I was in a GameStop last week to buy Doom3, a mom and son had come in, and he instantly ran over and picked up Grand Theft Auto: VC for XBox, asking his mom to buy it. She didn't even look at the box (like you said) and took it to the counter to pay. The GameStop employee told her that the game was rated "M" which meant it was rated mature, and that children probably shouldn't play it. He actually described what was in the game, too.. cussing, sexual things, violence, killings, and told her to review the back of the box. She got disgusted and told her son to put it back, and that they were leaving.

Re:It's a different world from where you come from

[tsm_sf]

As a smoking californian bar-goer(and I vote!), I have to say that pretty much everyone here recognizes that the ban on indoor smoking turned out to be a Good Thing. You smoke less, you don't smell like shit, you meet cute girls when you go outside. A welcome side effect has been the surge of open-air sections in bars.