Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Innocuous California Game Ratings Bill Passed

Posted by simoniker on from the no-jail-after-all dept.

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."

12 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. Good news... by dmayle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...

    1. Re:Good news... by black+mariah · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    2. Re:Good news... by FlimFlamboyant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
  2. Sign, sign, everywhere a sign. by Bluesman · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    1. Re:Sign, sign, everywhere a sign. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  3. govern^H^H^H^H^H^Hterminator by madaxe42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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....

  4. It seems reasonable by fiftyvolts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    100% Crunchier
  5. Re:Ratings by bodgit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  6. Why aren't books rated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    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!

    1. Re:Why aren't books rated? by Korvac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  7. It's a different world from where you come from... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. Big visible warning by Chemisor · · Score: 5, Funny

    > 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?