Slashdot Mirror
Photo ID Required To Buy/Rent Games In Canada
securitas writes "Metro International newspapers Toronto edition reports that Canadian gamers must now provide photo identification to buy computer and video games. The restriction is part of the Retail Council of Canada's Commitment to Parents initiative, in cooperation with the Entertainment Software Association of Canada (ESAC) and the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). The RCC says that it has the support of 90% of game retailers in the voluntary program. Read the RCC video game photo ID press release. There don't seem to be any guidelines for how the program will be implemented - whether it will be a simple flash of a photo ID card (which many teenagers don't have) or a more detailed user database, with its inherent privacy concerns. The Ontario government plans to come up with its own game ratings system after the Ontario Film Review Board gave Manhunt an 'R' rating. More coverage at the CBC and CTV before and after the official announcement."
I suppose this is good for people who have lost control of their kids (I'm not parent-bashing, there are ways to lose control that have little to do with parenting). Do parents really want this? I don't care much either way because my kids aren't allowed to buy video games without my permission. They still end up with a lot of the popular titles ,though ,like Halo, SIMS 2, etc. This has been more of a problem for me at the video store where there are some R and NC17 movies that I simply will not allow them to rent. I know kids end up seeing this stuff away from home at times, but I am not going to give them the message that I think it's okay. Same with video games, they know how I feel about sex & violence in video games, but they still get some of those. It's a hell of a balancing act.
http://www.busyweather.com/
This is worthless. There's no way you can just stop kids from buying games they want to play. Some obvious workarounds are ordering online and having a friend or relative buy the game.
...because now politicians and parents won't be able to pin the blame on video games the next time some brat does something stupid.
I really don't have an issue with age verification. Movie theaters require that, heck Blockbuster even cards occasionally. Now, if the purchaser's name and information are recorded, well...that is another story.
I didn't RTFA but I have experienced this showing of ID. My brother tried to purchase Thief (a mature game as I recall) and Radio Shack made him get someone with ID (he's 16) and so, his big brother Jess just happened to have his ID (my health card which also allowed me to vote just a few days earlier) and we bought the game.
They are simply enforcing an existing law.. why not?
Metro International newspapers Toronto edition reports that Canadian gamers must now provide photo identification to buy computer and video games.
More stupid regulation that can't be controlled or monitored. More excuses to steal from taxpayers. Bah -- it's uninforcable.
Oh wait...
FTA: "It's a voluntary program based on the ratings you already see on the game boxes."
Nevermind.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
As the article states, you already need photo ID for proof-of-age before buying cigerettes and booze...
:)
In terms of privacy I can't see this requirement for video games being any more intrusive than that.
Generally, people who have a problem with this also disagrees with video game ratings in general. I think that's the real problem we'll encounter in this discussion
The blurb didn't make this clear, but the article says that only games that are age-restricted will require ID. So kids without ID can still get sports games and games that are deemed OK for kids. I was worried there for a second... way to discriminate against a good chunk of your audience.
Maybe parents will finally know what little Jimmy is buying with his 500 dollar allowance.
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
The RCC says that it has the support of 90% of game retailers in the voluntary program
Does this mean 10% WILL NOT ID? Well, if this is on a voluntary basis, then you (hopefullY) have those 10%. And those that won't ID will be rewarded by your business. That simple.
Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
I think this is mostly a bad idea. Seriously, if a kid can earn the money (at a job, not from allowance) for a game or movie, I figure they're mature enough to handle it. Restricting the rights of the mature to cater to the unwashed masses... Gotta love it. Of course, that would mean more work for parents, being... parents...
I think, as you said, a parent should be vigilant about what their child does, while realizing there's no way in hell you're gonna stop them. It builds values yet doesn't impose a overly restrictive leash. Of course, do what you will, but keeping kids in a little black box until they're 18 is a great way to not only piss them off, but keep them socially inept for a good long time.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
...here in Oregon. And I am 35 (though I look young)! Having played the game through (loved it), I have a hard time seeing what the problem is to demand age verification before selling this M rated game to folks - it is truly an adults-only game IMO.
It's a lame attempt at a joke, but there is a point.
Political-correctness still knows no bounds. Wasn't one of the MS flight sims changed in the last minute to remove the twin towers?
Really, games aren't 'Pong' anymore.
/shouts for kids to get off his damn lawn.
If you're going to have cinema-realism in games, you're going to have to deal with the same cinema rating system.
Better that than to have the graphics dulled and content Barney-fied into safety.
There is really no difference between this, and a Blockbuster video account.
At the local Blockbuster, you have to show your membership card to rent a movie/game. If you're the primary card holder, they HAVE your ID on file, if you're not (e.g. it's your mom's), and you look like a minor, they'll ask you for ID before you can rent an R-Rated movie (happens this way at all the Blockbusters I've been to in Ontario, anyhow).
This initiative, which, IMO, is a good idea, just extends this principle to purchasing the games as well as renting them. It gives some power to the rating systems -- which most parents don't know exist. Now, parents will at least think that "oh, little Johnny needs an ID to buy this? Wonder why... oh, it's rated M, hmmmmmm." Mind you, just like movies, parents can choose to ignore the rating and buy the game for their kids anyhow.
Seems fair, power still lies with the parents to make the final call.
But Maaa! Everyone else has a
This won't affect E-rated or mild T-rated games, will it? The article didn't make this clear.
Why should one form of entertainment be different from another? If a state is going to place age restrictions on movies, they should do the same for games, music, concerts, theatres, sporting events....
I mean if something is too violent or sexual it is too violent or sexual, no matter the medium.
Not that I agree with that. Government has no place being a critic.
The RCC says that it has the support of 90% of game retailers in the voluntary program.
So the kids who want to buy these games will go to the othe 10% of game retailers, and probably to buy all their games, not just the NC17 ones.
All this plan does is hurt the "honest" retailers.
Jason
ProfQuotes
because it would look sort of silly asking a 30 year old to show you an ID to obtain a game. Shouldn't they do it like they way they do cigar purchases? if the selling thinks you're too young he asks for an id.
hit me with a clue bat if they already mentioned it in the article. I'm just following the long established slashdot tradition of mouthing off without reading first.
did you forget to take your meds?
When they are young, children will take up alot of ideals from their parents, who should always be there letting them know whats right. But by the time they are teens and have to deal with peer pressure in ernest, if the parents have done their job then they won't get out of hand and if they haven't done their job then its a bit too late to do anything about it, especially in that rebelious time.
This is just more of parents being lazy and letting someone else do the work for them.
--
Registered .sig quotient : 1337
>> Seriously, if a kid can earn the money (at a
>> job, not from allowance) for a game or movie,
>> I figure they're mature enough to handle it.
But is it up to you to decide that for my children? For someone elses children? If you decide it's appropriate for your kids, then go buy it for them/with them.
Wasn't one of the MS flight sims changed in the last minute to remove the twin towers?
A patch was released for Flight Simulator 2000, nearly a year after it was released, which would remove the towers. It was entirely optional, but it makes sense, because I can imagine some people might not want to see them there, since they really weren't there.
Later versions have them removed completely, which is no big surprise at all. I would imagine if a building in their landscape files was destroyed for any reason it would be taken out of the game.
What?
Where do the kids get the money in the first place. Hell many of them ask mommy and daddy to drive them to the mall in the first place. If they have a job, chances are they are mature enough to handle the mature games. But its not like this is going to stop kids from ripping and warez'ing games from their friends.
whether it will be a simple flash of a photo ID card (which many teenagers don't have)
Out here in BC, high schoolers and middle schoolers are given photo id's for school and reduced bus fare every year.
In truth, i believe this was formed because it will add another layer of beaurocracy... something that canadians can't live without. It also shifts responsibilities from the parent to the retailers. Now angry parents can blame stores and video games when their kid does something stupid. It's part of the "i blame society" trend that has been rapidly emerging.
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
Yes it was changed.. which bothered me and which makes the beta a collectors edition. :)
So, under your plan, is the store supposed to ask for the Income Tax form, to prove that the money they are using is from a job, and not from allowance?
There is no reason that this will make kids grow up in a black box. It just helps the parents control their kids a little better
Nope, he's talking about the one where it was in the beta but removed from retail....
MS Flight Sim Reworked After Attacks
Microsoft Corp. will alter its Flight Simulator airplane simulator game to eliminate the World Trade Center, Microsoft officials confirmed late Friday.
A spokesman for Microsoft Corp., Redmond, Wash., said the World Trade Center would be removed from the game's next release, due out this fall. The introduction will also be changed to eliminate a scene where two people discuss crashing a plane into the Empire State Building.
or Release of "Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002" Postponed
Minimal changes will be made to "Flight Simulator 2002." The only change that will be made is the removal of the World Trade Center. A patch for previous versions is in the works.
"Damn, I'm underage. I can't buy it at the store any longer, so where can I get it from? Of course, on a P2P network, and for free! And just think, I would have wasted all that money giving it to the game developers..."
Whatever happened to letting the parents decide how to raise their kids ??
A million monkeys and this is the best sig they could come up with...
Shame there isn't a -1 Incorrect or Misleading, because this isn't the only post I've seen which merits it. The feudal system died centuries ago.
The last time I had an allowance, I had to earn it, by doing work around the house.
If you're suggesting kids are receiving money for doing nothing, then perhaps they deserve to play whaterver fucking game they so desire.
This is a good thing--as long as it is limited to games which are rated mature. I'm tired of hearing about how kids are influenced by games to injure others. Of course, the parents should not buy/rent games like Manhunt for their children to play, but if a kid really wants to play the game, he/she can easily go to a friend's house who was able to get it and play it there. But, at least we're making it harder for them to do so.
Anyways, one of the first things a kid should know is the difference between right and wrong!!
I was at EB last weekend here in Calgary. Some kids were ahead of me pre-ordering a game who's title I can't recall. But as the reciept was being printed up, the cashier said "When you come to pick the game up, make sure you bring the reciept and some ID, or bring an adult with you".
I didn't really think about it until reading this story now. Can't say I remember ever hearing that before when in a store like EB.
I don't really see this as a bad thing. The way I see it, making it hard for younger kids to buy violent games without parent's permission means that it's (hopefully) less likely that external preassures will end up causing fewer quality mature games to be made.
I remember when I was younger I got any game that I wanted (well, not as many as I wanted, but without regard to content), just as I got to watch any movies that I wanted. Instead of simply now allowing me to view certain content, my mother would sit down with me while I played the game and would explain the difference between the game and real life.
One of my good friends was not allowed to play any violent games (nothing with blood, no fighting games, basically he was allowed to play sonic and sports games) untill he was 18. His parent's were not around much to sit down with him and play games.
This system basically just re-enforces the two situations.
Of course there will still be parents who will buy their kids the latest GTA or Mortal Kombat without really knowing what is in the game, but it should at least give parents a little bit of an edge.
When I was a kid, as I'm sure is true of most slashdotters, games were primarily targeted at kids. Mortal Kombat is about the only game I can remember being released when I was still fairly young that was very violent. We didn't have Resident Evil or Grand Theft Auto. Back then, it wasn't such a big deal. Now days however, 18+ year old gamers make up the majority of gamers, and games are targetted thusly, and it presents a much larger problem.
Anyway, I've lost my train of thought, maybe someone will finish my rant in a reply.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
whether it will be a simple flash of a photo ID card (which many teenagers don't have)
Can't say for the rest of the world, but in Canada most teenagers have either a school ID, a yearly bus card with photo (at least for the Montreal area) or a medicare card (sun card for Quebec).
Also, as mentionned in other comments, this should be considered a good thing since kids won't be able to buy games they shouldn't be playing. Sure it won't be easily enforceable but isn't it the same thing for other age restricted goods (cigarettes, alcohol and adult magazines)?
Finally, I really don't get the paranoïa about retailers building databases of customers. I don't see why they would use this as a way to get your customer info. Aside from the needs of a system (hardware and software) to collect this information, this would be limited to customers between the ages of 14 and 24 (considering not many people over the age of 24 look underage).
I think most people in the industry will see this as a step in the right direction. At the risk of sounding like a troll (which is NOT my intention), I'd say it's better then restricting the sales to an entire population. At least adults can make a choice to buy a product and even let their kids play if they judge the game appropriate.
If a teenager wants picture ID he can request a provincial ID card. In BC where I live this looks similair to the BC licences, which can be obatined even EASIER once you turn 16. As such, anyone without ID most likely is not 16. Thus must have a parent to buy with them. I was this age not so long ago and I agree with a system such as this.
To keep things in perspective, kids die of hunger all over the world and don't even know what video games are. Therefore, one should feel compelled to suck it up and carry around a piece of plastic in his wallet.
It's the same situation with MPAA ratings -- not legally imposed, but if they weren't there, the government would legally impose them.
Basically, "We must self-regulate, lest the government force regulation upon us."
Another obvious 'workaround' is making (illegal) copies of popular games. This law only boosts the sales of CD/DVD burners and recordable/rewritable media.
And what about the demo games that come with PC gaming magazins? Do magazin buyers need a photo ID too? If not, then this law has one big loophole in it.
"But is it up to you to decide that for my children?"
You might as well ask whether it's up to the store to decide that for my children, for your children and for everybody else's children. How do you reconcile the fact that these kids are allowed to roam around the mall unsupervised with the notion that they're not old enough to choose for themselves what games they want to play? Indeed, is it the stores responsibility not to sell a game to a kid whose parents didn't care enough to accompany them?
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
we're not part of your family.
scott king
instead they'll blame it on a system that doesnt have a centralized database. Then they'll blame it on the fact that the centralized database isnt tied to a total awarness database, etc
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
we don't want them either.
scott king
Why is that surprising? I imagine that if a building was imploded it would be removed as well. I guess I don't see the big deal with it, people want real-world scenery, and if you fly a plane over Manhattan today, you won't see the World Trade Center.
What?
I'm sure that many of you out there share this experience, when I was a freshman at college the biggest whores were the chicks who were kept on a short leash when they were young.
Parents who are too domineering will create children who cut loose as soon as they are out of their parents' sight.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
So you steal alcohol and cigarettes as well?
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
As the article states, you already need photo ID for proof-of-age before buying cigerettes and booze...
we all know how effective this is
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
It was the original poster who implied that allowance was not earned money.
This would be welcomed with open arms in Australia.
As long as they stopped blaming the games for poor parenting probems.
"Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
It's "required" yet it's a "voluntary program." What am I missing here?
I totally agree with you. See my post for some additional comments along this line.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
A couple of books by Dave Grossman contributed heavily to my opinion. I'd suggest reading Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill and On Killing as excellent works on the cost of violence to society.
Disallowing R-rated content to those that can prove they are of an age where they can likely handle it is fine by me. Don't ban the stuff. But the effect these violence simulators can have on a developing mind can be enormous. So taking steps to keep it out of their hands is a step in the right direction. Change will not happen overnight, but we need to do what we can.
--sugarman--
No discussion of video games in Canada would be complete without a reference to Acts Of Gord, a Canadian video game store. Especially topical would be the Oddity story in Chapter 23 of the Book of Annoyances. .
Why bother rating the games otherwise? People check ID for movies (that don't allow people to maim and kill for kicks with the same addictiveness and exposure as games have). Why not?
========
77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
...the christian bible is also full of violence and pornography, and there are many proven cases where children and adults committed heinous crimes modeled specifically after biblical passages or quoting the bible as justification for their crimes.
i say we should require photo ID for access to the christian bible too.
...such as the bible.
it's full of incredibly violent, gory stories and pornography. many people have committed heinous crimes, driven by what they read in the bible.
i say we start there.
As others have noted before, this isn't a regulation, it's a voluntary program.
Second, this has nothing to do with restricting access of violent videogames to kids, it's about a retailer's public profile.
I did a Christmas stint in the electronics department of a Toys R Us when this was new in BC, so I know how the company looks at this from the inside. The whole point is that, Toys R Us being a family-oriented store, complying with this program sends a message that the store is kid-and-parent-friendly.
"Yes," goes the argument, "a kid can go and buy it somewhere else, but you won't catch OUR store peddling violence to your precious, precious children. Do your holiday shopping here!"
-- "Perhaps the truth is less interesting than the facts?" -Amy Weiss, RIAA
But is it up to you to decide that for my children? For someone elses children?
Why not? At what point do we finally realize that just because two people know how to fuck without protection that they have any idea how to raise a child? It's the parents who have been whining for years that violence and sex causes people to go insane and kill and rape...this is a fair solution. Parents, like everyone else, seem to want it both ways...police our children and protect them from all that is dark in the world, but don't tell us how to raise them!
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
You've been bitching all along that parents should be responsible for their kids, when realistically, it's impossible in many situations.
Now they're finally given a law to make it possible and you bitch about that too.
Parents are not superbeings. Cut them some slack, it's hard enough.
If you are renting, you have to be pirating..
This will serve as 'summons pool' for later on when p2p becomes anonymous...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Chattel, not cattle. As in "movable property".
You could've hired me.
It's like being carded at the beer store these days. If I look that young still, I'm doing something right!
Big difference between stealing and copying.
Short of a requirement to fax/mail photo id to them, it's not like the delivery person will ask for ID. Most of the time, they just leave the package in my door without a signature!
I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
Having just got to University here in the UK I can agree with this. Essentially, half the kids here have never had a chance to do what they want before -- the amount of drinking is insane, coupled with sex etc etc. having had a relatively balanced time before now, the change hasnt really made a difference and I know what im doing with money, food, washing etc. (i've made all the mistakes before when it didnt matter so much -- particuarly with money). Half the people here are gonna have a real kick when the first of the big bills start coming (accomodation, tuition etc) not having got to the point of parenting yet (thank god) it seems like a hell of a balancing act, jsut remember you cant shield them from school just try to make sure you let them have the necessary freedom/knowledge before it comes from less trustworthy sources at school
But the stores aren't deciding whether it's good for your children. They're ensuring that YOU have to.
Wait, it's wrong for a /.er to tell you how to raise your kids, or your neighbors and their kids, but it's perfectly acceptable for the government and privatized corporations (read: ESRB) to tell you? I'm confused...
Learn something new.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
So now the 15 yrs will be getting fake 18yr ID to purchase FPS? SAD
They are deciding not to sell the game to your children on the assumption that the parents don't approve of it. In other words, they are acting on behalf of the parents on the assumption that the parents do not approve of it. That why I ask whether it's up to them to make that decision (or, like 10% of the stores, make the opposite decision). If the parents won't do anything about it, then why should the stores?
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
You must be American.. anyway, living in Canada I don't really understand where you are getting the evidence to support what you are saying. If anything us Canadians have more civil liberties then our neighbors to the south.. I personally don't feel the RCMP breathing down my neck.. then again we don't have a department of homeland secScarity...
The Good Life
This should keep those kids from buying their violent video games!
Hell, I'm 23 and -I- don't even have a picture ID. And what is this going to solve, anyway? You think some kid who wants to buy the new GTA is going to go "Aww shucks! I can't buy violent video games anymore! I guess I'll go play stickball with my friends..."? Right. <sarcasm>Because we all know his parents didn't buy him a DVD burner last xmas...and there's no way he has usenet access.....</sarcasm>
What kid is going to be all broken up about not being able to spend money on something they're now forced to get for free?
I nominate this idiotic initiative as the scapegoat, for when all the game companies come looking for the money lost to the steep increase in piracy.
People would rather force kids to STEAL video games, than to trust that they know right from wrong on their own? Granted, some don't. Some adults don't either. Crazy is crazy, and stupid is stupid, no matter what age you are.
</rant>
(Oh yeah, and this is assuming the kids don't just order the game online...)
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
Well, don't you fret, it's on its way with the benignly titled Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. It does not have the pseudo-Nazi "homeland" name, but it is the department responsible for for the RCMP, CSIS, the Fireams Centre, Parole Board and Border Services, much like DHS does for the good ol' USA.
I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
Renting a game costs, what, $5? I don't think many 13 year olds would have trouble rustling up this much cash.
They should be glad over in Canada. Australia outright banned Manhunt (and even the new Leisure Suit Larry remake!), so even adults don't get to see it.
I don't even see why such an intuitive system is considered "news", let alone "stuff that matters."
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
"Seriously, if a kid can earn the money (at a job, not from allowance) for a game or movie, I figure they're mature enough to handle it."
change game or movie to alcohol and cigarettes and you have a very different statement. if canada wants to do this, there will always be ways for the kids to get the games anyways (same with alcohol and cigarettes) so it doesnt really matter that much. also, as i heard this on the radio this morning, what they said then was that it was a VOLUNTARY thing. even the article says that only 90% of the retailers are participating.
most likely there will be small video game shops that will make alot of money off of this.
net change to society = 0
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
It's not the assumption that parents DO not approve of it, it's the assumption that parents MAY not approve of it so why take the chance?
What if the ratings for games are either wrong, or not descriptive enough? Such as a game like Theif being M, but Manhunt or Postal 2 (which, yes, you can go through without killing one person, quite fun) isn't M2, or M+. Maybe a 1-10 system would not only be good, but non-gaming parents, or those who don't buy games/watch movies much, would understand it as well? Either way, good news, excepting the things others have brought up (pirating, etc.)
First, this isn't exactly new. Not in Ontario.
I personally believe that it is better to expose kids to the world and teach them why things is wrong. Shielding someone from something only creates ignorance.
This is the way I was raised, I was able to watch what I wanted and play what I wanted. My mother made sure however, that I knew the difference between video and real life. She's also extremely non violent (she personally can not stand violent movies), she has passed on these views to me. As a result, I play a range of violent games, and watch violent movies yet I am a non violent person.
I believe shielding from reality to be a conservative view (as opposed to the liberal value of teaching). Walking into a religious or conservative home, often I find that the children are not allowed to watch R movies or violent games. From experience, I find that conservatives would rather stop someone from doing something through ignorance rather than to show them and show them why they shouldn't.
I think the game rating should be used as a parental tool, but should not be enforced. But i also think that parents should always be teaching showing their children right from wrong. Its when this doesn't happen, the parents aren't there to guide them enough, that the enforced ratings become necessary.
The government should not have to be parents to our children, however the lack of parenting in society is forcing it to.
None of what i have said is universally true. These are my findings. Dont get mad because your a good parent and your son is a psycho. There are exceptions to everything.
Some parents may not approve of their kids eating junk food, drinking pop and reading Harry Potter novels. should we restrict this stuff also. I say no. If the parents don't want there kids eating junk food and drinking pop or reading Harry Potter novels then they can take them away from their child. Same thing should apply with violent video games.
Goddamn, Internet = assumptive morons. I never said anything about income tax forms, Mr. Hyperbole. Regardless, allowance around here means you, as a child, just 'get' the money. No chores or any of that jazz. If parents pay their children for work they do, then fine, if that's how the parent feels like rewarding their child. If a game is too mature for a child, it should be up to the supposedly responsible parent of that child to take care of that, not some committee.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
Fine, they are acting on behalf of the parents on the assumption that they might not approve of it. They're still making the decision in place of the parents whenever the parents can't be bothered to supervise their supposedly immature children.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Sure, not all teens have a drivers license, but in Ontario and Quebec at least, health cards are valid photo ID. If you don't have a health card, not being able to rent videogames is the least of your problems...
I bought Postal (the original) from Future Shop when I was 13, completely alone. This was in 1997 when the game first came out. My parents *were* elsewhere in the store and I had just gone and asked them if I could buy it (it had a pretty plain box, well okay its box was like a cardboard-ish box with bullet holes in it, with a bloody red "POSTAL" written on the front, but still), but this store is huge and there's no way the cashier saw me with them, since I walked to the opposite end of the store where my parents were and such, to ask my parents.
..
:D
I mean, there are warnings right on the box that say you're supposed to be 17 or older (in the US) to buy the game.
All the games still had all those stupid warnings and parents were still complaining about how video games were corrupting their children and raping them in the night, etc.
Actually, I could have even been 12 at the time, I don't remember what month of the year it was.
Either way, I really wanted the game! I had played the beta of the game anyways, and thought it was soo awesome, and I felt no risk playing it - it was damn fun. Thus when I saw it in the store I was very glad
So now, today, to buy that same game I would have needed photo ID? Well, I better not hear any complaints about:
-lessened sales
-increased piracy
-pissed off kids
-video games causing violence (cuz now kids apparently "won't have violent games")
If that is the case then why don't we just remove the age requirements for buying alcohol and cigarettes, driving, voting, and gambling? Surely if a kid is old enough to earn enough for a fifth then it is their right to purchase it. Age requirements are put on stuff like this because kids need to grow up some before they can do some things. I know there is no way I would let a kid of mine play GTA before they were at least 16. So the stores may as well err on the side of caution.
Look, I don't give a damn how you want to raise your kid until they come to me with a bloody face or saying daddy raped me, inwhich case I get the shotgun and go start some shit. I know how I'd raise mine, and I draw my line where it becomes my business.
You don't want your kid playing games? Then take care of your own business; don't send the cost if your failure to raise your kids onto me without at least asking.
Frankly, you wouldn't have that problem if you'd spend some time raising your kids (instead of letting schools and TV do it for you) and make sure they could come to you with any problem for an explanation.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
change game or movie to alcohol and cigarettes and you have a very different statement.
True, but to be honest, why not? If a parent doesn't have the conviction to deny their children what they feel isn't right for them, guess who shouldn't be a parent? And you're right, there is no conceivable way to prevent kids from getting into stuff like cigarettes and alcohol, so why waste resources on it?
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
"If that is the case then why don't we just remove the age requirements for buying alcohol and cigarettes, driving, voting, and gambling?"
How about the fact that violent video games are nothing at all like alcohol (which gets you drunk), cigarettes (which cause cancer), driving (which can have people killed), voting (where kids become tools for their parents political preferences) or gambling (which can make people poor)? I could make the same ridiculous comparison about anything else that is ever sold to kids, since there are always parents that do not approve of something their kids have access to.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Perhaps, but the crux of my argument is still valid.
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
But what kind of photo identification you must ask yourself. I remember when I went to go buy Metal Gear Solid 2 on opening day, the guy at EB Games asked me for ID so I showed him my Bank Card and School Photo ID. All my School photo ID had was a picture of my acne ridden face, my name, school logo, and the signature of myself and the head of school.
Call me and my voicemail! 914-713-6795. (wow, I have the balls to post my voip number on
Where would /. be then, buddy? I hate how everyone's always thinking of the children. We have feelings too, you know.
What's so bad about asking for I.D.? There are lots of stores in the United States that do that voluntarily. Most of the so-called consequences being mentioned around here rarely happen when it comes to "underage" game buyers. I would rather not have a 12-year-old buy the latest installment of Final Fantasy XXX-I: Real-time T&A on your Radeon, not because of a fear of "corrupting his mind", but to prevent his parents and the moral majority from burning down my store.
Of course, there's no good substitute for parenting. The one thing we should be worried about is why North America is resorting to political pressure to have businesses do the parenting that parents should have done in the first place. Before we start questioning Canadians, let's start with the people in the U.S.
It's up to nobody. I grew up while being exposed at porno and I turned out titty.. erm.. okay I mean.
You are talking about two different, mostly nonintersecting sets of parents.
Here is the story link, ironically in a Canadian web site.
Now, don"t you feel safer?
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
If the parents approve of the game they can buy /rent it for their kids...
Sometimes a parent wants to be able to send their kids to a video store to rent a game without needing to be over their shoulder to ensure it isn't a graphic game.
And before you bring on bullshit freedom crap, keep in mind that movie theatres have had this rule for ages. This is an extension of the movie theatre rule IMO.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Not to mention that once they do turn 18 and suddenly have all the freedom they were stripped of when they were 18, they will take that freedom to the limit, and possibly too far.
Yes, I am the assumptive moron, yet you are the one who made the bold statement they should be able to pay for any game they want if they earned the money, and didn't get it for doing nothing. Do I have to point out how asinine that plan was? How is it supposed to be determined if the money was earned or not. I used the hyperbole to point out just how riduclous that statement was. There would be no way no to know where the money actually came from.
If the game is too mature for the child, the comimittee has decided to make it harder for that child to get the game. They have not made it unpossible. A parent can still decide they disagree with the rating, it is just that the child will need to get them to help obtain it.
"excuse me sir?"
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
It's almost the same F'in thing. only two differences:
Now the parents can be involed
Now the parents can't blame the store. (some a'holes were doing that.)
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
That's all it is, a "rule" made up by the motion picture industry. It is NOT a law! It has no legal authority behind it. It is basically discrimination against an entire segment of our society. A store may post a sign saying "We have the right to refuse service to anyone", but that means on an individual basis, not all members of a group of people. You can't say, "We refuse to sell to blacks", etc. That is illegal. So, why do we permit the wholesale discrimination against children in this damn country...or world for that matter? It is their money to spend as they see fit, especially if they worked for it, and paid TAXES for it...of course they still can't vote or anything. I get so sick of hearing all these damn minorities , and women (who make up 51% of the population and are therefore not a minority) bitching about how they have no rights, when in fact they have more rights than any child will ever have! Children are pretty much the only group in society that have basically no rights whatsoever! Of course, they can commit a crime and be charged as an adult because they are competent enough to know what they are doing. Oh, and by the way I am an adult myself, not some kid bitching about it. And I don't care if you mod me down on this either.
The parents can always confiscate the game should the kids disobey and buy a naughty game. Losing $50 sure would teach them to disobey their parents.
I do think there is a serious freedom issue because the rating system is seriously undemocratic. Personally, I would rate the South Park Movie PG-13 and most of the Disney cartoons as PG-13. What matters most to me is gratuitous violence, particularly when done by the protagonist (the good guy). Sex and naughtly language don't matter much unless it's violent (ie., rape). To get a G rating the movie/show would have to be like Seseme Street or Dragon Tales. Dragonball Z would get an R rating in my book.
I just don't trust a bunch of appointed people to come up with a fair rating, and I understand that my definition of fair is mutually exclusive with some other people's definition of fair.
Maybe this will give kids one more reason to pirate games. Unless the government wants pirate sites to ID kids.
This is an excellent way for you to tezch your children to do things on the sly, get them involved in software piracy (war3z d00d!) and get them breaking the law as well as disobeying you.
At the end of the day where are they going to play the games anyway? At home or at a friend's house. If the child is young enough you have control over that and if the child is old enough for goodness sake teach them to think for themselves and stop sending out the message that its okay for 25 year old to have the same level of maturity as 12 year olds a generation or two ago.
I do need to qualify this. I am not a parent at present, and do not know how good a parent I'll make if I ever become one.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
bwd234, i totally agree with you man and i'm a 22 yo adult. Freedom of speech applies to everybody redardless of their age or whether they are a an adult or a minor. I believe it is up to the parents and only the parents to decide what entertainment material is or isn't appropriate for their children Period.
Would you let your kids go buy porno? Regulation is nothing new... it's remarkable that the gaming industry has gone unregulated this long. Obviously not all games are on the same level as pr0n, but some are pretty damn close.
After all, ever since 9/11 I have to show a photo ID to rent a movie at Blockbuster. Never really undetstood that myself. Do they think terrorists are out renting movies and not returning them?
http://newvoyages.mine.nu:1701/torrent.html?info_h ash=a8938093524e894b5345adafcbe1700ccbc6a827
When I worked for an ISP during the bust times of the early 2000s and before we got our layoff packages, a number of us found we had nothing better to do than to spend half to 3/4 of the day playing LAN GTA2.
We pretty much did this steady for a month and a half. We were all in our late 20s, early 30s and for a short while afterwards, most of us at times would have the urge to or actually hit the gas pedal in our real cars thinking we could accelerate quickly, inch by cars infront of us, squeeze through spaces that we really shouldn't.
Fortunately for all of us that shared our stories, we had the good sense to stop before anything actually happened.
Now take that mindset which we got from playing too much GTA2 and overlay it onto a kid who thinks he's invincible...
There ain't no way I'd be convinced that violent video games don't desensitize as well as put your mind into an altered state.
"not to sell the game to your children on the assumption that the parents don't approve of it" so a good store would get little timmies LG to flash photo ID after doing a quick run down of the game and doing a Regis Filman style "is that your final answer?" just to for CYA reasons. Both of the game stores in my area would
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
I've been buying alcohol without ID since I was 14, same with tobacco and the occasional porn. I finally turn 18 and I might as well throw out my legal ID.
How does requiring ID help when the people asking for the ID can't tell the age of the person buying?
Also I'm sure many kids have a friend or older sibling working at Wal-Mart that will let the ID thing pass and sell them the product anyways. Unless they punish stores that sell to those under age, I don't see this having a complete effect. Sure it'll work somewhat, but when you were young you could still get alcohol without ID if you really wanted it, right?
--
Mod me down, I'm tried of getting Mod points so bloody often.
Dollar Highway Financial News
How do you reconcile the fact that these kids are allowed to roam around the mall unsupervised
In a lot of malls, at least in the U.S., they're *not* allowed to roam around the mall unsupervised, at least not in large groups. (Not because of some police or city government policy, but due to the rules the mall management has set up.)
And frankly, I was a pain in the ass to all the kids who wanted to rent the M rated games. When it came down to it, I read up on not only the BBV rules, but also the rules regarding R rated movies and so on and so forth. I would tell kids flat out that they could not rent Conkers Bad Fur Day, or some other M rated games. When they were barely high enough to see over the counter. The argument that a kid who is old enough to work is old enough to be able to buy/rent a video game/movie is bull. I used to love the parents that would send their kids in with a note saying that they could rent a game/movie. Even though the kid was 14 and the movie was plainly rated R, or an M rated game. I would still refuse the kids and then, when their parents came in to rant and rave? I would say to them very calmly and plainly. "Sir/Ma'am, you can not send your child to the beer store with a note to buy you beer, nor can you send one with a note to buy you smokes. As far as I'm concerned, both the law and store policy does not allow me to rent/sell this game to a minor. Should you wish to do so you are more than welcome, but I will /not/ loose my job or face possible criminal sanctions just so your child can watch a movie or game. Do you /know/ what's in these games? There is (death/dismemberment/language/furry p0rn/you name it) in this movie or game. So frankly, it is up to you."
It might have been petty? But it was all true. I could loose my job, I could face sanctions/fines for renting an r rated movie to a minor.
So, frankly? this is a good thing.
The mall rats have been driven out of our upscale "Galleria" malls and are becoming an endangered species elsewhere. Teens on a leash - malls lauch curfews for teens
i wouldnt let my kids go buy porn...mainly because there's all the free porn they could need on the internet. keep in mind i'm speaking as a non-parent, but i dont see the harm in taking pleasure from seeing a few naked people. if it ends up being all they do at all hours of the day, then there's a problem, but that applies to people of all ages, and to all activities.
my childhood was fairly uncensored, but i still have the capacity to tell right from wrong, and fact from fiction. i would say that regardless of the entertainment i enjoyed before the age of 18(which apperently magicaly makes you mature) i am a well adjusted person.
A /. analogy to this situation would be user access level. Should users have root access by default?
People criticize windows because by default users have root access so they can do anything they want at any time, even if it is stupid (ie. click "Yes" for your daily weather).
The preferred situation is limiting access by default, and somebody responsible like sysadmin increases the users rights. The stores are limiting by default the rights, but it is very little inconvenience for the parents to approve of the child getting access. The parent can go with the child to purchase or purchase the item themselves.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Isn't it funny how it's always the other people who are unable to stop themselves before anything actually happens? It's always about those other more weak-minded individuals, but never really about ourselves.
All your story shows is that you're able to associate related stimuli. You see yourself in the driver's seet and you associate it with your experiences as a GTA player.
There are times when I've felt like driving a monster truck over the cars in front of me... surely those Monster Truck rallies should be made off-limits to impressionable children.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
The world goes round best when things are balanced.
Too much conservative zealotry and you've got a draconian God fearing, fully censoring police state.
Too much liberal hedonism and everybody does what they wanna do and consideration for others goes out the window.
Back to the point of video games.
Considering the increase in CPU and GPU power allowing for life-like looking games. Video games might as well be a very flexible version of those 80s Choose Your Own Adventure books turned into movies.
Since we're slipping video games into the movie genre, rating and prohibiting access should be applied. But even with that in place, parents who don't do parenting should still get off their asses.
... where thought crime laws (also called "hate crimes") are strictly enforced, and free speech takes a back seat to touchy ethnic politics.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
a simple flash of a photo ID card (which many teenagers don't have)
... which is issued to you by the provincial governments at birth, and sports you picture and birthdate! need more official photo ID?
Anyway, these kids usually also have a school ID with picture and all, don't they ?
Strange.
Up here in the colder reaches of North America we have free health care provided by the state. To benefit from this you need your medicare card
or a more detailed user database, with its inherent privacy concerns
Why the database ? Asking for ID to buy/rent a game is no different from asking for ID to get movie tickets or beer. Do movie theatres and convenience shops maintain databases of what movies you see and what brand of beer you buy most often ?
Practical issues put aside, I don't see why this is a problem. Kids are, well, kids. As a society we have a right, and an obligation, to make some decisions about what is acceptable or not for the majority of them. If you want to make a different one for your kids as an individual, go ahead and do it ! go and buy/rent them the game.
You find it difficult to differentiate between reality and fiction. Not all people have this problem. And not all kids do. Should kids not be allowed to read Harry Potter books because SOME people can't tell the difference between real and fiction? After all, the kid might try to jump off a building with a broom stick thinking he can fly.
Should a kid be stopped from reading superman comics for the same reason?
I agree, I also think shop-keepers should only enter contracts with their own race. Everyone knows those whites are mostly immature and therefore wouldn't be able to handle a violent game.
Public school kids (under 13) probably shouldn't be buying games without a parent accompanying them.
Who are you to say yay or nay to that for every parent? Who are the store clerks to say yay or nay for every parent?
Let's say my parents are very busy a lot of the time, they only get saturday and sunday off. They do their shopping on thursday late-night shopping. The last thing they want to do is go to the shops with me Saturday morning to rent a game. But I'm eager to play the new game so I go along with my buddy (whose parents are much like mine) and we go to the store. But now we can't play the game EVEN THOUGH OUR PARENTS ARE FINE WITH IT.
Now fortunately I'm not in that situation and never have been. But quite a few kids I know have been. And personally my parents didn't want to go to the store with us every time so I'd go with my friend. They didn't care what video game I rented.
As a canadian, this will change nothing...
:)
Any game I play, My son and daughter
are welcome to play. Some of the best father/son
times ive had was playing CS with my 11yr old son.
or even better playing Coop Quake2 with my Wife,
Son, and 7yr old daughter...
Currently my wife and son play City of heros
togeather...
now thats fun for the whole family
That's your problem, and your responsibility to deal with.
It's NOT anybody else's problem, and it's NOT anyone else's responsibility to assist in your children's upbringing.
If I worked in a game store, I'd sell anything we had in stock to anyone who had cash to spend, regardless of the customer's age.
If your kids were to then buy something from me that you don't want them to have, then you bring it up to them, because I couldn't give a flying fuck about whatever rules you enforce in your household.
I'm not your children's parent, YOU are.
No it isn't. Most people see stealing as highly immoral, while copying is seen as just that, copying. It may be illegal, but you can't force people to see it as immoral.
Back in the days when people actually knew their neighbors and community was at least partially defined by geographical vicinity, raising the kids was a community effort. And it was a good thing and it worked more often than not. Now that modern industrialized society has fragmented and we don't know our neighbors as well and everyone is more mobile, this legislation is a good thing. It is ultimately the parent's responsibility to determine what values they want to raise their child with. If the parent things that GTA is ok for a 9 year old, then let them come to the store and buy it for the 9 year old.
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
When sales drop will they blame P2P?
Yes.
I damn well discriminate.
I discriminate against thieves, liars and murderers.
I discriminate against governments that tax to provide promised benifits they do not deliver.
I particularly discriminate against communists, hence my hatred of Canadians who support the status quo.
I also discriminate against those who judge others on the basis of race,
or religeon,
or their sexual orientation,
or age, diminshed mental capacity, or physical infirmity.
If it is a crime of bigotry to expose the criminal psyche that has pervaded a society, then I am guilty as charged.
I do not, however, hide, as an Anonymous Coward.
You could've hired me.
Basically, it permits the federal governmment or government of any province to override the decisions of the higheest court in the lannd, the Supreme Court of Canada.
So, that charter of rights isn't worth squat when push comes to shove (and it actually matters the most).
You could've hired me.
That's an extremely good point.. I'd mod it up if i had the mod points!@!!
That's all it is, a "rule" made up by the motion picture industry. It is NOT a law!
Technically it IS the law in Canada.
You see, each province has a Film Review Board which classifies (or refuses to classify) films according to age brackets. Movie theatres are legally obligated to follow the ratings.
If movies you're watching are doing that, then you are not watching the right movies.
The Gord always required photo id, how else do you get sent to collections.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
You're pretending children are free or have the right to be so. They have parents that have almost absolute authority over them. Solely the fact that their parents can decide on their behalf curtails their freedoms. That is because children are deemed unfit to make decisions themselves. The parents can decide what their children can, cannot, must do. If anyone were to exact such authority on an adult that would be against a whole lot of laws. Children aren't free until they grow up. Their freedoms are curtailed and arguing that some law goes against the freedom of a child is pointless since children aren't equal to adults in first place. It's not like the world would be a better place if we gave children complete freedom and rights from their birth.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Children are pretty much the only group in society that have basically no rights whatsoever!
Children have plenty of rigths, at least in most civilised countries where people in general have rights. That's why you have laws against child labour, child abuse etc.
You see, the thing about discrimination is it is unfairly picking out a group for different treatment. Children however really are different, and really are (in general) less capable of making decisions and being responsible. Some individuals may be, but you have to go with generalites for things like this.
Children have less rights for the same reason the mentally ill do, to protect them and to protect everyone else.
I get so sick of hearing all these damn minorities , and women (who make up 51% of the population and are therefore not a minority) bitching about how they have no rights, when in fact they have more rights than any child will ever have
So becuase they have more rights then children they should just shut up and not complain about discrimination? Only minorities can be discriminated agains? Slashdot moderation sometimes baffles me, but I have no idea how yu got rated +5 with this sort of logic.
A false positive is still better than a false negative. A child that wasn't supposed to get the game and gets it is much worse than a child that is allowed to get the game and has to involve his parents to do so.
And stop pretending an adult could supervise his child 24/7. That is just plain impossible. At least if they have jobs or chores to do, too. Of course, if their entire day consists of leisure time they could spend it completely with their children (but even then they'll want a break), but they couldn't pay the bills to keep the child fed. Parenting is one thing, 1984-style total supervision of the child is something completely different. A parent shouldn't be required to always be near their children up until they reach he age of 18, children need some free time, too. They would develop badly if they never acted alone and never had any real responsibility until they are 18. Also, there are some times a child is supposed to act alone.
Once the game is in the house it's pretty much impossible to prevent the child from playing it. Believe me, I smuggled many a game past highly responsible parents. Usually children play the games while e.g. mother prepares food and father works late. Parents cannot be there 24/7 and every minute they aren't there is a minute the child could do bad things.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
"If you're going to have cinema-realism in games, you're going to have to deal with the same cinema rating system."
Ah, so eventually all games will converge on a '12' rating?
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Turn the argument around. Is it valid to make the assumption that every kid who enters a store looking to buy a game does so with their parent's blessing? Would you have parents following their children everywhere they go? I sure would have hated my parents watching my every move.
Just because they aren't present doesn't mean they are negligent or that they approve. In fact, if I see 3 or 4 12-year-olds looking to rent The Suffering or some horror flick, I pretty much assume that one of the kids has a parent who doesn't really care what the child watches, while the parents of the other three children would object (this was based on my experience growing up) As much as I have these knee-jerk "protect our children from video games" reactions (and cringe at the one-sidedness of TFA), I don't really see a problem with this idea. Isn't this why we have ratings systems? It would seem to me that if a kid doesn't have valid ID then they probably aren't of age to be renting a game that requires ID.
"Look MR. Bum do you want this 5 dollars so you can get a pint of vodka, or do you not want it? If you want it get us 4 tickets to the terrance and phillip movie..."
This can easily be equated to videogames, in fact it wont shock me if south park does an episode on this now.
IIRC the US government uses Barney as a form of torture in Guantanemo bay/Iraq.
The industry doesn't care whether or not eleven year olds can get violent and sexual video games. They (the industry) just wants to be able to produce these things (which DO sell in large quantities) under the guise that they are not getting into the hands of minors.
It's simply a way to avoid forced, stronger and mandatory regulation, that's all. Any minor who wants to get the 18+ rates games will get them anyway.
Because it's better than mandating that everything in the world be child-friendly and allowing open access to everything. This is just a lip service system anyway to prevent those sort of mandates. Really, did you wait until you were 18 to acquire pr0n? These thing don't actually prevent minors from getting at what they want. It simply keeps legislators and soccer moms happy while we go about our business as usual.
I live in Halifax, our local EB ID's kids all the time. Now most games they just don't bother, however if a title comes along with a particularly high rating they ID.
Its not to trample your rights, or to parent the kids. Its simply a courtasy to the parents. I'm a very involved parent. I enjoy a close relationship with all my kids. I view these rating systems as a way of actually talking with them. (Imagine that) If they want to go to a R rated movie, or get a game like Soldier of Fortune we usually get it. I tell him WHY the bloody thing is rated like that and WHY the folks at the store check for ID's.
Kids will get these games regardless of any rating system or parental involvement. The rating system is just another opportunity for parents to be involved with their kids.
I dont know about you, but flailing people in pink suits wouldnt have made me kill someone.
;-)
Well, unless you can die from clawing your own eyes out
This is essentially rating the games the same way that movies are rated and has the same result.
Is the result worth the trouble? does it work? I Don't know, but I think it's worth a try.
This isn't all that new, the two biggest retailers (Zellers and WalMart) here in Canada have been doing this for movies and some video games for several years now, at least in Atlantic Canada. Making it a nation wide situation really won't change things too much. It's really not much different that the laws here stating you must provide ID to buy liquor, tobacco or lottery tickets.
It not that you can't buy/rent any game. you can only buy/rent games that have been approved for you age group. If you want something more, you have to get mommy or daddy to buy it for you...
I fail to understand why everyone accepts the "bundling" of sex and violence into one category. Violence is bad, but (consentual) sex isn't. Almost every 14 year old already has a basic understanding of what sex is about (then again, how the hell you depict a healthy sexual relationship in a video game is beyond me). I guess we're protecting our kids from seeing bare nipples and so on. Wow, that will really save them from ruining their futures. You betchya.
I am only a teen, but I got myself an ID card before I got my drivers liscence for my job... since I have an ID card and no other person my age has any form of ID yet, I would have an advantage: I could buy any game I want, so long as the clerk thinks I'm old enough for it, while all my friends would need either me or their parents to buy it.
If you required someone over 18, say, to be present is one thing. But to simply require some form of ID is stupid. If the US required IDs to get games, I would of gotten one when I was much younger.
I'll tell you what, if you can provide me with some clear-cut empirical evidence that playing violent video games will somehow damage youth then I will believe every word you say and be on the front lines with you in trying to restrict these so-called evil sadistic video games from getting into the hands of minors. Until that time though, I maintain that this is solely a parental issue only and not a governmental or societal issue. At least when it comes to junk food and pop, there is some strong empirical evidence that it has a harmful effect on kids what with causing diabetes, obesity and hyperactivity.
There a Huge difference between alcohol (which gets you drunk, lowers your perception of reality) and driving (which can lead to accidents and death and injury) then there is with fake violent video games that have yet to be proven to cause any harmful effects on minors.
That is also a good way to not teach them the value of money. Part of teaching them how money works is to give them some, and let them decide how to get the things they want, rather then just buying them the things they need.
I am Canadian. I will be affected by this law. And quite frankly, I dont see it being a problem.
You have to get your wallet out anyway to pay for the game. If they want to look at my ID when I buy the game, big deal.
I might give a crap if I were 17 or did not have ID handy. But I am not.
I see no problem with keeping mature themed games out of the hands of younger children. And the 17 year olds who want these games can cannot get them are resourceful. You not supposed to be able to get ciggarettes or booze at that age, yet they manage. I dont see games being a bigger problem.
END COMMUNICATION
I do agree however, that they shouldn't be charged as an adult for crimes for just these same reasons.
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
Looking around, I found a description of what exactly the program is designed to do:
This seems reasonable. If you're a parent, and your kid wants a game that's rated as Mature (intended for 17+) IMHO you should have a discussion with your kid to make sure that they're mature enough to handle it, rather than assuming that they are. It's a lot less stressful to figure out if your child is mature enough to handle, say, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City BEFORE you let them buy or play it than after.
Y|
I totally agree with ratings systems. However, I totally DO NOT agree with the government playing that part of the parent.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
That is also a good way to not teach them the value of money. Part of teaching them how money works is to give them some, and let them decide how to get the things they want, rather then just buying them the things they need. O.K, then you should know what your kids are spending their money on (this is true even regardless of there being violent media or not). If you see your kid come home with a big bag saying EBGames or Wal-Mart, check contents of said bag to see what they bought.
"Children have plenty of rigths, at least in most civilised countries where people in general have rights. That's why you have laws against child labour, child abuse etc."
Laws like that don't give children rights anymore than a law forcing you to wear a seatbelt is giving you any rights. It only tries to protect them.
"Children have less rights for the same reason the mentally ill do, to protect them and to protect everyone else."
So, children are now being equated with the mentally ill. I guess anyone you consider inferior should have their rights stripped from them. Back in the early 19th century a Black man was considered 3/5ths of a White man, so being inferior and all that, he wasn't allowed to vote or have any other rights. I guess that's ok too!
"Only minorities can be discriminated agains?"
Yes...because if you discriminate against a non-minority, i.e. a white heterosexual male, it's ok. That's why we have Affirmitive Action.
"Yeah right, like refusing them the right to buy alcohol under 18 or getting a driver's licence at 13. It's discrimination against a whole group and I want to end this. Lol nice logic."
So, what is your opinion on the fact that an 18 yr old can't buy alcohol but can be drafted (I know, there is no draft in the U.S. at the moment) and die for the military-industrial complex, er...I mean his country?
No one is saying give drugs, alcohol, guns, etc to small children, but for Christ's sake, what harm is a video game going to do to him/her?
I would rather have my kid at home on his/her computer playing some make believe game than out on the street mugging or killing someone cause he/she has alot of pent up hostility and no way to release it. The world today pisses us all off on an almost daily basis and if we don't find a way to vent it, we might just go postal on someone. Video games give you that release, you kill monsters and stuff rather than real people.
I do not believe it is the case, but the US courts seem to
I've never heard of any courts finding video games to blame for anything.
It's an opinion. It's damage in the eyes of some parents. Once and IF it can be proven that the supposed damage caused by violent video games to youth is real throught strong consistant empirical evidence i will agree with regulations. Until that time though if parents think these games can damage their children in some way they have every right in the world to take them away from their kids themselves if there kids get ahold of them. Maybe not, but it's not as if there isn't precedent.. is this same reason we don't let kids into R movies by themselves, that we don't let them watch porn? The R rating isn't enforced by law in the U.S. It's a voluntary rating by the MPAA meant to guide parents. As for porn, porn is only meant for one thing and one thing only, sexual gratification and arousment. Also porn doesn't have any artistic, literary, scientific, political or historical merit to it. Therefore Porn is not considered free speech and can be regulated by the government. On the other hand violence within the story lines of video games, movies, and books almost always have some sort of point and message to send.
It's an opinion. It's damage in the eyes of some parents.
Again junk food, pop and Harry Potter books hell even the Bible can be considered damaging to their children in the eyes of some parents. The fact is parents can find something damaging within almost eveything out there. But this doesn't mean that these things need to be legislated. As i've said before, parents have every right in the world to take these things away from their kids if they want to, but we don't need laws for it.
Do you want to get I.D'ed ever time to buy a coke at the corner store?
Yes, but depriving people of money that they have earned is immoral, which was my point.
It's fine if you don't want to support an artist/programmer/etc, but simply don't use the product at all.
Having it available for "copying" is no less immoral than stealing something, only the legalities differ.
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
It's nowhere near as clear cut as you would like. If someone didn't copy a product, they would not nessesarily have paid for it either. They might not be able to afford it, or might not think the product is worth the asking price.
The people who make the software have not 'earned' any money. The value of the software is determined by the market in part. The asking price does not nessesarily reflect the cost either. The biggest problem is unofficial standards like Office or Photoshop. Even if these programs are not the best at what they do, people are still forced to buy them because they need to work with others who alrady have them. It artificially increases the value of the software.
So copying is not nessesarily immoral because you aren't *nesessarily* depriving someone of something, unlike stealing where you obviously are because now they have one less unit to sell to someone else who *would* buy it.
I live in the freezing north, and I think this is BS myself. Can we say "censorship" and "pass the blame" because parents are never, ever wrong and should never have to watch over (supervise) their children.
Sorry folks, watching pixels blow each other away doesn't make you into a physcho (sp, I can never spell that stupid word). If a kid blows away someone because he saw it in a video game, that kid had some major mental problems to begin with, and was/is a threat to the public without any exposure to any medium.
Oh yea, I'm 20, so this doesn't really affect me, but I tell you what, if I had a brother (let's assume => 12) and he wanted Vice City, just gimme the cash bro. Censorship is BS.
Now that I think of it, you can find softcore porn on TV here around 10PM. Sex good, violence bad?
"That's all it is, a "rule" made up by the motion picture industry. It is NOT a law! It has no legal authority behind it. It is basically discrimination against an entire segment of our society"
for those of you who need proof:
he's correct, it is voluntary:
http://www.bigscreen.com/MPAA_RatingsInfo.php
and I agree, young people pretty much have no rights (or at least are treated as such).
BUT, IMO, it is more important to treat children with respect, if we expect them to be respectful of others when they grow up.
I remember many years ago when I was a high school student, the new Principal came to the stage. He said something which was factually correct, but came off as arrogant did nothing to endear himself in the eyes of the students: Without any advance notice of the subject of the meeting, he stood up on the podium and said, and I quote, "I am here to talk - and you are here to listen." The Boos and Jeers from the collective student body were a portent of things to come for our well intentioned but adolescently unskilled administrator; he didn't last four years.
We must lead our youth by example. It's not just a matter of what we say, but HOW we say it and in what context. We cannot expect our youth (notice I never use the word "child" or "children" directly) to treat us with respect if we do not show them respect first. This principle applies to all other aspects of youth learning as well. I can tell you, from personal experience as an adlolescent and 8 1/2 as a social worker working with the same population, young people strongly resent the "do as I say and not as I do" mentality and can sniff out this hypocritical behavior better than drug sniffing dogs in a room full of pot. Young people cannot stand the air of arrogance either.
If we want our youth to become responsible, moral, tolarant, compassionate adults, we had better be prepared to treat them in kind. If we honestly expect that stopping them from seeing an R or NC 17 rated movie early, in the abscence of other forms of guidance-by-example, will somehow keep them "safe", we are only lying to ourselves.
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power