Slashdot Mirror
ID Required to Purchase Games
CsiDano writes "The Ontario goverment has finally taken action and made a tangible move to make it harder for kids to acquire violent video games by requiring an ID to be presented with all game purchases." From the article: "Normally, only feature films would carry an R rating in Ontario. But Consumer Minister Jim Watson says it's time game retailers played by the same rules. They'll face penalties for letting kids under the age of 18 access adult games. Ontario is not alone in its crackdown. Manitoba and Nova Scotia have also taken steps to make it harder for minors to access violent video games."
If I found my kids playing the new GTA I'd be pissed. It's my responsibility to know what my kids play, but i also want to know game shops aren't selling stuff to my kids behind my back.
Some of these games are developed for an adult audience. Developers should then be confined to sell them to an adult audience. If Rock Star wants to develop for kids, then they can sell to kids.
...being put in the /. category of "Censorship"?
After all, the games aren't banned from publication, or from purchase by adults.
I take second place to no one on civili liberties issues, but let's not waste our thunder on fighting for "license" in the name of "liberty".
This is no more censorship than preventing small children from accessing porn.
Is this based on the ESRB (or the Canadian counterpart) or what? I wouldn't mind being checked for a M(ature)-rated game but I'll be pissed if I have to get checked for every non-E(veryone) rated game.
the WHOLE idea behind the rating system was to make games MORE violent and MORE adult for people who were older and could understand what they are playing.
i would not let a kid play GTA:SA, nor would i let my kid smoke or drink. GTA:SA is for adults, no question.
is it bad for you? No. But just because something is not bad for you, does not mean that you should have it without question.
bottom line is, it all comes down to lazy parents. plain and simple.
I hope that made the parent take a look at what they were buying for their kid. Things like that should make the parents ask why & them check out the game before letting the kid have it.
Smile - things could get worst
Seriously, no saracasm here, but I think it's a great idea. But while we are on the topic of video games, I think this should also be done with all other forms of media. Music, Books, TV, Movies, etc. Don't just stop at games because it's the biggest target folks. Stop by your local Chapters and I guarantee most kids can walk out with the most vile, putrid and explicit book known to man. Also, if little Johnny can get denied access to purchasing GTA, but can still flip on channel 39 and watch hard-core anal pounding sex when he gets home, I think we still have a problem folks. Even if he can't purchase it, he will see or play it. There's no denying that. Kids are very resiliant. The most important step in this equation is frequently overlooked. If you spend more time with your children and shape them with your ideals, they will be less prone to rebelling, and these "inaccessible" items will seem less tempting. Be active with your kids. Take them to sports, ask them how their day went. Don't just shuffle them in a room and utter a casual home when you get back from work. Be good parents and stop blaming leisure activities for your problems.
Since noticing over the last two weeks or so the growing outcry of "But what about the CHILDREN", I've started thinking about the ESRB rating systems and about the games I have that are M rated (I was actually shocked to figure out that Halo & Halo2 were both M, I presumed they were both T. Good thing I'm far past the point of needing or dispensing parental guidance.) and what possibly an AO game could be.
Note: Inclusion on the list below doesn't necc indicate I own the game.
The Guy Game - M.
BloodRayne & BR2 - M.
MaxPayne & MP2 - M.
The Suffering - M.
Mafia - M.
Leisure Suit Larry - M.
What does it take to get an AO? Rape? Actual spritesex? Perhaps everything on the "Naughty List"?
Why do I M2 everything negatively?
You contradict yourself: I can understand for things like cigerettes and alcohol, but for a fuckin' game with some fake pixilated violence, Come On! Leave it up to the individuals themselves and the individuals parents and ONLY THE PARENTS, when it comes to their children. This law gives me the power as a parent to keep an eye on my kids better. It does not stop any kid from buying anything. To disect your first point: I'd appreciate it if you did not make those judgements for MY kids. If you want to have your own and allow them access to those games, go for it. I will not criticize you for it. There are many games on the 'Mature' list that I would allow my kids to see. That is my right (and responsibility). There are many games on the 'Mature' list that I would NOT allow my kids to see. This is my right (and responsibility).
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
"Because if you don't, we have this nice x800 card over here which should take care of that problem!"
;)
It's not exactly an unselfish act.
...that seemingly everyone is in favor of government regulation, just as long as it's against folks' kids rather than the folks themselves.
The real question is, was the Declaration of Independence right or wrong? Do we as humans have natural, inalienable rights or do we only have privileges granted by government - which can be suspended in the interests of public policy?
Don't you realize what they're implicitly stating? Parents: you aren't fit to parent your children or make decisions for them. Business owners: you aren't free to decide which customers you'll sell to. Children: Your parents' authority is moot - if their wisdom and government directives conflict, government wins.
I can't believe that people "don't really care," because these laws are 'only' being enacted against (and ostensibly for the protection of) kids... regardless of any context whatsoever. Kids have long been the mascots of lobbyists, and a quick glance at history should be enough to tell you where this is leading. Don't be surprised when anti-videogame courses become compulsory in public schools, or when the "War on Obscenity" flares up.
I don't think that's the point. The point is this law will *force* parents to at least be aware of the game they buy for their children, since the children cannot buy it for themselves. Thus the responsibility is handed over to the parent, and the government can say, "It's not our fault, you bought it for your child". The government couldn't care less if children are playing those games, as long as they can't get blamed for it. I agree with this, because it puts the responsbility on the parents, where it belongs.