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."
do this kin of thing voluntarily... I had to show my driver's license to purchase Quake3 off of WalMart's $10 rack about 8 months ago...
Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
...I remember being in line for Halo2 on November 8th at my local EB, and the line outside kept getting smaller as they prevented the kids from entering. It was great. ^_^
No really though, it's a good law, and i'm glad it's in place... The stores around here (Richmond Hill, in southern ontario) are doing a fine job *actually enforcing the law*, which surprised me.
Newsie, Moderator, www.tauniverse.com
The article mentions that the government put an 'R' rating on Manhunt. Why? The ESRB ratings, which every video game publisher adheres to, provide strict outlines on what content deserves what rating. It also defines not one, but TWO ratings that kids should not purchase - 'M - Mature (17+)' and 'AO - Adult Only (18+)'. Why not just require that any Mature- or Adult-rated games require ID?
Most major retailers (Wal-Mart and EB Games for example) have this policy in place (whether the slack-jawed register biscuits at Wal-Mart follow it or not I'm not sure) - I know when I worked at EB, that was one of the first things I was told - don't sell GTA to anyone under 18 unless a parent is there - and if the parent is there, make sure that they are aware what is in the game ('Is it really that bad?' 'Well, it's as bad as you want to be. If you want to follow traffic laws, then you can. If you want to pick up hookers, have sex to regain your health, and then beat them to death with a baseball bat, take your money back, and run over their corpse, you can do that too.').
Now, I'll agree that not all M-rated games are that closely watched - Halo 1 & 2 for example are mature, but aren't that shocking. Manhunt, GTA, etc., however, are watched pretty well. I'll admit, I've sold a few games to people under 18, usually after working 9 hours at my other job then coming to EB to work a 5 hour shift (or after waking up a half hour before my shift starts and coming to work asleep) - but the reality is, this is already pretty well enforced at any good EB. Just make it law that the retailers follow the ESRB warnings, put a sensible penalty for non-compliance (the same as letting a kid buy an R-Rated movie), and off you go.
The government requiring retailers to follow ratings: A+. The government re-rating games: D-. Hooray Ontario.
I believe that the article is either mistaken or the legislation has been changed in a couple of days. I know that when I went to purchase GTA: SA at an EB in Ontario I was carded for the first time. They let me have it with my ID being 17.
Anyone shed light? Maybe it was just EB's policy that was 17 and the actual legislation is 18 now. Either way, it's pretty interesting and after playing GTA:SA I can't say I fully disagree with the policy in spite of free market and parents not being able to parent blah blah.
The law is fine. I'll agree with it, sure. Don't let children under the age buy a game that someone has determined is unsuitable for them.
Most children will get their parents to buy the game anyways, especially since most children don't have the $60-$90 for the game in the first place. This law is different from the law preventing children getting into R rated movies, since there is usually someone checking ID at the door. This law is different than the law preventing children from buying alcohol, as it's illegal for them to have it (or illegal to buy it for them, or give it to them).
I mean, whatever. They're under the legal age, so it's not like this is one of those laws that could get out of control and somehow prevent me from buying video games. Or is it? The trouble with Ontario is it's lack of photo ID. You can't use the government-issued photo ID health card, and if you were born here, and don't drive, you don't have any photo ID.
It's not uncommon for 18, 19, or 20-somethings to not have a driver's license.
As someone who rarely gets carded, except in expected places such as the casino or liqor store (even this is pretty rare, and The Beer Store has never, ever carded me), it bothered me when I was carded buying GTA:SA. I looked at the clearly not of age girl at EB requesting of me, the clearly of age person for ID. She told me they were IDing everyone (which, as I then observed, they were).
The obvious joke was when children came in with a parent, ran to the shelf, grabbed the game, handed it to the parent, and then the parent got carded. What's the use, at this point?
I've seen stores ask for ID, and refuse to sell games to kids in the UK, albeit on an erratic basis. Certainly, if you're under-age and want to buy an 18-certificate game in the UK, your best bet is to go to a town-centre store on a Saturday afternoon, when the crowds are at their thickest and the queues at their longest. I've never seen somebody IDed when the store is heaving and the staff run off their feet. However, I've seen staff ask for ID and refuse to sell games quite a few times, when the shop hasn't been so busy. I've also seen staff speak up in cases where it's obvious that a clueless parent has been trying to buy a game for their child that might not be suitable (I've seen this twice with GTA: San Andreas). They don't refuse to sell the game in these cases... they just warn the parent. Most of the time, the parent puts the game back on the shelf.
I don't have any particular problem with this. Moreover, I can't really see why this is categorised as "your rights online". In no way does this infringe on the right of adults to spend their money as they choose. If parents think their kids should be able to play any game, then fine, the parents can buy the game. If parents think some games are unsuitable, they can have confidence that stores won't undermine them.
Ever since the Carmageddon fiasco (for which we must all be eternally grateful), the BBFC hasn't been able to get up the nerve to ban any game outright in the UK. When I look at the situation elsewhere in Europe, particularly Germany, I feel very, very glad that I live here. The USA seems to be similarly fortunate. I think that having some age controls on games is a very small price to pay for this.
The thing about raising kids properly is that it doesn't happen just by osmosis or whatever. Parents should censor certain things from their children; a game like GTA or Manhunt, where the player does things that many find morally obscene, would not be good for children. "Good parenting" doesn't "prevent kids from being influenced" by the game; good parenting is preventing children from getting rewarded (by the game) for doing things that are morally objectionable.
Once your kid has been properly raised, to understand right and wrong, and internalize the morals you wish to impose, then your kid will be ready to play a game such as this. But until that time, you HAVE to censor such a game, or else the kid WILL be influenced by it. It's up to the parent to decide when the kid is ready, not the video game store. So that's why we need such a law.
Society routinely protects children from things they are not ready for. We have child-labour laws. We have laws preventing kids from buying cigarettes or liquor. Did you know that (in Ontario) it's legal to give your children wine at dinner? Even though they can't drink wine in any other circumstance? As a parent, you need to know if your children will be able to drink responsibly; if they can't, you shouldn't give them the wine. That's parenting.
Anyway, as to whether or not the government should be in the business of enforcing morals, the problem is that it's nearly impossible for parents to totally protect their kids from the "evils" of society. In many cases, the government is able to impose some rules that help protect children without infringing on adults rights and privileges. Why SHOULDN'T the government help out in that case?