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
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.
Just you wait, some hapless worker at a games store will be at the business end of an Angry parent with a screaming kid who wants to buy Halo 2 with a note from mom or dad saying "Please let Billy buy this game." I had this issue once as well. A kid wanted to rent a game, I said no. He left, called his mother who then called the store saying it was alright that he get this game (M rated game, lots of fun and violence etc.) I told her no, that wasn't acceptable. She freaks out on me till I ask her if she calls the corner store to let her son buy her smokes? Or does she call the liquor store to let her son buy her booze? It was fun, but till the parents realize what is going on, we'll see.
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.
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.
The ESRB also, I just remembered, has their own method of dishing out fines as well, though in their case, it's to publishers who misuse the ESRB rating system. As a few examples:
If a publisher advertises a T, M, or AO game to another market - i.e. if they show GTA as composed mainly of crackers and sunshine, where you can drive around a lush city environment and interact with many diverse persons, as a wonderful learning experience for kids, it's a $10,000 fine every time. If it is shown they WILLFULLY do so (i.e. if they should have obviously known they were violating the rule), it's ANOTHER $10,000. That being said, this fine would encompass the entire marketing campaign, not every individual ad. Fair enough.
Less-major-but-major infractions include not displaying a rating icon, displaying a rating icon that has not been officially assigned, failing to disclose content ('thanks for the T rating, but I forgot to mention our game has graphic nudity') face corrective action on the first infraction within a 12-month period (starting on the date of the first infraction), then a $5000 fine, then a $10,000 fine.
So for anyone who is going to say 'yeah, but who says publishers are going to follow the ESRB guidelines?' or 'but what if they lie?' - penalties can be had. Eventually, they could face a situation where the ESRB refuses to rate their games.
Either way, if a game's packaging violated the ESRB guidelines (if it lied, was incorrect, or was missing the rating, for example), and judging from the other issues that arose at EB, I would imagine most retailers wouldn't display or sell the product until they got replacement product or packaging. It's big stuff.
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?
Used to be, Id would have been expected to produce their *own* games! What kind of a micromanaged ecomony is this, anyhow?
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
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
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.
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.
So all the 8 year old's reading slashdot will run out and buy it? :)
Sadly in some American cities the kid could be 5 or 6 and their parent still wouldn't be old enough to buy the game.
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?
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?
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
Headed into the local Zellers to pick up Halo 2, and got ID'd. I'm 24, this isn't a common occurance, I don't get ID'd at the beer or liquer store. I don't smoke so I can't compare in that respect.
Did anyone bother to train all these employees in reading IDs and identifying fake ones? It isn't part of the standard training to work at Walmart methinks.
paul reinheimer
A few weeks ago I was buying GTA San Andreas in an electronics store. This was my conversation with the cashier: "I'd like to buy this game" Cashier looks at memo on desk. "Are you 18?" "Yes, I have a beard, look!" "Do you have some ID?" "Sort of." Awkward silence. "May I see it, please?" "Ok, but I'm actually 17." I smile with attempt to charm. Cashier eyes me suspiciously. Cashier looks at ID, where I am clearly 17 and that has a photo of myself at age 11. "Alright then, here's your game, that'll be 55euros" PHEW!!! So much for youth protection!
--- MS: "Working software is soooo nineties!"
Reminds me of a Mitch Hedberg one-liner:
"Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man?"
-----
Web Hosting @ HostForADollar.com
...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.