Slashdot Mirror


Repercussions of Legislation on the Gaming Industry

1up.com has a look at the ways in which anti-violence legislation may affect the gaming industry. From the article: "Although Gamepolitics.com Editor Dennis McCauley says that the Strickland case will be thrown out due to lack of merit because 'no compelling evidence indicates that playing a violent videogame can turn someone into a triple murderer,' the Strickland v. Sony case is detrimental to the industry. It is challenging freedom of speech and expression in videogames -- in contradiction to the 2003 Court of Appeals ruling that videogames are protected by the First Amendment. If Strickland et al were to win, it could force the industry to censor itself out of fear of future lawsuits. And it might result in future federal regulation of videogame content."

35 comments

  1. Cue forehead slap by yotto · · Score: 3, Funny

    I /knew/ I was against these regulations for a reason!

  2. IMHO... by Vo0k · · Score: 1

    IMHO games should be just honestly released in "adults-only" versions whenever applicable, and possibly with "violence-free" editions optionally, whenever the developer feels like it. It's a responsible thing to do.

    The fact -your- kid knows the real thing apart from the game world doesn't mean some other kid does. The fact you're a responsible parent and watch what titles your kid plays, doesn't mean other parents are. And if your kid gets shot by a psycho kid who played one brutal game too many, and lost the sense of difference between the games and the real world, the fact that you're a responsible parent and didn't let your kid play violent games, or that your smart kid didn't ever get the idea to bring a gun to school won't make much of a difference.

    So, simply - if you want -your- kid to play adult games, go, buy them for him/her. If you want to play them, you're adult, cool, no problem. But if the kid goes to spend the pocket money on a game where the brain splashes oh so cool on the wall, and then unattended will play with dad's gun and test it on his sister, to see if her brain splashes just the same, better if the seller says "sorry, kid, bring your parents." And fuck all the money retailers and game manufacturers lose because of these very kids not being able to but these very games.

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    1. Re:IMHO... by max+born · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IMHO games should be just honestly released in "adults-only" versions whenever applicable, and possibly with "violence-free" editions optionally, whenever the developer feels like it. It's a responsible thing to do.

      But for what purpose?

      Take nudity for example. When I was last in Eurpoean I saw full frontal nudity (male and female) on television. The Europeans are a lot more tolerant of this kind of thing. Yet by many indices they have a much lower rate of social deviance.

      Americans are legislating morality. They don't have any scientific evidence that nudity or profanity is bad they just know it is. They also believe in creationism.

    2. Re:IMHO... by blazzy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Take nudity for example. When I was last in Eurpoean I saw full frontal nudity (male and female) on television. The Europeans are a lot more tolerant of this kind of thing. Yet by many indices they have a much lower rate of social deviance.
      Full frontal nudity is "social deviance" in US culture. That's an interesting choice of words. =]
      Americans are legislating morality. They don't have any scientific evidence that nudity or profanity is bad they just know it is. They also believe in creationism.
      Since we've taken to comparing "Americans" and "Europeans" while throwing insults this way. I'd like to point out that many European countries are a bit worse on "legislating morality" when it comes to media violence or political ideologies that they aren't fond of. And they don't seem to have strong First Amendment type protections to combat this kind of censorship.
    3. Re:IMHO... by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 2, Funny

      What is this... first amendment of which you speak? The name sounds familiar... but... I can't remember what it is. Could you please tell me?

    4. Re:IMHO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    5. Re:IMHO... by Catnapster · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And if your kid gets shot by a psycho kid who played one brutal game too many, and lost the sense of difference between the games and the real world
      Take note of the critical two words of that sentence: "psycho kid." A kid with the severity of psychological issues that would be necessary to confuse video games with the real world would, sooner or later, run across something violent - be it a video game, a movie, or a fight at school - that would push him to violent acts of his own. Video games are rarely, if ever, the only factor in any individual's decision to commit violence. It would be more effective to address the psychological issues making the kid susceptible to influence by video games than to censor the games. Remember that before video games were the villain of the moment, school shootings were blamed on Marilyn Manson and The Basketball Diaries.
      But if the kid goes to spend the pocket money on a game where the brain splashes oh so cool on the wall, and then unattended will play with dad's gun and test it on his sister, to see if her brain splashes just the same,
      Maybe it's just me, but I see a much, much bigger problem in your hypothetical situation than you seem to. Do you consider it more dangerous for children to play violent video games, or for children to have unfettered access to firearms? And do you think that someone careless enough to leave their gun within apparently easy reach of children would think anything of buying said violent games for their kids?
      --
      The world can be wrong today for once.
    6. Re:IMHO... by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Many children in rural areas grow up with easy access to firearms once they're old enough to be taught firearms safety. Many of my cousins had their own rifles for small game hunting and plinking. They also carried pocket knives to school. They didn't shoot their siblings and crime rates were extremely low where they lived.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    7. Re:IMHO... by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      Take note of the critical two words of that sentence: "psycho kid." A kid with the severity of psychological issues that would be necessary to confuse video games with the real world would, sooner or later, run across something violent

      You're thinking on a single-bit level. Normal kid - psycho kid. Normal kid sees arbitrary amount of violence, never does any fighting, psycho kid sees dogs fighting in the lawn and goes on a rampage.
      Thing is, there's no fixed level of "psycho". Expose a normal, psychically stable adult to enough of strong enough violence and you'll drive them insane. Take a kid with something seriously wrong in its brain and it will go on rampage without -any- kind of stimulation. But there's a whole range of greys inbetween and the more you expose children to violence, the more likely given kid will snap, while still the "base probability" depends on individual traits. Take a kid from higher regions of the scale, it could pass whole life as a good citizen if living in relatively calm environment. But give enough stimulus and it will go nuts.
      It's not about enabling/disabling these kinds of things from happening. It's about decreasing levels of risk.

      Video games are rarely, if ever, the only factor in any individual's decision to commit violence. It would be more effective to address the psychological issues making the kid susceptible to influence by video games than to censor the games.

      True video games aren't the only factor, they are just a serious contributor. Limiting access just to the games would be somewhat like banning driving after gin&tonic because it contains alcohol, while still allowing to drink whisky and drive. Still doesn't mean drunken driving should be allowed because banning gin&tonic is unfair. Note, I'm all against -censoring- games. I just mean limiting access wherever applicable.
      As for addressing psychological issues... *shrug* if this was -detectable- easily enough, then sure. But otherwise, I don't think so. Finding out a given kid is/isn't suspectible to this kind of issues should be a parent's thing, but as history proves we can't depend on parents, and once the kid does go nuts, it's not just the parents' problem.

      Remember that before video games were the villain of the moment, school shootings were blamed on Marilyn Manson and The Basketball Diaries.

      meantime, there was still a lot of violent cartoons on TV, quite violent movies, etc.
      Curious thing, in Europe these kinds of things are almost unknown. Why?

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    8. Re:IMHO... by Catnapster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, they're taught firearms safety; I inferred from the grandparent poster's phrase "play with dad's gun" that the hypothetical kids in their example were not. Which I ought to have pointed out as well - most kids who have been taught firearms safety are aware of what happens when one shoots something, which would have rendered the scenario moot.

      At the end of the day, it comes down to teaching children what is right and what is wrong. It's not like kids magically learn that killing people is unacceptable when they turn 18, and until then we have to shelter them from anything that implies otherwise. If the kid knows that it's not okay to shoot people, playing GTA isn't going to make him a killer.

      --
      The world can be wrong today for once.
    9. Re:IMHO... by Catnapster · · Score: 1
      the more you expose children to violence, the more likely given kid will snap
      If that is correct, then we are all absolutely screwed. This world is practically soaked in violence. Yes, there are violent video games, violent movies, violent lyrics in music, and all that. But there's also the news media... watch the evening news one night and see what they tell you. Murders, car crashes, rapes, robberies - you'd think the entire city was one big bloodbath. Or you could watch CNN and hear about the war in Iraq. For a brief respite you might turn to a sports channel, where you can watch linebackers slam quarterbacks into the ground and gloat about it, or maybe watch a NASCAR highlight reel - which, if you haven't seen one, is all the crashes.

      Why is TV so violent? Because that's what people want to watch.

      Could it be that the human being has an innate craving for violence? In ancient times up to around the 1800s, there was plenty of conflict and strife to satiate such a craving. The 1800s had their share of wars too. The early 1900s brought two world wars, and as the world subsided into relative peace, the entertainment industry gradually rose to deliver violent material to the people. We have now entered the 21st century, where many Americans' lives are pretty much devoid of outright violence, and so pop culture and the media have begun to suffuse their minds with violent images and ideas.
      Curious thing, in Europe these kinds of things are almost unknown. Why?
      Because Europeans have plenty of real-world violence around. They're next to Africa and the Middle East, they can call up memories of two world wars fought on their soil, and in more recent times, they can take a trip to France and watch the riots.

      More seriously... there's no question that America has one of the most violent cultures in the world. Why is it then that its crime rate has been steadily declining over the past several years?
      --
      The world can be wrong today for once.
  3. Are we worrying too much? by alvinrod · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe it's just me, but does anyone else feel that there's a lot of unnecessary worry in the gaming community these days?

    I'll admit it's scary that some big, bad men (or women) could take away the hobby that we enjoy, but I think that we've been blowing things out of proportion.

    I don't speak for everyone here, but I live in the United States where we at least attempt to protect the freedom to express ourselves and say what we want. Granted that the issues of censoring games completely and selling games with mature themes to minors are very different issues, but we tend to like to blur them together and treat any legislation as an attack on first ammendment rights. In the case of legislation to prevent sales of M rated games to minors, I really don't care whether or not it passes. The hundreds of posts on the issue that I've read as this debate comes up almost weekly have presented compelling arguments for both sides. Such legislation passing wouldn't affect me because I'm over 18.

    On the other hand, legislation that seeks to censor games and prohibit them from containing sexual or violent content violates our so called rights. Even assuming that such legislation were to pass, somewhere on the chain it would be overturned by the courts. Considering that America has become increasingly less conservative over the years, and that other attempts to censor music, books, and television have usually failed in the past, I don't see it as a major concern today.

    It's a good thing that we're vocal about our concerns as gamers and I wouldn't suggest that you stop being political, but do we really need to get our feathers ruffled on a weekly basis about something that's not likely to happen?

    1. Re:Are we worrying too much? by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even assuming that such legislation were to pass, somewhere on the chain it would be overturned by the courts

      Prohibition only took, what? 12 years?

      And I'll bet they just went and let all the bootleggers out of jail afterwards, right?

    2. Re:Are we worrying too much? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      I don't speak for everyone here, but I live in the United States where we at least attempt to protect the freedom to express ourselves and say what we want. Granted that the issues of censoring games completely and selling games with mature themes to minors are very different issues, but we tend to like to blur them together and treat any legislation as an attack on first ammendment rights.
      A key thing to realize about the history of the protection of first amendment rights in America - There has been two steady trends accompanying the defense of the right to say what you will, where and when you will. The first is holding an individual responsible for exercising his right (libel, slander), the license is not unlimited. The second, and key to this issue, is protection of others from persons exercising their rights. Or, as Justice Holmes wrote "the right to free speech does not extend to crying fire in a crowded theatre".
    3. Re:Are we worrying too much? by Monkelectric · · Score: 1
      Prohibition only took, what? 12 years? And I'll bet they just went and let all the bootleggers out of jail afterwards, right?

      War on drugs? Started by Nixon to distract people from the vietnam war...

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  4. movies by blunte · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I still cannot fathom how games can come under such scrutiny while television and movies show things far, far more brutal, sadistic, and sexually depraved.

    I suppose it's because the game industry doesn't (yet) have a total lockdown on the government the way the movie industry does. No sense railing against values in movies since the government won't pass any laws that they're specifically paid off NOT to pass by the movie industry.

    At least one good thing to look forward to is that the dinosaurs that make up the movie industry will die off, while each year the number of gamers increases. Imagine the day when all the old people were gamers in their youth, or even in their old age too...

    --
    .sigs are for post^Hers.
    1. Re:movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still cannot fathom how games can come under such scrutiny while television and movies show things far, far more brutal, sadistic, and sexually depraved.

      I agree: (some) television broadcasts and movies are far, far worse than some video games. But that fact is far from meaning that there should be a lower standard for games. In fact there should be a higher standard for both games and television broadcasts.

    2. Re:movies by blueZhift · · Score: 1

      The fact that movies and television do have more offensive/graphic content is precisely the reason that efforts to legislatively censor video games will fail. Successfully censoring video games is just a short hop from doing the same for movies, television, music, and even books (if anyone is still reading, heh heh). The traditional entertainment industry has enough money and political clout to squash these censorship efforts in all likelihood. Not only that, I think they are hoping to make more money from movie game tie-ins and such, so government censorship simply won't be allowed. Ironically, many of the same people are just as likely to cram DRM down our throats and push for the criminalization of p2p networks.

    3. Re:movies by supabeast! · · Score: 1

      "I still cannot fathom how games can come under such scrutiny while television and movies show things far, far more brutal, sadistic, and sexually depraved."

      Games get the scrutiny because the mainstream media owns the TV and movie companies, so they avoid running stories that criticize them.

    4. Re:movies by Detritus · · Score: 2, Informative

      The movie industry has had similar problems. Watch some old movies from the 1920s and 1930s. You'll notice a huge change around 1930, when the Hays Code was introduced in response to pressure from many groups to "clean up" the film industry. Some of the early talking movies were quite racy for their day.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    5. Re:movies by westlake · · Score: 1
      I still cannot fathom how games can come under such scrutiny while television and movies show things far, far more brutal, sadistic, and sexually depraved.

      You watch a movie from a distance that is both physical and pychological.

      You are not a partcipant in the action. You are not invited to wield the knife and you are not rewarded for the ingenuity of your kills.

  5. No good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If Strickland et al were to win, it could force the industry to censor itself out of fear of future lawsuits."

    That's no good at all.

    "And it might result in future federal regulation of videogame content."

    That's even worse!

    And I will kill anyone who disagrees, because I've been playing a few M rated games on this fine rainy afternoon and now have, within me, the bloodlust.

    Oh mommy and daddy, why didn't you pay more attention to meeeeeeeeeee....? You should have kept these video games out of my hands.....these dirty, EVIL hands!!!

  6. ...where did I leave that BFG... by nmaster64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As long as legislation stays within the realm of "you can't sell M and AO games to kids", I have no problem with it. Hell, I practically support it.

    Now when they start talking about banning games entirely or setting unreasonably strict censors on things, then their going to have one gamer with a BFG to deal with...

    Video games don't cause violence, ignorant politicians do.

    1. Re:...where did I leave that BFG... by Scorchio · · Score: 1

      As long as legislation stays within the realm of "you can't sell M and AO games to kids", I have no problem with it. Hell, I practically support it.

      I don't have a problem with that either, but what irks me is that the same rules should apply to all forms of entertainment media, not just games. So unless there's legislation to stop the sale of M and AO movies (DVDs or cinema tickets) to children, there shouldn't be any such legislation applying to games.

    2. Re:...where did I leave that BFG... by nmaster64 · · Score: 1
      ...what irks me is that the same rules should apply to all forms of entertainment media, not just games.

      Hell yeah! Your certainly right there...all this legislation is targeting specifically video games, and completely ignoring the fact a kid can rent a R-movie or check out an erotic novel without any penalties on the distributor. It's completely ludacris to say video games are so much more harmful than other forms of media.

      Going through my girlfriends book collection, I'd much rather have my little brother play GTA than read one of those things...my god...*shivers*


      Oh, look, found my BFG. So who should I go after first, Lieberman or Thompson? Oh hell, I'll just aim in Washington's general direction...I'm sure I'll take someone I don't like out...

      Tomorrow's headlines:
      "Gamer blows up Washington, proves video games cause violence. Politician's now to scared to do anything about it..."

  7. I call BS by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "the Strickland v. Sony case is detrimental to the industry"

    BS. Public discussion of the issues is a Good Thing(tm), especially if it helps parents realize they need to pay attention to what Johnny's doing on his XBox.

    It may be harmful in the short term to certain profit-seeking enterprises in the industry, but in the long term the discussion will have positive repercussions.

    I know I'm oversimplifying here, but either the game industry adapts to new rules (and keeps making money) or the industry keeps on going as is without new rules (and keeps making money). The adult market is big enough that it will continue to be catered to...

    The only parties likely to lose out, depending on the outcome (which is certain, despite what alarmists say):

    Kids who want to play adult games.
    Adults who are too embarassed to buy adult-themed games.
    Freedom of Speech.

    The only one I'm worried about is #3.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    1. Re:I call BS by jackbird · · Score: 1
      It may be harmful in the short term to certain profit-seeking enterprises in the industry, but in the long term the discussion will have positive repercussions.

      Stimulating discussion and raising awareness is a good thing, so long as it's understood this must never be allowed to actually pass. Remember the Comics Code? The Hollywood Production Code that preceded the rating system? Censorship is a Bad Thing, and censors always, always, always look foolish in hindsight.

    2. Re:I call BS by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      You're right of course, but the idea is that we learn from our mistakes of the past... One of the repeating themes of laws violating the First Amendment is that they are passed in times of duress, then reanalyzed and loosened in hindsight... each successive law is less censoring than the last.

      Of course, I'm full of Friday optimism right now, and it's not a foregone truth that the past will predict the future. And we have to make sure that we are loud enough to ensure we're not facing draconian censorship in the videogame industry... which might take some work.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  8. Won't someone PLEASE think of the indie studios!? by Lendrick · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I haven't seen it pointed out yet that requiring all games sold in retail stores to be rated forces indie game developers (who may not have the money in the first place) into a (presumably costly) rating process that would effectively bar them from getting their games on to store shelves.

    Mind you, I'm not aware of any indie games sold at retail outlets, but there may be an unfilled Cheapass Games like niche that would be closed by this law.

  9. Addendum: by Lendrick · · Score: 2, Informative

    Interestingly enough, it appears as if Cheapass Games sells a few computer games of their own. I wouldn't be surprised if a few hobby and game stores sold their computer games alongside their board and card games.

  10. Defiantly some negatives by joystickgenie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are defiantly some negatives that can come from this.

    What is retailer's reaction to this going to be? Wal-Mart target and just about every other retailer already refuse to carry Ao games. Will this law make them extend this policy to M games as well? If it does, this would be very bad for the video game industry. That would make it necessary for video games to be created T and lower only. You can not survive in the consol market if the chair retailers don't carry your product.

    What will the developer's reactions to this going to be? There will defiantly be a lot less game made for adult audiences after this. Game developers will not want to risk their games being pulled off the shelves, or moved into a back room, because some parental organization determines that it's not good for little Johnny.

    Also what would this do to the public image of the video game industry? It is already very difficult for games to be recognized as literature or intelligent forms of entertainment in the games vs. art debate. How will this make video games look? Will it put video games in two camps of child's toy and pornography or will this help push games as mature entertainment?

    We still have to wait to read the actual terms of each of the bills to see how it will finally work. But there is room for bad things. Even if a law is made that seems good to begin with, it is really easy to edit the law or interpret it incorrectly and make it terrible for games.

  11. Somebody up there loves you!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DirecTVeeeyeah!

    Zing!

  12. Pete Ashdown by Weezul · · Score: 1

    If you care about video game legislation, why don't you go insert a policy statment about video games into Pete Ashdown's policy & strategy wiki (via).

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  13. some game maker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    should simply make ALL of the games as AO. regardless of whether it is deserved or not.

    just claim the AO rating so that stores will be forced to sell it..(they wont miss out on sales)

    what is a store gonna do, not sell any games ?
    right.....

    then when somone bitches, they can be like "hey alll our products are for adults only and are clearly marked that, go bitch at the stores"

    and any content related laws will be thrown out and also flat out ignored while appeals are made

  14. Damnit by Sv-Manowar · · Score: 1

    I don't think the way they look at gaming reflects the market accurately any more, and anyone picking up violent games like GTA for their kids needs to be banned from parenting, it should be a choice whether you want violence in your game.. not enforced censorship.