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."

Comments

Cue forehead slap

[yotto]

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

Are we worrying too much?

[alvinrod]

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?

Re:Are we worrying too much?

[voice_of_all_reason]

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?

movies

[blunte]

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...

Re:movies

[Detritus]

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.

...where did I leave that BFG...

[nmaster64]

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.

Re:IMHO...

[max born]

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.

I call BS

[Red Flayer]

"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.

Re:IMHO...

[blazzy]

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.

Won't someone PLEASE think of the indie studios!?

[Lendrick]

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.

Addendum:

[Lendrick]

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.

Re:IMHO...

[PunkOfLinux]

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?

Defiantly some negatives

[joystickgenie]

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.

Re:IMHO...

[Catnapster]

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?

Re:IMHO...

[Catnapster]

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.