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!

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...

...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.