A Decrease in M-Rated Sales to Kids

hammersuit writes "GameDaily Biz reports on a new undercover FTC study. From the article: 'Forty-two percent of the secret shoppers - children between the ages of 13 and 16 - who attempted to buy an M-rated video game without a parent were able to purchase one. In the 2003 shop, 69 percent of the shoppers were able to buy one. National sellers were much more likely to restrict sales of M-rated games. Only 35 percent of the secret shoppers were able to purchase such games there. Regional or local sellers sold M-rated games to the shoppers more frequently - 63 percent of the time.'"

Comments

Phew!

[grub]

I'm sure that will cure all of society's ills. What will the "think of the children" crowd rag on now? Movie rentals?

Re:Phew!

[kypper]

What will the "think of the children" crowd rag on now? Movie rentals?

Absolutely! Little Timmy should not be allowed to rent anything R+, be it Matrix Reloaded or Granny's Panties 7. There's absolutely NO difference!

Re:Phew!

[teh MrCrow]

These ratings dont have any sense anyway.

Re:Phew!

[G)-(ostly]

I'll bet your comment would be really relevant in a world where the goal of this behavior was to "cure all of society's ills" versus "study the effect at the retail level of game ratings".

But don't let common sense get in the way of a good sound bite. It's much more important that you sound clever than actually say something smart.

Re:Phew!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off, fag with a UID near 1 million.

Re:Phew!

[RexRhino]

The study was designed to show a "failure" by the retailers so as to justify government intervention into the market ("retailers are still letting children buy these horrible games! It is time we do something about it"). And yes, the goal of modern government has become "to cure all of societies ills"... hence the nannie state and welfare state.

Re:Phew!

[G)-(ostly]

Yes, your Big Brother doomsday scenario is firmly supported by quotes such as:

The FTC further points out that the survey found "marked other improvements by retailers, compared with results from the previous undercover shops by the FTC."

and

"Store policy compliance has improved three-fold since 2000 when the FTC first conducted these studies, and we will continue to work with retailers in their efforts to train store associates and educate their customers about ESRB ratings."

Truly, the end of freedom in the U.S. will come at the hands of FTC workers as they "work with retailers [...] to train store associates and educate [...] customers about ESRB ratings".

Ooooooooooooooo scary! Yah bettah hordjer gawns now Cletus, cuz they's a-comin' fer yeh!

Re:Phew!

[Doomstalk]

or Granny's Panties 7

Remind me to stay the hell away from your DVD collection.

Re:Phew!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the series went way downhill after #6

Re:Phew!

[RexRhino]

Idiot...

Yesterday in the Senate there was a hearing, to "determine" if video games are protected speech under the first amendment. A bipartisan panel of Republicans and Democrats called witnesses, including victims of violent crime "caused by video games", sociologists who assert video games cause violent crime, legal authorities to explain why video games aren't protected under the first amendment, etc.

You got to be utterly braindead to believe that when the Republicans and Democrats both say "Video games cause violences, they are not protected by the first amendment, and we are going to strictly regulate them", that they don't intend to ban or strictly regulate games. I mean, how much more clear do they have to be?

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/adventure/grandthefta uto3/news.html?sid=6146902

Re:Phew!

[G)-(ostly]

Idiot...

Why do I care what the Senate says about first amendment rights, since it's the courts that would have to make that decision?

Not only that, I notice you didn't say anything at all about the House, so I guess it's a good thing that the Senate can't just go off on its own little tangents and pass whatever laws it wants on its own, huh?

Oh no! A panel in one half of the lawmaking body said something about maybe restricting something they may not even have the power to restrict! Everybody run to Canada! The dream is over! AAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

What does this have to do with anything?

[Qzukk]

What a useless study! Who cares about this M-Rated thing? How are the politicians supposed to use this information when they're trying to push their laws calling for bans of "violent" and "offensive" games to minors?

We need a new study, counting the number of "violent" and "offensive" games sold to minors, where "violent" and "offensive" is properly defined... by taking the people selling the games to court over and over until the prosecution gets a jury that will agree that the game is violent or offensive!

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[DreadPiratePizz]

Nobody is attempting to BAN violent video games. I'm sure some would like to, but now the issue is keeping them from being purchased by minors. Regardless of how YOU think a game should be rated, this in no way affects your ability as a parent to buy the game for your child, if you in fact think that it is appropriate. Nothing is being banned, and nobody is telling you what you can and cannot buy for you, or for your child.

This study IS relevant, to see if the rating system, and the policies of retailers are in fact working.

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[faloi]

If I had mod points, I'd mod you funny. It was meant to be funny, right?

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[hunterx11]

Nobody is attempting to BAN violent video games.

I know Jack Thompson is a real nobody, but you don't always have to be so mean to him.

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"Nothing is being banned, and nobody is telling you what you can and cannot buy for you, or for your child."

Nothing is currently banned and no one is currently telling me what I can and cannot buy. That is different from what could take shape if there is government involvement in the whole system. Dream with me for a moment:

1. Selling alcohol to minors is illegal.
2. Supplying alcohol to a minor is illegal, even if you're the parent.

1. Selling violent games to minors is illegal.
2. Supplying violent games to a minor is illegal, even if you're the parent.

Government involvement in this arena is wrong and a bad step. Think about the people who are fighting for government involvement. They believe violent games destroy children and make them killing-machines. Why wouldn't they want a parent who facilitates the creation of that so-called that killing machine to be punished for that? Wouldn't that be a ban on what you can buy for your child?

Don't side with these people. They'll keep pushing and pushing. Private organizations like the ESRB do a fine job of rating content. There's no need for government involvement.

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[mobby_6kl]

... and nobody is telling you what you can and cannot buy for you, or for your child.

Unless, of course, you're under 18, like I was about 1.5 years ago.

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[Qzukk]

but now the issue is keeping them from being purchased by minors.

Thus bans of selling violent and offensive games to minors?

Regardless of how YOU think a game should be rated

I don't care how the games are rated. The problem is that so far every law that has been passed (and subsequently killed) has refused to admit that a rating system exists, instead choosing to use vague language that will inevitably create another "Miller-test" situation where the pimply teens working the cash register will have an arrest record for selling some rated "E" game at the wrong time (read: when the DA wants to look "tough on crime").

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[velocipenguin]

2. Supplying alcohol to a minor is illegal, even if you're the parent.

In many states, it is actually legal to serve alcohol to your own children (or to an underage spouse.)

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[RexRhino]

In a FEW states, it is actually legal. And then it could still be illegal based on local ordinance. And it could still be considered to fall under something vauge like "child abuse".

But just because something is legal, doesn't mean you can't be arrested, convicted, and go to jail for it!

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[heinousjay]

But just because something is legal, doesn't mean you can't be arrested, convicted, and go to jail for it!

You got some splainin to do

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[twistedsymphony]

If the Video Game industry would actually do something about vendors who sold to minor there would be no reason for the Government to step in.

"You sold an M rated game to our secret shopper/minor. Guess what we're pulling all our M and T rated games from your shelves. No GTA and Halo for you, good luck selling the latest My little ponies game while the store across the street sells twice as much on AAA title release days."

I guarantee you'd see it getting enforced right quick.

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[mjm1231]

Well, no it doesn't tell if the policies are "working". It tells to what degree they are being enforced. In order to know if they are working, we would first need to know what the work is that they are supposed to be doing.

If your 13 year old kid can make it to the mall, spend 50 bucks, and play an entire video game in your house without you ever knowing about it, chances are you have much worse things to worry about than whether they're running the hot coffee mod.

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[RexRhino]

Woman's 'crime' was never illegal
By Ellen Miller, Special to the News
November 16, 2005

GRAND JUNCTION - Allysan Isaac, 24, was held nearly a year in work release for something that a judge said Tuesday was not even illegal.

"You were incarcerated for a case that was not a crime," said Mesa County District Judge Brian Flynn, who presided over the case.

Flynn, the prosecutor and Isaac's defense attorney were unaware last year that the offense she was charged with was not a violation of the law.

No one had noticed that a prescription drug found in Isaac's possession, an anti-anxiety medication called Buspirone, is not a controlled substance.

A new defense attorney did.

Isaac, 24, "is clearly a troubled young woman with mental and emotional problems requiring pharmaceutical intervention," said her second lawyer, Wiley Christopher, who checked on Buspirone and found it was not a controlled substance.

But that was not the end of her legal troubles.

Isaac pleaded guilty last year to possession of Buspirone, which she had obtained through a prescription. She was sentenced to 90 days in jail and one year in work release.

In work release, she was receiving another prescription drug, Clonazepam, which is a controlled substance. Another inmate talked her into sharing a tablet.

So Isaac pleaded guilty to distributing Clonazepam and appeared before Flynn Tuesday for sentencing.
Christopher pleaded for probation and mental health treatment since her underlying offense, for which she was in work release, was not a crime.

Flynn agreed, as did the probation officer and the current prosecutor.

She was ordered to serve probation and receive intensive mental health treatment for passing her medication on to the fellow inmate.

District Attorney Pete Hautzinger said he had "no idea" why Isaac had been charged with and convicted of something that wasn't a crime.

The defense attorney who represented Isaac in the first case was also baffled. "I don't have an answer," assistant public defender John Burkey said. "Nobody caught it. The police were saying it was a controlled substance."
Copyright 2005, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.5280.com/blog/?p=1377
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/11/check_the_ sched.shtml#comments

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[HTH NE1]

I can't imagine that being too effective with vendors who sell only used games.

I'd also like to know how this study compares with a study of places that sell R-rated and unrated DVDs to the same age group.

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just bought Serious Same 2, and am under 18
.
.
.
am I going to go have to go to a Revamped ESRB Education Concentration Camp now?

Note: Anonymous Coward used to protect myself from such actions

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"If the Video Game industry would actually do something about vendors who sold to minor there would be no reason for the Government to step in."

Even if the ratings aren't enforced and retailers sell AO, M, or T games to children, I am not convinced the government has any place in legislating. You see, at the end of the day, the games are rated. Parents have the tools needed to determine what is appropriate content for their child. In expecting 100% of the stores to not sell to minors, you are furthering the expectation that many parents have that society is going to watch our for their kids. This expectation is part of the reason that so many parents do a rather poor job of raising their kids. The idea that their kids will be taken by the safeguards the government has put in place makes some parents believe they can just let their duties slide.

Don't rely on the store to not sell games to your kids. Don't expect others to take care of raising and protecting your kids. Do it yourself.

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

That doesn't really have anything to do with my main point though.

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[TheCarp]

I would argue that the current situation is silly regulation by a percieved majority.

Basically yes its true, the ratings are voluntary. At least in name. In truth, they are voluntary in the way that paying your mortgage is voluntary; sure you are free to not pay it, but if you don't, then the bank is going to take your house away and sell it to someone else. Entirely voluntary no?

Why? Well how did this voluntary regulation come about? Basically congress threatened legislation, which may or may not have passed, and may or may not have turned out constitutional. However, if it did, then retailers and producers would most probably be legally liable if the regulations were broken.

So basically, essentially a law was passed, without due process, and without the real force of law. However, as far as you and I are concerned, it may as well be a law. Guess what, now you can't even go buy a fucking video game without carring ID... its bad enough I need ID to get into bars in this supposedly free country (hell I practically started leaving my ID at the hotel while I was in france, I needed it all of twice in 2 weeks of traveling and going out every day/night)

I agree wholeheartedly with other posters, if the kid has money, either through extreme saving or through hsi own blood sweat and tears selling his livelyhood as a wage slave, he deserves the full purchasing power of the money in his hand.

Frankly fuck all these "good parent but" whatifs... if your such a good parent, and there are things at the mall that you don't want your 13 year old buying with the money you may know he has.... then why the fuck is he even at the store without you?

I am so tired of having to trot out my papers all the time. Its ridiculous. It isn't actually protecting anyone from anything except a few parents overactive imaginations.

-Steve

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[twistedsymphony]

I agree that no matter what the government has no business in trying to control the sale of games. Perhaps I should have rephrased it

"If the Video Game industry would actually do something about vendors who sold to minor there the Government would have no excuse to step in."

I completely agree that parents should keep a close eye on their children, but stuff like the ESRB ratings are there as a tool for parents to help them make more informed decisions by quickly and easily determining the type of content the game includes, and making the decisions there's. If vendors don't enforce the ESRB ratings then the system isn't working and it becomes a useless tool for parents.

If the ESRB isn't enforced it becomes the Gaming Industry's problem, not the governments, and it should be FIXED by the gaming industry. If the ESRB ratings arn't enforced then it undermines whatever parental decisions are being made because it gives the child the option of buying the game without the parent's consent.

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[soft_guy]

Clearly we need to raise the game buying age to 21.

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[soft_guy]

Then anyone who ever leaves their teen child alone for any amount of time has this problem. (Even stepping out of the room.) Or anyone who allows them to visit a friend's house without being there watching the children the whole time.

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"If the ESRB ratings arn't enforced then it undermines whatever parental decisions are being made because it gives the child the option of buying the game without the parent's consent."

This is where you and I disagree. I think that a parent who provides housing for a child should have enough control and have instilled rules into a child's head so that they won't buy games that they know they are not supposed to. Your demand that all vendors adhere to the ESRB 100% of the time is both unreasonable and encourages a parent-child relationship where a child doesn't learn to make decisions on his own. Instead you want all of society to guide the child down the right path. In my system, where the parent tells the child what he or she is allowed to buy and makes sure this rule is followed the child is given responsibility for his or her actions. I think it's clear that my way is much better.

Stop expecting everyone in society to watch out for your kids. Start teaching them that they need to use their brains.

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[twistedsymphony]

I supposed you'd also be ok if the Movie Theater let your kid into the R or NC17 film after you thought you were dropping them off there for a PG, or if the convinenece store at the mall sold them cigarettes while they were there with friends?

I'm not saying society needs to look after your kids, but there are certain rules that stores, theaters, whathave you need to follow to help enforce whatever parental decisions are being made.

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"I supposed you'd also be ok if the Movie Theater let your kid into the R or NC17 film after you thought you were dropping them off there for a PG, or if the convinenece store at the mall sold them cigarettes while they were there with friends?"

Those are different examples and not really relevant to a much higher priced item that is brought into the home where the parent lives. The example of cigarettes is one where I support government control of its sale. Cigarettes represent a documented health risk and their sale is prohibited based on health reasons, not on moral grounds. On the other hand, an R-rated or NC17 (when was the last time a theatre even showed one of those, they sell no tickets) movie is an especially telling example. It is telling because you bring it up in a conversation about whether the government should step in and protect children from video games. You cite this, I suppose, as an example where it is appropriate for children to be denied access. But, and here's where I've got you, the government has no involvement in rating movies and there is no legal trouble for an employee at a theatre who sells a ticket to a minor. So, you see, you are comfortable with how movies are handled. There is a private ratings system that is enforced by the movie theatres without any government involvement. Tell me - why does that same system not work for video games? Why do you suddenly want to run crying and screaming to the government for protection from video games while you haven't done the same thing for movies? Answer that one pal.

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[twistedsymphony]

You still don't get what I'm saying do you?

Let me make this clear:
I COMPLETELY AGREE THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS CONTROLLING THE SALE OF VIDEO GAMES OR ENFORCING ESRB RATINGS.

I've held this opinion since my FIRST POST, go back and read it.

The reason the Theater ratings are enforced is because back when they first started using them the MPAA would pull it's movies from any theater who refused to enforce it.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M PROPOSING FOR THE VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY.

I never said the Government should have any part in it. My position is that the VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY do something to make sure it's retailers enforce their rating standard, much like the Motion Picture Association does.

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

Then why, my over-excited friend, did you bring up the sale of cigarettes where the government is controlling commerce?

And let's go back to your original post: "If the Video Game industry would actually do something about vendors who sold to minor there would be no reason for the Government to step in."

You implied there was a reason that the government should step in. My point is that I don't expect the rest of society to watch out for my kids. I don't "bank" on the fact that the movie theatres won't let my kids into R-rated movies. I bank on the fact that I've raised them to be responsible and to follow certain rules.

I've also seen no studies showing a comparison of how well the MPAA ratings are enforced as compared to the ESRB. You seem to believe that theatres are like bloodhounds and video game retailers could not care less. I would guess that the reality is that the same rate of enforcement is seen.

Re:What does this have to do with anything?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? After that Gamefaqs episode, I don't see any reason to treat that piece of trash like a civilized human being.

Um...

[GundamFan]

Anyone else see it as a good thing that the kids can't get these games without parental permission?

I could care less what people do to rase there own kids but it should be there choice. If a kid can only buy an M-rated game with a parent present then it is no ones responsability but the parent.

Selective parental apathy is the biggest "ill of scociety" in my opinion... if you don't care to control your childs purchaseing you don't get to try to get "violent" video games ban for the sake of your children.

Re:Um...

[F_Scentura]

Shitty parents are going to give in when their kid starts crying for CorpseFucker3D, anyway.

"If a kid can only buy an M-rated game with a parent present then it is no ones responsability but the parent."

Parental responsibility *is* the nurture that fucks children up, not the games themselves.

Re:Um...

[Rude Turnip]

In my opinion, a child in possession of X dollars, where X dollars equals the price of a desired video game, constitutes parental permission. It's not a matter of saying that parents "should" be responsible, it is a matter of stating the *fact* that parents *are* responsible. If a child cannot be trusted to make a purchase, then it should not be given responsibility to handle money.

Let's look at this another way. Retailer-based rating/permission systems are flawed because they do not in any way consider the values of the parents. One parent may not mind if Junior purchases the latest and greatest violent M-rated game, because he or she is aware of that child's capacity to understand such topics. On the other hand, another parent may not even want Junior to purchase a particular E or T-rated game, because perhaps the underlying message or theme in the game is something that goes against that family's value system, whatever it may be. In the end, the most objective judgment as to whether Junior can buy a certain game comes when the parent puts X dollars in his little hands.

Re:Um...

[GundamFan]

Ok good point, how is that diffrent from anything else?

It isn't, that is my point.

Video games are no diffrent than TV, movies, books, magazines or any other kind of media. They all have the same potental for harm as well as good. Just having a parent care about the wellbeing of there child and do something about it (personaly, not try to make others do it for them) is a step in the right direction, and leting your child behave like the dominant member of the relationship at a young age is a big leap in the wrong direction.

Re:Um...

[pla]

Anyone else see it as a good thing that the kids can't get these games without parental permission?

No, and not for the obvious "Stick it to da man" reason...

Parents have the responsibility of teaching their kids to do the right thing not just in a safe, isolated environment, but on their own and with temptation aplenty.

It might make it easier to look like a good parent if Little Billy never even has the opportunity to drink, smoke, swear, or look at porn, but it doesn't teach Billy anything at all (or worse, teaches him to look forward to his Day of Freedom when he can finally overindulge in the forbidden fruit).

Personally, I see a kid buying a video-game his parents wouldn't approve of as a WONDERFUL opportunity to teach him a hell of a lesson - When the parents catch him with it, they can make him take it and put it in the shredder page by page, disc by disc, destroying 50+ dollars of his own hard-earned money. You just don't get that same kind of lesson from a shopkeeper telling him to take a hike.

Re:Um...

[RingDev]

I had my first job at 13. And I am guessing my child will also get a job over his youthful summers. So you are suggesting that I should instill responsibility in my child by making them get a job, then taking any money they earn from them to prevent them from ever having the posibility to make a mistake with that money? That is hardly a way to raise a child. Children need to be free enough to make mistakes and learn from them while parent stand ready to guide and catch their child when they make a poor decision. If my child takes his money to a store I would prefer to know that the store is not selling my child violent video games. If I feel that my son is mature enough to handle playing violent video games, then I will buy the game with or for him. If I do not feel my son is mature enough to play violent video games then I will not buy the game, and if I find it on a PC in the house, I will remove it.

Using your logic we should do away with the drinking, smoking restrictions, and are requirements for drivers licenses and porno. Because hey, if your parent(s) taught you right, your age wouldn't matter. Now tell me, how many 13 year olds would you hand the keys to your car to? Especially if they had a cig hanging off their lip and a 1/5th of tequila in a brown paper bag?

-Rick

-Rick

Re:Um...

[hunterx11]

Video games are no diffrent than TV, movies, books, magazines or any other kind of media.

Sure they are. There is no imminent risk that the sale of TV, movies, books, magazines, or any other kind of media will be regulated by ratings.

Re:Um...

[itscolduphere]

In my opinion, a child in possession of X dollars, where X dollars equals the price of a desired video game, constitutes parental permission. It's not a matter of saying that parents "should" be responsible, it is a matter of stating the *fact* that parents *are* responsible. If a child cannot be trusted to make a purchase, then it should not be given responsibility to handle money.

And if the child only has X dollars in his hands because he managed to skim that money from several smaller amounts that were given to him for other purposes, which may or may not be difficult to track? (an obvious example being lunch money at school, though I can imagine others)

No, the fact that junior has somehow managed to amass $20-$50 (because not all M-rated games cost 50 dollars...GTA3 and GTA:VC, for instance, both can be had new for less than $20) does not in any way imply parental consent. It doesn't even imply that the parents, as you put it, placed $20-$50 in his little hands...at least not at one time.

And while you are correct that this system will not protect the values of all parents, it does provide a tool for the majority of parents whose values it does reflect a majority of the time. Yes, there are parents who don't want their kids watching or buying Disney cartoons. But a vast majority probably wouldn't want an 11-year-old watching Pulp Fiction. Those parents who do want their kid to watch PF just need to buy it for them. Those parents who don't want their kids to watch Disney just need to monitor their kids more closely than most, because their values are more restrictive than those of general society.

This may not be the perfect solution; but you shouldn't, in general, pass up better to wait for perfect.

Re:Um...

[bwcarty]

Shitty parents are going to give in when their kid starts crying for CorpseFucker3D, anyway.

I hear Uwe Boll is already working on a film adaptation of that one.

Re:Um...

[Spy der Mann]

Anyone else see it as a good thing that the kids can't get these games without parental permission?

To the slashdot crowd: Those below 18 PLEASE refrain from answering this question. ;-)

Re:Um...

[G)-(ostly]

Soooo....

It's society's responsibility to both employ your offspring as a responsible young adult... and restrict your same offspring as an irresponsible child when using his or her earned income to make entertainment decisions?

That is the most absurd thing I have ever seen in my life.

Using your logic we should do away with the drinking, smoking restrictions, and are requirements for drivers licenses and porno.

Ah, yes. The ol' slashdot analogy. Despite the fact that drinking and smoking both cause chronic, potentially fatal diseases, and that driving before being fully equipped is a good way to get killed, or kill other people, go ahead and compare that to, for example, watching a cartoon zombie eat people which, to the best of my knowledge, can't cause any liver diseases or cancer, or run over the neighbor's dog.

As far as porn, that's just puritan nonsense. I don't care if your kid buys porn. Like the rest of the responsibility you're trying to shirk, I shouldn't be the one that has to enforce that rule. Don't want your kid to buy porn or Stubbs? Tell him or her that. Don't trust them to listen to you? Then the kid's not responsible enough to hold a job anyway, so don't let them have one.

Re:Um...

[ToxikFetus]

In the end, the most objective judgment as to whether Junior can buy a certain game comes when the parent puts X dollars in his little hands.

But if the parents don't give Junior X dollars, then [he/she]'ll just resort to prostitution and selling drugs to get the money. Or so I learned from watching Lifetime.

Re:Um...

[Jaysyn]

TV & magizines already have ratings.

Jaysyn

Re:Um...

[Pxtl]

The keyword is *regulated* - the ratings of movies, for example, is entirely voluntary.

imho, any legislation that targets the games industry and ignores other forms of media is being made simply because the games industry is a convenient scapegoat. If this legislation were seriously aimed at fixing a problem, it would never specifically mention games, but instead of would focus on a general policy that could be applied across all media - novels, comics, games, movies, TV, etc.

Re:Um...

[hunterx11]

Although obscenity (and during the day, indecency) is banned from broadcast television, there are no laws which require ratings to be applied in such a manner that children may not view programs of a certain rating without parental consent. I don't know what magazine ratings you're speaking of, but I know of no laws which prohibit the sale of magazines to children based on any ratings. Furthermore, the rating system for movies is enforced voluntarily, not by law.

You could argue that pornography cannot be sold to children, but this is not a matter of ratings. Besides, existing laws against pornography can be applied to games as well as other media. However, this case here is that there is an active movement to single out games for ratings-based regulation.

Re:Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

If what your saying is correct then technically children with X dollars can buy tobacco and alcohol products for X dollars just because they have the money. There is a reason people are IDed to buy these products and this practice needs to be enforced at the retailer level on Mature games. If you don't have a valid ID to prove how old you are to purchase alcohol then you do not get the drink, it needs to be the same with video games. If an adult buys the game and gives it to a kid then at least the store is not responsible for selling mature wares to a minor. I'm sure kids get tobacco and alcohol this way anyway.

Re:Um...

[heinousjay]

This may not be the perfect solution; but you shouldn't, in general, pass up better to wait for perfect.

But what about this case, where we're talking about passing up awful to wait for useful?

I don't want the responsibility of raising your kids. I don't care how hard a job you think it is - you were free to not fuck back when you spawned the little hellions. Now it's your problem. I will reject every effort you put forth to share that responsibility.

You don't like my attitude? Too bad. I don't have children because I don't want to deal with these issues. I made the responsible choice already. I don't have to deal with the consequences of your poor parenting skills.

Re:Um...

[RingDev]

"I don't want the responsibility of raising your kids.... I don't have children because I don't want to deal with these issues."

So you don't want to be responsible for raising my kid, and you have no kids of your own, despite your rather ridiculous tone, I would guess you are 17+ years old, which would mean these restrictions have no bearing on you. Unless you are working as a register clerk for a retail store, in which case, you will politely shut the hell up and ring the register like the manager told you two.

-Rick

Re:Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, dispite being 17+ now, I very much remember being a semi-logical human being at 13. I coulda sworn I know the difference between a video game and real life at 14 too. And I knew that shooting cops was a bad idea at 15. When I got my license at 16 I didn't start running over hookers and the elderly. And I knew not to bring my katana to school and multilate the teacher for giving me a C- in AP CS at 17. Believe it or not, kids in the double digits of age aren't softheaded little monkey-see-monkey-do machines, and treating them as such is not helpful.

Re:Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

I could care less what people do to rase there own kids but it should be there choice.

Are you trying to troll for spelling flames?

Re:Um...

[Starsmore]

"Anyone else see it as a good thing that the kids can't get these games without parental permission?"

Nope.

Because the laws keeping GTA:San Andreas from the hands of children are one stepped removed from the laws keeping GTA:San Andreas out of the hands of adults, simply because the politicians disapprove of them.

Every single law that they try to pass about keeping games 'away' from kids isn't about the kids. It's about the fact that the religious right (or is it left? All the same lately) disapproves of such things being bought and sold, and this is the way they can censure it.

Re:Um...

[soft_guy]

Personally, I see a kid buying a video-game his parents wouldn't approve of as a WONDERFUL opportunity to teach him a hell of a lesson - When the parents catch him with it, they can make him take it and put it in the shredder page by page, disc by disc, destroying 50+ dollars of his own hard-earned money. You just don't get that same kind of lesson from a shopkeeper telling him to take a hike.

Yes. The lesson clearly is "Dad's a facist."

Re:Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh. the entertainment industry brought this on themselves. what with all their movies about "videogames coming to life and killing everyone" meme and all. or "computer virus infects human" And we all know people can't tell the difference between movies and real life, case in point: people believe that shit enough to propose legislation.

Re:Um...

[RingDev]

"It's society's responsibility to both employ your offspring as a responsible young adult..."

No, it is my son's responsibility to himself and to society to be a productive member of the society in which he lives.

"and restrict your same offspring as an irresponsible child when using his or her earned income to make entertainment decisions?"

All societies, cultures, and sub-cultures have acceptable norms. Whether you as an individual accept those norms or not is irrelevant. The question then becomes a matter of norms enforcement, which is something all groups of people do. Reinforcing norms is the norm. The very fact that there are norms will then be imprinted on the individuals in the society and the subconscious fear of rejection forces us to not only except in those norms, but to further reinforce them. So yes, I expect society to restrict my child's activities and have a profound effect on his up bringing.

"That is the most absurd thing I have ever seen in my life."

As a fellow reader of /., I highly doubt that.

"Like the rest of the responsibility you're trying to shirk"

Please, tell me how I am shirking responsibilities? I have placed rules on the software aloud in my house, and the software that my child is aloud to use. If I find software that I do not approve of, I will remove it.

This is not a matter of shirking responsibility, this is a matter of a socially accepted standard being applied to a new form of media similar to an old form of media(Movies).

If you want to change the social norm, feel free to try, but I would recommend preaching to the people on the fence before you attack the people firm in their opinion. As the old saying goes, never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

-Rick

Re:Um...

[RingDev]

Ahh! Slash dot ate my post. Damn it. I'm not retyping that thing. Suffice it to say that I have my opinion and you have yours.

-Rick

Re:Um...

[RingDev]

Or maybe it didn't. Stupid 'error has occurred' message.

-Rick

Re:Um...

[slothman32]

P[pre].S. I am not implying on if violence, et. al. is good, only on whether it should be legislated.

I always, for non-trivial posts, crtl-c it.
Every once in a while I get my comment back lost after a fail.

As for your comment, the only thing I am against is arbitrary age values.
The parent should know but younger people who happen to not have been on Earth for a few billion miles around shouldn't be "punished" becase of kids who can't handle it.
I can't think of a remedy that prevents age discrimition AND allows parents more control though. I would then not have to require ID's and hope nothing bad happens to them. The chance of the mind-altering aspect of tyhe violent\whatever game\movie\book, even if high, doesn't take precendence over the age discrimination.
To use an unrelated and completely dissimilar and stupid analogy, would you jail two people if one were guilty and the other innocent or free both?

P.S. FF did weird stuff but I copied this post. Since I didn't copy anything else I could ctrl-v it back here hours later. Of course I keep most of my comments in text files anyways so I could reget it if I did use the clipboard. I have over have a meg of comments in various files.

P.P.S I am 28 but have thought this way since 10. I could have been biased then and just carried it over these last 2 decades.

P.P.P.S. because you can't have too many ps's. I think of age discrimination as similar to race of sex, all uncontrolable. Yes younger often means less wise but not always. It's that "not always" that is important.

Re:Um...

[RingDev]

"I can't think of a remedy that prevents age discrimition AND allows parents more control though."

In the absence of a clear and logical option, society will choose and arbitrary number of their own liking. In the US, that number for the most part is 18. Not saying it is right or good, just that society will create a norm when a need is determined.

"I am 28 but have thought this way since 10. I could have been biased then and just carried it over these last 2 decades."

I used to be a very stubern person, I still am from time to time (there was a certain /. debate I got into a while back, looking back on it I realise just how wrong I was.) But for the most part, I gave up on my inflated views of my own opinions when my pride took a crushing defeat over something that I was 'sure' I was right about a few years ago. I'm still confident and sure of my opinions, but I'm much more open for debate these days. And if someone can show me or prove a better option, I will gladly abandon my own option for it.

In this case for instance. If someone could show me how the industry standard (ie: not a law) of not selling AO games to minors and not selling M games to kids under 16 (I believe that was the recommendation, but I could be wrong), hurts the children, parents, the game industry, or society as a whole, I would love to hear it.

-Rick

Re:Um...

[siriuskase]

Whereas I like the idea that this puts the responsibility on the parent, it does suggest a potential "camel nose in the tent" kinda problem in that if this law pertaining solely to videogames becomes reality, someone could then use arguments similar to yours to generalize the law to other media. This is not an unusual strategy for patient people who want to enact major changes to the law. First pass a law aimed at something easy to demonize and then once it is passed and accepted as a legitimate law, go on to show how other media present the same problem.

What about movies?

[faloi]

Have they done a similar study for movies? My contention has been that actors and actresses tend to put a lot of money in politicians pockets, so that branch of the entertainment industry gets a free ride. I'd like to know if underage people are able to get into R-rated movies and/or buy parental warning lyrics-labeled CD's with the same frequency. As far as I know, movie theaters tend to do some checking but buying CD's is a free-for all.

Re:What about movies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who thinks kids shouldn't be able to buy music just because they say the word "fuck" really needs to get out into the real world more. Besides, I think more kids probably learn profanity from their dad watching football.

Re:What about movies?

[shotfeel]

I do remember seeing something about that which stated movie theatres do a much better job. But then I often wonder if a big part of that is that there aren't very many separate companies showing movies. When its down to just a few chains, all you have to do is make it a well-entrenched company policy in those chains to make it work. So if you RTFA you find the big retail chains (equivalent to the big movie chains) do a much better job of "policing" themselves when it comes to selling M rated video games. Its when you get into the smaller chains and independent stores that you see a larger variation in company policies and enforcement.

IOW it may be that the movie industry does better simply because its easier for them.

Re:What about movies?

[RexRhino]

Actually, the movie industry problem is just harder to detect... ignorance is bliss.

A kid goes to movie multiplex, purchases their ticket, and then walks from the theater with the G rated movie to the theater with the R rated movie. They usually take tickets at the entrance to the movie theaters to the consession stand, not at the door of each theater. As long as the usher doesn't question anyone, all is good (and hell, I haven't seen an usher walk the isles in about 10 years, as long as kids are quiet they will be OK).

It is not just kids getting into R movies where you can cheat the system. You can order tickets with a senior citizen discount online, get the ticket at the machine, and the people tearing the ticket aren't going to check every ticket for the "senior" logo.

Re:What about movies?

[Anonymous Coward]

The movie theater I worked for, for two years, was draconian about restricting underagers from rated R movies. It was a fairly strict rule that no children under 12 - no matter what - were allowed in after 6PM. People in a rated R film typically don't want little kids screaming and crying and crapping their pants in the middle of a film. The managers were always looking for people trying to bypass the ticket taker, and if they spotted someone they'd go yank em out of a movie.

Ushers, especially on new release rated R films, would take tickets at the door and check IDs of everyone who looked under 30.

Working in the box office, I checked the ID of everyone under 30 - unless they were getting a student discount with a college ID. Not over 17, not getting in. One time a box office employee sold an R ticket to a kid under 17, the kid's parents got hysterical later on in the week and went to the general manager about it. That employee was fired (they could tell by the ticket stub which register it was printed at). It's probably not the same at all theaters - but our theater was extremely good about not letting kids into rated R flicks. It's not just about the content - it's about giving the people who are ALLOWED to be in there a decent moviegoing experience. Kids under 18 tend to be louder, tend to talk more during the film, and generally be a nuisance. The worst movies, with the most complaints about people talking during them, with the most crap lying around on the floor afterward, were always the PG-13 films. I really learned a severe disdain for the typical middle and high school groups of kids... really, the worst.

Re:What about movies?

[H8X55]

Seniors?!?
Buying tickets online?!?
Bullshit!

Re:What about movies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Music and books are not age controlled.

The movie/game ratings are voluntary organised self-control from the industries.

You can talk about penises all you want, just don't show a picture! Also, be sure to wear your swim trunks in the shower.

Re:What about movies?

[Grant_Watson]

Ushers, especially on new release rated R films, would take tickets at the door and check IDs of everyone who looked under 30..... Working in the box office, I checked the ID of everyone under 30 - unless they were getting a student discount with a college ID.

And people under 30 still patronized this theater? I'm surprised.

Re:What about movies?

[coaxial]

Yes, they do card at movies. They started doing that in the early 90s.

Re:What about movies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do people under 30 still buy cigarettes?

Yeah, it's annoying - but we had to be careful. The majority of the clientele there were either college kids, groups of highschool/middleschool kids, and bible-belt suburban families. The parents in those bible-thumper kids can make quite a bit of bad publicity if they squawk loud enough when their kid gets into a movie that shows a little bit of skin. There weren't many that regulared the theater that were under 30 and not in college. And if you're in college, why wouldn't you bring your college ID to get 4 bucks off the price of the ticket?

Really, I didn't want to be such an asshole about it. But if I wasn't an asshole, and somebody slipped through, chances are I'd get fired. Because when someone complained about the kid, they'd check and see which register his ticket came from before kicking him out. It was theater policy, and if you wanted to go to the megaplex with stadium seating instead of the four-screen regular where you had to strain to see over peoples heads if you were under 5'8", you dealt with it. And as a moviegoer, I'm pretty glad they strained to keep underage kids out - it really does improve the moviegoing experience.

Now if only they could strain to keep the gangbangers out.. they're the worst group in a movie for noise and mess, well and beyond what gaggles of teenage kids are.

Sucks for the kids...

[Novalight_2550]

It seems now-adays that the only ratings that are being given out are ether M or E... i mean what's a kid to do... Another question is does anyone care if kids are getting AO games (however few of them there are). Isn't M and AO the same thing in a way, i mean you have to be 18 or with someone 18 to get ether, at least this is how it was for me. I mean shesh

Re:Sucks for the kids...

[fistfullast33l]

I was in a Best Buy yesterday looking at PSP games and I noticed a mother pushing a son in a stroller and another kid of about 9 and she had GTA: Liberty City Stories in her hand. She was going to buy it for the 9 year old. Personally, I think there's only so much legislators can expect these ratings to do, and then they just have to let it go because they've given parents the information and the rest belongs out of their hands.

Re:Sucks for the kids...

[the.Ceph]

Actually M rated games are for people 17 years of age and older while AO rated games are for people 18 years of age and older.
 
  The difference is generally nudity, because it's okay to kill at 17, but screwing before 18 is immoral.

Re:Sucks for the kids...

[shotfeel]

Just curious, how do you know it was for the 9 year old? Could have been for her, her husband, an older child who didn't want to be seen shopping with mom (or in a different part of the store), or a gift for someone completely different.

For example, after trawling the cheap bins after Christmas, my 9 year old and I walked up to the register with 3 games for the Playstation. One (for me) was rated M. The cashier did mention to me the game was rated "M for mature", which at first surprised me, but on further reflection, I'm glad she did, even though I already knew it.

Re:Sucks for the kids...

[sesshomaru]

It seems now-adays that the only ratings that are being given out are ether M or E...

Yes, a very disturbing trend, visible in Kingdom Hearts II:

Besides typical English localization, the English version of Kingdom Hearts II differs from the original Japanese version.

* The Hydra has its green blood from the Japanese version changed into black and purple smoke in the English version.

* Xigbar's telescopic sight view has been edited from the Japanese version to replace its crosshair with three circles and remove the black shading around the sides that implied a telescopic sight.

* The guns of pirates found in the Pirates of the Carribean world in the Japanese version have been altered into crossbows. (Because, I guess, we want our kids shooting each other with crossbows rather than guns.)

* Scenes in the Pirates of the Carribean world have been edited to remove some of the violence.

* Undead pirates do not react adversely to Fire magic as they would in the Japanese version.

--Wikipedia, Kindgom Hearts II

Also in Sonic Gems Collection:

According to GameSpot, who spoke to Sega regarding this topic, the Streets of Rage games will definitely not be in the US version of Sonic Gems Collection. Ready for the reason? Chances are it's going to piss you off.

It's because Sega would have had to change the game's ESRB rating from an "E" to a "T" to accommodate the inclusion of the somewhat violent titles, and Sega opted to go for the "E" rating instead. -- News - Sonic Gems Collection US = no Streets of Rage

Meanwhile, I recently gave The Typing of the Dead to a 10 year old (my girlfriends daughter), based on the following reasoning:

1. All the violence in Typing of the Dead is ridiculous and not serious. I mean the characters are walking around with keyboards, Dreamcasts, and giant Coppertop batteries on their backs. The voice acting is the kind of thing that in a movie would be MST3K fodder. I consider this to be an "over-protective soccer mom" 'M' and not a realistic 'M.'

2. It will be useful for this girl turn learn how to type when she is writing term papers, typing computer code, or writing her first novel. I'd like her to get started as early as possible. I learned to type playing Infocom games (I gave her those, too... but I worry they just can't hold the kids' attention these days, sadly.)

Re:Sucks for the kids...

[fistfullast33l]

Just curious, how do you know it was for the 9 year old Because the 9 year old asked the mother to buy it and she said yes.

Re:Sucks for the kids...

[soft_guy]

Because the 9 year old asked the mother to buy it and she said yes.

She sounds like exactly the kind of parent that then pitches a bitch about it when she discovers the game has prostitution, drugs, and violence. (Oh, my!)

Re:Sucks for the kids...

[Sigma 7]

Actually M rated games are for people 17 years of age and older while AO rated games are for people 18 years of age and older.

That's partly correct.

While the numerical values are correct, 'M' means that it should not be sold to people under 17. It is not solid and is mallable (e.g. if a 16-year old acts highly mature or casually states that he needs to get hands on a gaming engine for programming). At worst, a clerk may have a meeting with a manager which is just a coaching session at worst - usually there's plausable deniability going on.

'AO' means that it may not be sold to people under 18. This is a hard requirement, and thus clerks are required to ask for ID (or otherwise have a person with ID vouch on the buyer's behalf.) At best, a clerk selling to a minor will have a meeting with a manager, and it's not going to just be a coaching session.

what are these kids complaining about...

[smaerd]

..why, when I was their age we didn't have no 'Hot Coffee' or Grand Theft Auto 3: San Andreas! All we had was pixelated blood and gore in Wolfenstein3D and we LIKED IT! They should stop hollerin' about wantin' M-Rated games and do what kids are supposed to do: Download pr0n off of the internet!

Re:what are these kids complaining about...

[R3d M3rcury]

You had pixelated gore?! LUXURY! When I was a kid, if you wanted gore, you had to go out and beat up someone!

Never underestimate the aerobic exercise involved in running for your life from the local bully. You kids today are too damn fat and lazy to get up off your rear-ends, go out, and cause your own violence!

Down But High?

[rsmith-mac]

Granted the results indicate that there's a downward trend, and I fully believe that's a good thing, but am I the only one concerned here that the results are still so high? 42% is great, it's much better than 69%, but why can't it be 20%? Or 10%?

I'm glad to see that progress is being made, but it seems like there's still something else that needs to be done to bring the results more in line with other purchases such as movie theaters(anyone have numbers for those, BTW?).

Re:Down But High?

[G)-(ostly]

...am I the only one concerned here that the results are still so high?

Probably.

I'm glad to see that progress is being made, but it seems like there's still something else that needs to be done to bring the results more in line with other purchases such as movie theaters(anyone have numbers for those, BTW?)

Sooo... you're glad that the results are falling, but you're not happy that they're not in line with a number you don't currently know?

Ya I'm a girl - do you have a problem with it, bub?

No, but it annoys me that you're clearly exploiting the claim for attention. Of course, I don't believe you anyway, but whatever.

Could someone explain the "flamebait" mod?

[Opportunist]

Do we need to put (sarcasm) tags around text now? I was actually hoping the average /. reader manages to tell a (true) flamebait from an (exaggerated) sarcastic message. Appearantly ... not.

Then again, I'd only have to read a few of my less serious and more sarcastic contributions to find that out.

Yeah, mod me flamebait. THIS time at least it fits.

The funny thing is:

[Kingrames]

Children are not stupid.

The word will get around as to what retailers will sell them what games. 42% just means that there's a hole. And anything short of pure dictatorshp won't stop it.

Any legislation that prohibits sales of games to minors fails completely at its goal. Which is, of course, to prevent them from playing those games.

Still, I'd expect political doublespeak out the wazoo for a while, saying that they've been "wonderfully successful" at getting mature games out of the hands of children, and that there's "work still to be done."

I hereby copyright those phrases. Any politician using them must immediately resign and pay me an amount of money equal to all of the money they will ever earn (and have earned) in their entire lifetime, plus one Mexican peso.

Re:The funny thing is:

[Anonymous Coward]

Failing that, they could always find a sympathetic 18-year-old (e.g. a sibling) to go buy the game. Or pirate it off BitTorrent.

Re:The funny thing is:

[Pulse_Instance]

Any politician using them must immediately resign and pay me an amount of money equal to all of the money they will ever earn (and have earned) in their entire lifetime, plus one Mexican peso.

The Mexican peso would be included in all of the money they will ever earn in their lifetime. This is an interesting plan as the politician will forever be stuck in a loop getting you one more Mexican peso. Everytime the bring you what they think is the last peso you tell them now you have earned one more peso and that to fill their obligation they must bring you one Mexican peso.

Re:The funny thing is:

[heinousjay]

Thanks for the explanation. I was busy finding the joke funny. I needed someone to come along and ruin it like that so I could get more work done.

Re:The funny thing is:

[Valdrax]

The word will get around as to what retailers will sell them what games. 42% just means that there's a hole. And anything short of pure dictatorshp won't stop it.

Any legislation that prohibits sales of games to minors fails completely at its goal. Which is, of course, to prevent them from playing those games.

Substitute cigarettes or beer for video games in your argument and see if it still holds water for saying that we shouldn't even bother with such laws. Poor enforcement is better than no enforcement so long as it's non-discriminatory (i.e. that one segement of society is frequently targetted for enforcement and another isn't).

Think of speeding tickets. Imagine what it would be like if there was never any speeding tickets vs. the current situation vs. if all speeders were caught. The current situation is less safe than if the laws were always enforced, but it's safer than if the laws were never enforced.

Re:The funny thing is:

[Anonymous Coward]

All the money they will ever earn, plus one peso, will get you one peso.

Re:The funny thing is:

[2008]

Any legislation that prohibits sales of games to minors fails completely at its goal. Which is, of course, to prevent them from playing those games.

Is it? I thought the idea of the legislation was to prevent access to certain games without parental consent. Which is much more sensible: if your 14 year old can convince you that Killer 7 won't shock him, he's old enough to play it. As you said, children aren't stupid - most know their limits. Didn't you, when you were a kid?

Re:The funny thing is:

[Kingrames]

Incorrect friend.

Completely banning a product to a subset of the population is Communist.

Now that's not to say that everyone who does it IS communist, but that's where the idea comes from.

It has its roots way back in the olde days of Chinese philosophy. Legalism (on which nearly ALL of our current governments are based) emphasized the idea of using "Carrot-on-a-string" approaches to government. Either threaten the people with punishment for what they do, or reward them for what they do.

In America, we chose the former because of a very simple reason. Our founding fathers supported the idea of Freedom (yes, with a capital F) as something so important that we must even protect it from ourselves. This is why there's a second amendment that protects our rights to arms. We, as a people, have the Freedom to break the law, should we be willing to accept the punishment associated with that action.

Take a look at the legislation:

You are prohibiting children from purchasing certain games. Not a real big deal, since kids can always find ways to play the games at a friend's house or to get it through some shady source. The question is which one is easier, or more convenient. If it's more convenient to get mom and dad to pay for it, congratulations! You've supported a healthy family lifestyle, without costing americans their jobs or income.

If, however, it becomes far more convenient for the child to illegally download the game, then you've only made a bad situation worse, by contributing to software piracy.

Five Dollars (in pesos) says that these laws were deliberately designed with flaws, so that the next wave of "family-first conservative" politicians have yet another weapon to use in their campaign to get elected. I mean, what better way to preserve your complete and total Political Oligopoly (great word to look up if you don't know what it means), than by creating problems you can "solve."

Re:The funny thing is:

[Kingrames]

It will get me one peso.

It will get them in jail, for however long it will be in order for them to earn one peso's worth of jail sentence.

Re:The funny thing is:

[Valdrax]

Okay, this thread is veering off-topic at this point.

Completely banning a product to a subset of the population is Communist.

You lost me. Banning alcohol to teenagers and children is somehow equivalent to state ownership of property? I think you have a very poor grasp of what Communism actually is.

Either threaten the people with punishment for what they do, or reward them for what they do. In America, we chose the former because of a very simple reason.

Yes, this of course is why the Constitution is missing all of Article III and Arctle IV Section II -- because Americans don't punish people for doing bad things. I also don't see lot of carrots (at the state level of course) for preventing drunk driving, violent crime, and drug abuse. In fact, I mostly see sticks. Punishment is in fact the primary way that America encourages good behavior. Whether that's good or bad is a separate question, but I challenge your assertion that rewards for good behavior are the primary way we do things.

We, as a people, have the Freedom to break the law, should we be willing to accept the punishment associated with that action.

Congratulations! You have that same level of freedom in a police state. Personally, the ability to break the law and get punished isn't exactly how I define freedom. I define freedom based on what is and isn't illegal in the first place.

As for the actual on topic part of the discussion. We aren't criminalizing children's use of violent games. We are however requiring that parents be forced to take responsibility for their what their kids have access to. This is not a bad thing, and it'll hopefully stop stupid, irresponsible parents for trying to sue companies to stop them from producing violent games when it was the failure of the parents to read the rating on the game before purchase in the first place that led to their kids being exposed to objectionable content.

Re:The funny thing is:

[Anonymous Coward]

Former, not latter. you misinterpreted that part.

Re:The funny thing is:

[Valdrax]

Crud. Yes, I did. Well that part looks silly now.

I'm still waiting for this interview

[Opportunist]

Actually it's the only reason I watch evening news on some of the lower-quality channels.

When they're doing their "reports" about parents who don't know jack about their kids playing violent games...

Reporter: Do you know where your son is?
Mother: Yeah, in his room.
Reporter: And what he's doing there?
Mother: According to the noise, I'd say he's playing Splinter Cell?
Reporter: And do you know what's going on in this game?
Mother: Yeah, sure.
Reporter: And you don't consider this bad?
Mother: I consider it being better than him doing it for real so you got some hot topic for your evening news.

Unfortunately, we'll never see this interview aired.

Re:I'm still waiting for this interview

[Anonymous Coward]

s/Splinter Cell/GTA and that makes more sense. If he was doing the stuff in Splinter Cell for real, he'd be some sort of hero.

Re:I'm still waiting for this interview

[Opportunist]

My apologies, I don't really play shooters. I just picked the first game that came to my mind. Replace with Soldier of Fortune or Hitman if you want.

Movie rating equivalent

[neuromancer2701]

I would like to see a equal study about kids watching/renting/buying R rated movies. M-rated games = R-rated movies, AO games = NC-17 movies. You can't take your kid into a NC-17 movie but you can to a R-rated one. I don't know how this applies to video games, I guess your child would not be able to purchase the game even if you are there.

Re:Movie rating equivalent

[Derkec]

Yeah, that's workable. If I'm there, I'm the one buying the game for my kid. It's my credit card and if I hand the game to the child afterwards, the retailer can't do much about it.

Re:Movie rating equivalent

[neuromancer2701]

Yeah I was going to say that. I guess video game ratings are more equivalent to renting or buying DVDs as opposed to going to a movie. I just think that today we have gotten so use to movie ratings and that eventually it will happen to video games.

Re:Um... giving car keys to a 13 year old

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the average 13 year old know where the car keys are kept? How about knowing there is beer in the fridge? Or what about the booze in the liquor cabinet?

All of these items are available to the 13 year old, and yet you don't hear of 13 yeard old's grabbing the beer and going for a joyride (at least not very often).

Why not? Probably becauase a parent is paying attention to the booze and the car keys, yet how many parents pay attention to what games their kids are playing?

If you buy a video game you still need to take it home, put it in the console and turn on the TV. Compared to beer, or pron which can be consumed/viewed behind the 7-11 with no parents around.

Parents trump dictators, given a chance

[ianscot]

The word will get around as to what retailers will sell them what games. 42% just means that there's a hole. And anything short of pure dictatorsh[i]p won't stop it.

You're right: kids aren't stupid -- and neither are parents, given half a chance.

There sure is some middle ground between "sell 'em what they want" and "card every buyer." I'm a single parent of 12-year-old twins. It isn't necessary for me to ensure that every possible retailer in my area follows the letter of the M-ratings law. My kids know they'd be spending serious money on a game that they'd expect to lose access to, with serious parental repercussions, if I ever caught them at it. That level of nuisance they don't want to deal with. So, they don't buy "Gun."

And yeah, I work a crazy shift to be home when they're home for the most part, so there's not a ton of unsupervised time.

Politicians love to showboat over problems like this one -- if M-rated games are even a problem -- with nanny state measures. You never hear them respond by observing that the economy has changed in the last 30-odd years so that parents aren't raising their own kids. A second income is hard to do without, as I would know. Parents are under tremendous pressure to spend time at work instead of watching over their kids, and put in spots where they have to make that hard choice. I'm no rose-tinted-glasses right-wing "family values" fool, but there's no escaping the way that economic situation has changed.

All the moaning we hear about absentee parents comes through that filter for me. It's a blaming-the-victim sort of thing.

In the place of a real conversation about all that, we get "family values" grandstanding over Janet Jackson's bodice. There's work still to be done on that, by the way, despite wonderfully successful letter writing campaigns. Better pour some state money into church groups to make sure we get back to good old "family values." That'll keep her shirt on. I don't care if my kids see some skin; please, just give the parents of those middle school bullies who were raised by day care some options...

Re:Parents trump dictators, given a chance

[heinousjay]

I'm sorry, are you trying to tell me that people who choose to have children when they can't afford to ('necessitating' the second job, which is likely actually motivated by greed and desires to possess piles of shit) are somehow victims of society? Grow up. You chose to reproduce. It's not my responsiblity to make raising your spawn simpler. Those are your consequences, which you brought upon yourself. Keep that in mind when you think I owe you some assistance. Those kids didn't magically appear in the crib one day, brother.

Used to work for Gamestop/Babbages ETc...

[haplo21112]

...back then there was no company policy, we sold anything to to anyone who handed us money. Thats what we were in business to do sell things and make money. Telling someone they can't by "abc" product because of a letter on the box is counter to the mission. There was and still is I believe no law that says the retailer need respect the letter on the box. My assumption was always that if random person walks in and picks put product "abc" and hands it and $60 to me Mom and Dad know he's there and what he is buying. Why becuase when I was that age barring Christmas and Birthdays I never saw that much money at once unless my parents gave it to me! Christmas and Birthday money seemed to have a way of dissappearing for safe keeping and came back to me for approved purposes.

Moral of above rant...Parents listen up!...Its not the video game retailer's job to control what games your kid buys. Its YOURS! Pay attention to your kid!

I'm not sure what their policy is these days.

Handheld video games

[tepples]

If you buy a video game you still need to take it home, put it in the console and turn on the TV.

You claim that restricting access to the TV set on which a video game can be played is an effective method of restricting access to games with content not suitable for minors. So do you claim that minors shouldn't be allowed to own GBA, Nintendo DS, PSP, or GP2X systems?

Martin Niemöller

[tepples]

I would guess you are 17+ years old, which would mean these restrictions have no bearing on you.

See First they came for the Communists... for the rebuttal to that line of thinking.

Re:Martin Niemöller

[RingDev]

Yes, isn't that nice. We shouldn't have any laws because in a system where checks and balances can be abused they absolutely will.

For instance, we shouldn't support laws against murder, because some day they'll come for those who think about murder, and then some day they come for those who are predisposed to murder, and eventually they'll come for the rest...

In this case, nothing is being outlawed. Nothing is being removed from society. The only issue at stake is whether or not consumer retail stores are respecting an industry standard (ie: NOT A LAW!)

-Rick

Ratings don't matter

[Daggon]

Personally I think the whole ratings concept is based in stupidity and missinformation. Children over the age of 6(possibly even younger) are able to discern reality from fantasy. Exposing them to violent material isn't going to magically change them into monsters. I watched R rated films when I was 10, played Doom when I was 13, played all kinds of violent games in my high school years, even saw a lot of porn on the internet. Now, I have a job, pay my taxes, and help the old lady down the hall carry in her groceries. Violent media did not make me into a monster. Why? Because my parents loved me and cared for me. Its that simple, neglect will screw a kid up a million times more than any piece of violent media ever will.

The religious fundementalists in the world just want you to be afraid of things they don't approve of, thats why ratings exist. It has nothing to do with protecting anyone, just another way to control you.

Less political bait.

[AlexMax2742]

I see this as good news. Ratings issues aside, this should be proof that yes, the industry CAN police itself, like the movie industry.

Complete lack of maturity or humanity, there

[ianscot]

Grow up.

Same advice back. Get some therapy, "brother."

Fact is, working people are getting squeezed in a huge way by economic circumstances. No, I do not think law school grads are the only people worthy of making the choice to have kids. Forgive my commie ass for thinking so.

Prate all you want about personal responsibility. What I'm saying is, any glorious "family values" rhetoric about M-rated games is complete hypocrisy when the economic policies of those same politicians crap on people with a family.

(And incidentally, my wife died in childbirth, shithead. Explains my being a single dad with twins. Now, go play your Grand Theft Auto and desist telling me to "grow up." It doesn't play well.)