Jack Thompson Gearing Up For GTA IV Fight

Next Generation reports on Jack Thompson's next big fight: Grand Theft Auto IV. A mass email was sent to news organizations entitled 'Bill Gates in the Crosshairs'. He vows to 'rally the troops' against the release of the next chapter in Rockstar's sandbox-style crime series. The game is due out sometime this year, on both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. From the article: "Thompson said that he would 'undertake various means to prohibit' the sale of GTA IV to minors, and added, 'Please have your lawyers [Microsoft chairman Bill Gates', that is] contact me in order that such sales will be prevented.' He also said that the ICCR report 'makes it abundantly clear that unless such prohibitions are in place, then millions of units of the new Grand Theft Auto game will be sold directly to minors.' He continued, 'I am quite intent upon making sure that that does not happen. I and others will endeavor to stop Microsoft from participating in any fashion, directly or indirectly, in such sales to minors.'"

Comments

Good Luck to him

[linvir]

This is the good side of what JT does.

If only he'd stick to keeping kids from buying adult games, the world would have no beef with him.

Re:Good Luck to him

[greed]

Hey, if it wasn't for him and his like trying to get GTA3 banned, I would have never bought it. And wouldn't have played it and enjoyed it...

So, Jack, keep talking about what games are going to destroy the world, I need help with my shopping list.

Re:Good Luck to him

[badboy_tw2002]

Why is this flaimbait? I have no problem with the current rating system or making sure that the industry polices itself by ensuring retail outlets don't sell M games to minors. What you don't want is _government_ _oversight_, which I'm guessing would be the "bad side" the parent post refers to. Having church and community groups (and even the occasional nut) involved in the process would help them feel more comfortable with the rating system and that they can regulate "filth" at the local community level where it belongs.

Re:Good Luck to him

[Anonymous Coward]

If he can find a way of preventing adult games being sold to minors, other than not selling them at all, then more power to him.

However...

Re:Good Luck to him

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm actually forced to agree. Usually he's just an idiot, but he does have a good objective here.

Of course, in the UK the game will no doubt receive an 18 rating and thus technically can't be sold to minors (of course, as with tobacco and alcohol, it does happen), so I find this whole thing rather puzzling, as surely in the USA a film with the same sort of content as the GTA games would be age restricted... so should not a game?

Re:Good Luck to him

[sqlrob]

Riigght. MS has what to do with this?

And keep in mind that there are documented parental controls for the 360. MS has done it's job.

This is nothing more than JT being the attention whore he is.

Re:Good Luck to him

[fishdan]

Seriously: They should sell adult games the same way they sell adult magazines -- clearly labelled and with a wrapper around them, unless they're in an adults only area. I have no problem saying that GTA 3 was completely inappropriate for 7 year olds. But JT is just determined to undermine his cause by being such an asshole. I am sympathetic to the basic premise, some games are inappropriate for children -- but I don't agree that legislation is the way to fix it, and I don't agree that game companies are liable for the actions of idiots, and I certainly don't agree that you should welch on your offers.

Re:Good Luck to him

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately what he seems to want to be is some kind of censorship overlord, such a position doesn't exist, thus he loses even the smaller more logical arguements because they become attached to the basically looney concepts he has. If he is heading up GTA 4 being unavailable to minors then I feel I can safely predict that minors are going to have GTA 4.

Re:Good Luck to him

[Nasarius]

Seriously: They should sell adult games the same way they sell adult magazines -- clearly labelled and with a wrapper around them, unless they're in an adults only area.

If by "adult games" you mean hentai games and the like, okay. But if you're talking about GTA, that's ridiculous. We have no problem selling R-rated movies in plain sight, with content just as "bad" as any M-rated game. I don't see the difference.

Re:Good Luck to him

[phoenix.bam!]

Films are voluntarily restricted by a rating system set up by the film industry. Just like games already are. It is entirely the choice of the movie theater to allow in children to R rated movies (there are repercussions from the FILM industry and not the government for this.) Just like video game stores are able to sell Mature rated games to children if they choose.

Re:Good Luck to him

[navygeek]

Whether you want to call it "flamebait" or not, the OP is correct. If JT limited himself to keeping M rated games out of the hands of those that are too young, he'd have support coming out of the woodwork. If he poured his time and effort into educating parents and those with the power about video games (and did it correctly, leaving the rhetoric on the curb) and lobbied to have the sanctioned rating system enforced (much like the movie rating system) - then he wouldn't come off as quite such a nut.

Instead he rambles endlessly about violence in video games, quotes decades old studies, and basically blames all of the evils of society on video games - leaving no blame for the abscent parents that allow their kids to play games with subject matter well beyond their years. He brow beats anyone that disagrees with him. He attempts to have games outright blocked/destroyed. And meddles in a rating system that, while flawed, he has no real perspective on.

I'm all for letting people play the games they enjoy and letting the manufacturers have freedom to develope the games they wish to make - but I'm also in favor of keeping game with content like rape, murder, drugs, and teletubbies out of the hands of those too young to *really* understand them.

Re:Good Luck to him

[drinkypoo]

Seriously: They should sell adult games the same way they sell adult magazines -- clearly labelled and with a wrapper around them, unless they're in an adults only area.

If by "adult games" you mean hentai games and the like, okay. But if you're talking about GTA, that's ridiculous. We have no problem selling R-rated movies in plain sight, with content just as "bad" as any M-rated game. I don't see the difference.

A lot of parents would like to see those segregated out, too. But more don't give a fuck. And those parents don't give a fuck what games their kids play, either, until some asshole gets on the TV and tells them they should - but for all the wrong reasons that have been disproved (or more accurately, strongly contraindicated) time and time again by people much smarter than JT is.

Re:Good Luck to him

[IcyNeko]

Hello department of Homeland security? Yeah hi. There's this guy in a grey suit who keeps threatening to "fly a plane" into Microsoft as part of his "Jihad"...

Re:Good Luck to him

[dougmc]

Seriously: They should sell adult games the same way they sell adult magazines -- clearly labelled and with a wrapper around them, unless they're in an adults only area.

If by "adult games" you mean hentai games and the like, okay. But if you're talking about GTA, that's ridiculous. We have no problem selling R-rated movies in plain sight, with content just as "bad" as any M-rated game. I don't see the difference. Personally, I don't see why sex is seen as so much more damaging for people to see (or act out, in the case of games) than violence. As for the few hentai games I've tried, what's really criminal about them is just how bad (i.e. low quality) they are. They think the `sex! boobies!' gimmick is a sutiable replacement for things like gameplay or a coherent story/plot.

Re:Good Luck to him

[HTH NE1]

They should sell adult games the same way they sell adult magazines -- clearly labelled and with a wrapper around them

What store are you buying your games in where the cases aren't covered in shrink-wrap or displaying only the empty cases, the game disks kept behind the counter?

The adult magazines are similarly covered in clear plastic, and that's just to keep people from reading them in public. They employ opaque panels only if the cover art is too revealing of the naughty bits for your community's standards.

There's not much risk in some kid carrying his XBOX 360 or PS3, a battery pack to power them, a pocket TV, controller, and cables popping a copy of GTA4 in and playing it in the isle at Best Buy! And even if they release versions for the PSP or NDS or other portable system, there's still that shrink-wrap in the way.

The content in magazines is readily accessible to the unaided eye. The same is not true of a CD or DVD unless you're a Roswell alien.

Re:Good Luck to him

[tzhuge]

What are you talking about... they have plenty of substance. They even teach valuable life skills like how to click really fast through dialog and how to juggle school, work and multiple girl friends.

I am inclined to agree with you about sex in media. It's related to the general problem that ratings are arbitrary. It seems pretty silly that a movie can get a lower age rating by reducing the number of swear words. That's why parental participation is still the best way to deal with sex and violence in media. However, that might not be a realistic solution for all families. It's certainly not a clear cut issue.

Re:Good Luck to him

[ZakuSage]

M-rated games are not "adult games". They are intended for audiences 17+, the equivalent of an R-rated movie. This isn't porn we're talking about here, that would be appropriately rated AO for Adults Only, which isn't carried in like 90% of game stores.

Re:Good Luck to him

[nuzak]

There is no good side to this person. I suspect he'll make that abundantly clear with his public behavior (and in private, he's been reported to be even worse).

He may as well be talking to Western Digital and Seagate to demand that their hard drives not store GTA IV. Is it still a cart00ney if it's sent from an actual attorney? Maybe kooks like JT make the exception to the definition.

Re:Good Luck to him

[thatguywhoiam]

Seriously: They should sell adult games the same way they sell adult magazines -- clearly labelled and with a wrapper around them, unless they're in an adults only area. I have no problem saying that GTA 3 was completely inappropriate for 7 year olds.

If the game is porn, sure. If its just 'rated M' (i.e. rated 'R' equivalent) then they should sell it like they sell movies - next to everything else. The 'AO' titles can go in the special room.

Anyone ever seen an AO video game, btw? (outside Japan?)

Re:Good Luck to him

[justkarl]

I agree, this sounds like a pretty productive activity. Maybe this is a result of "picking his battles."

Re:Good Luck to him

[Sigma 7]

Anyone ever seen an AO video game, btw? (outside Japan?)

Duke3D would be the closest. This was pre-ESRB, but did have a "Warning: Adult Content" as well as an RSAC rating stating that there was significant sexual content.

Re:Good Luck to him

[Randolpho]

Er... is that for giving bills to pasty-covered strippers and saying "shake-it, baby!", or for equally unraunchy "penthouse level"?

Re:Good Luck to him

[HTH NE1]

Anyone ever seen an AO video game, btw? (outside Japan?)

GTA San Andreas, before re-release.

Re:Good Luck to him

[Captain Splendid]

I used to do the same thing with film critic Alexander Walker. If he hated a film, then it was most likely something I would enjoy. Worked like a charm.

Re:Good Luck to him

[dave562]

We have no problem selling R-rated movies in plain sight, with content just as "bad" as any M-rated game. I don't see the difference.

Consider this... In an R-rated movie, a child simply has access to watching someone else perform acts that you wouldn't want the child doing (killing people, rape, etc). In a videogame, the child in effect becomes the perpetrator of the acts. The difference is between simply seeing the acts versus committing the acts, albeit in a virtual world.

When I played GTA San Andreas I remember thinking to myself, "This isn't the kind of game I'd want my kids playing." For me, it hit a little bit too close home. Having grown up in Long Beach, and seen gang life first hand, the game was uncomfortably realistic. As an adult, I could see it for the entertainment and escapism that it was. However I think that when you expose kids to that kind of content, you are in effect saying, "I approve." and I don't think that it is right to tell your children that you approve of the lifestyle being presented in a game like GTA:San Andreas.

Re:Good Luck to him

[fishdan]

There's alot of replies to my original post that there is a distinction between M and AO. Also some distinction between what is an adult. For me, old enough to enlist in the armed forces means old enough to drink, smoke, swear, fuck and play violent video games -- in otherwards 17+ == adult in my book. I know you need parental consent to enlist in the army at 17, but I'm pretty sure once you're in, you get the same training and killing opportunities if you're 17 or 18.

As for porn, I cannot BELIEVE that people on /. are advocating restricting porn to people you would allow violent video games too. George Carlin said he'd much rather for kids to watch a movie of 2 people making love than 2 people trying to kill each other. Seriously, if a kid is old enough for violent video games, he's old enough for porn too.

Re:Good Luck to him

[Eternauta3k]

When I played GTA San Andreas I remember thinking to myself, "This isn't the kind of game I'd want my kids playing." For me, it hit a little bit too close home. Having grown up in Long Beach, and seen gang life first hand, the game was uncomfortably realistic.

Try playing it with the funny mask (the one with glasses and a moustache) all the time. It makes you more conscious it's a game.

Re:Good Luck to him

[Chris Burke]

As for porn, I cannot BELIEVE that people on /. are advocating restricting porn to people you would allow violent video games too.

Welcome to an American audience, where we have a bizzare fear of the sexual and a bizzare fascination with the violent.

Like Orwell's Junior Anti-Sex League and the Two Minutes Hate only without the deliberate control behind it -- repression in one area leads to expression in another.

Re:Good Luck to him

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"As for porn, I cannot BELIEVE that people on /. are advocating restricting porn to people you would allow violent video games too."

The reason for this incongruity is that teen pregnancy happens far more often than teen murder. In other words: Parents remember how they spent their youth and don't want their kids making stupid mistakes. They think that by being bombarded with porn they'll run out and try to 'score', ignoring the risk of tying up the next 18 years of their lives.

Whether they're right about that or not is a seperate discussion. I'm just pointing out why sex is far more taboo than violence.

Re:Good Luck to him

[mrchaotica]

That doesn't (or shouldn't) count -- the only AO content required a hack to get to.

Re:Good Luck to him

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, why do you want wrapper around them? Does GTA:IV show boobies on the box?

Re:Good Luck to him

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sympathetic to the basic premise

Then you're sympathetic to censorship. We already have federal obscenity laws to cover obscene content - and that includes video games. Any rating system beyond that is patently unconstitutional.

What JT and his ilk are pushing for is called "Prior Restraint," and it is one of the biggest demons in the dark realm of censorship. Want to publish a game? Better let the government take a peek at your beta, just to make sure there isn't anything too disturbing, like porn, human dissection or criticisms of the current President. Frankly, it sickens me that people are willing to sacrifice the most basic of their free speech rights just because they don't quite feel they have a grasp on new media. It's pathetic.

Re:Good Luck to him

[geminidomino]

What are you talking about... they have plenty of substance. They even teach valuable life skills like how to click really fast through dialog and how to juggle school, work and multiple girl friends.

Looks like someone's played "True Love..."

Re:Good Luck to him

[geminidomino]

The reason for this incongruity is that teen pregnancy happens far more often than teen murder. And because teen murder sells more newspapers/promo spots on the evening news.

Re:Good Luck to him

[Ugly American]

Anyone ever seen an AO video game, btw? (outside Japan?)

If Wikipedia is to be believed, there are only 23 titles that have ever been rated AO, and most of them I've never heard of before. I wouldn't exactly call it a huge problem.

Re:Good Luck to him

[KDR_11k]

The US Freedom of Speech law does not include exceptions that would allow banning sales to minors. The only reason they can outlaw selling porn to minors is because of the legal loophole to define porn as not speech and I'd argue that while this may be a commonly agreed rule and morally correct it does violate the first amendment and should be overturned.

Re:Good Luck to him

[KDR_11k]

Some of them involve rape which is unsuitable for children whether you think plain sex is bad for them or not. Though ratings should reflect the difference between consenting adults and raping elementary school children that are blood related to your character.

Re:Good Luck to him

[John Nowak]

I think it was more for giving money to strippers, saying "shake-it, baby!", and then shooting them in the face.

Re:Good Luck to him

[Sigma 7]

Er... is that for giving bills to pasty-covered strippers and saying "shake-it, baby!", or for equally unraunchy "penthouse level"?

Perhaps, but it could easily qualify. Offhand:

1. There is a strip bar on E1L2, where giving "money" to some strippers cause them to remove their bra. In E3L1, there's a statue that will show breasts. (This may qualify for 'M' rather than AO.)
2. Scattered throughout Episode 1, there are nude women kept in alien pods. In Episodes 2-4, there are women bound to other positions - either held to the ground, held against a large alien spike, or suspended from the ceiling (or from the ground with the body trying to float upwards.)
3. I haven't seen it in-game, but a graphic available through the level editor shows another woman impaled by a spike.
   
4. In the expansion pack, there is a controversial video of aliens attacking a pregnant woman. I won't spoil the details why, or it's significance.

If Duke3D was remade and released now, it will receive an AO rating - especially when the sprites shown above get replaced by 3D-models.

Re:Good Luck to him

[DJCacophony]

Banning sales to minors isn't limiting freedom of speech. Rockstar is allowed to speak, minors just aren't allowed to listen.

Re:Good Luck to him

[ElleyKitten]

If JT ... lobbied to have the sanctioned rating system enforced (much like the movie rating system)...

But videogames are enforced like the movie rating system. Both are voluntary, industry regulated systems not enforced by any law.

Other than that nitpick, I do agree with what you're saying.

Re:Good Luck to him

[Anonymous Coward]

As for porn, I cannot BELIEVE that people on /. are advocating restricting porn to people you would allow violent video games too. George Carlin said he'd much rather for kids to watch a movie of 2 people making love than 2 people trying to kill each other. Seriously, if a kid is old enough for violent video games, he's old enough for porn too. I watch and enjoy porn. It's incredibly naive to describe porn as two people making love. A *lot* of porn plays with exploitative fantasies running the gamut from "all women want it really" through "no really means yes" right up to simulated abduction and rape and beyond. It takes a certain maturity to separate that fantasy from reality (especially with the gonzo stuff out there nowadays where they pretend the actress is a stranger they've picked up) -- I'm in my mid 30s and I have to remind myself from time to time that it's just acting.

I'd much rather let kids watch two people making love than two people trying to kill each other, too. But I can't think of a way to legislate in a manner where you could efficiently distinguish nice porn from nasty porn. And trust me, a lot of people will prefer the nasty porn.

Re:Good Luck to him

[twistedsymphony]

I think the problem is that unlike the Movie industry the Video Game industry doesn't have repercussions or even testing in place to ensure retailers are enforcing their ratings.

The movie industry has "secret shoppers" if you will that are minors and attempt to purchase a ticket or tickets to films they aren't old enough to see, if the theater fails they risk loosing their blockbusters to other local theaters, or worse loosing all MPAA support. It's in the best interests to enforce the rating system.

The Video Game industry on the other had doesn't seem to have anything like that in place, they have no idea if retailers are respecting their ratings, and retailers have no punishment from the Video game industry if they neglect ratings. AFAIK the only thing the Video game industry does is have long talks and meetings with retail franchises where they agree to enforce them. The problem is that this corporate policy isn't really strongly followed down to the local managers and assistant-managers, again rarely having any internal corporate repercussions. And as a result some store actually ENCOURAGE the sale to minors because it improves their bottom line without retribution for breaking the rules.

This is where JT comes in, as do all of the other wontsomeonethinkofthechildren people. They feel it's their duty to create government law where the Video Game industry has obviously failed. It's absolutely true that the Video Game industry has failed, but the solution isn't to have the Government step in and enforce it. The Video Game industry needs to enforce it themselves, and until that happens this monkey wont be off their back.

Re:Good Luck to him

[brkello]

I'm 29 and I still don't understand teletubbies. Is it some sort of horror show?

Re:Good Luck to him

[HTH NE1]

I agree, it shouldn't count.

Re:Good Luck to him

[Cervantes]

As for porn, I cannot BELIEVE that people on /. are advocating restricting porn to people you would allow violent video games too. George Carlin said he'd much rather for kids to watch a movie of 2 people making love than 2 people trying to kill each other. Seriously, if a kid is old enough for violent video games, he's old enough for porn too. I, for one, cannot believe that George Carlin ever used the phrase "making love" instead of screaming "two people FUUUUUCCCCKKKKIIIINNNNG" followed by 5 minutes of demonstrative wild hip gyrations around the stage...

Re:Good Luck to him

[Soul-Burn666]

Until lately, most games of the games got translated to English were really stupid as you refer to.
But this a rather small set compared to the slews of games which are high on story and emotion and never got translated. Also, in many games the whole sex part is not integral to the game and in fact many of these games get PS2 versions in which the sex is cut out.

You'd probably be amazed by the amount of high quality anime (if you're a hater, then bleh on you!) which originated from H-games and are clean.

Re:Good Luck to him

[rtechie]

When I played GTA San Andreas I remember thinking to myself, "This isn't the kind of game I'd want my kids playing." For me, it hit a little bit too close home. Having grown up in Long Beach, and seen gang life first hand, the game was uncomfortably realistic. As an adult, I could see it for the entertainment and escapism that it was. However I think that when you expose kids to that kind of content, you are in effect saying, "I approve." and I don't think that it is right to tell your children that you approve of the lifestyle being presented in a game like GTA:San Andreas.

Does anybody think that by watching "Scarface", you are approving of the lifestyle of cocaine trafficing? That by watching "Pirates of the Carribean" you're approving of piracy? etc.

I also think you're being a bit naive here. Is San Andreas going to be kids only, or even primary, exposure to the gangster lifestyle? Not hardly. What about music, television, movies, and most importantly, other kids and the world around them? I grew up in an elite suburb, but I still had exposure to the crips, the bloods, and skinheads. "Sheltering" kids doesn't work, it just strips them of the ability to aquire street smarts.

Re:Good Luck to him

[why-is-it]

The reason for this incongruity is that teen pregnancy happens far more often than teen murder. In other words: Parents remember how they spent their youth and don't want their kids making stupid mistakes. They think that by being bombarded with porn they'll run out and try to 'score', ignoring the risk of tying up the next 18 years of their lives.

I wonder how the teen pregnancy rate in the US compares to that in Europe where there are more prohibitions against violence than sexuality...

Re:Good Luck to him

[Pollardito]

i'd also like to see him express the same outrage at the "shoot anyone that's not a Christian" game that he expresses for other violent games, and i'd be sort of content

Re:Good Luck to him

[dave562]

Does anybody think that by watching "Scarface", you are approving of the lifestyle of cocaine trafficing? That by watching "Pirates of the Carribean" you're approving of piracy? etc.

Good job on saying what you wanted to say instead of actually replying to the point that I was making.

I also think you're being a bit naive here. Is San Andreas going to be kids only, or even primary, exposure to the gangster lifestyle?

Although it certainly might not be the primary exposure, it could very well be the most explicitly detailed exposure that they will ever have. The sheer reality of that game, from the dialogue, to the stereotypical racial dynamics (blacks vs blacks, blacks vs latinos), to the crossing out of tags, to the being able to identify the street pushers based on what kind of clothes they wear, etc. was taken straight out of the way things really work.

Of course you can talk about how they see the same things in music videos, and hear about it in songs. To that I'd reply that the level of immersion offered in a video game is completely different. It comes at the kids slower. It is more all encompassing. Once a kid has been playing a video game for a few minutes, it isn't all that hard to sneak up on them because their 7 +/- 2 strains of focus have been focused into the game world and away from everything else. And to return full circle to the point I was making that you either intentionally or unintentionally skipped past in your effort to make your own point... When kids are playing games, they are in effect, mentally doing what their characters in the game are doing. They are also accepting as okay the actions that they are doing. To use San Andreas as an example... A kid could listen to some gangster rap and think, "Gee, that lifestyle sounds kind of cool." They can see the videos on MTV and think, "Gee, that lifestyle looks pretty cool." Then they go play San Andreas and think, "Gee, this lifestyle really is cool."

And you might say, "Well video games and reality are different. I've played X number of video games about Y and yet I've never done Y." I'm not talking about direct cause and effect. In this case, in the particular case of GTA, the video games create a level of acceptance for what is portrayed in the video game. Although the kid might not grab a can of spray paint, go cross out the first tag he comes across and then proceed to beat on whoever has a problem with him doing that, the kid very well might see someone else doing that and start to think (subconsciously), "Okay. I know what that guy is doing. There isn't anything wrong with that. It's just like what I saw in the video game that my parents implicitly told me was okay by letting me play." Or he might see a bunch of tags on the walls and think, "I wonder where the gangsters are. They'd be pretty cool to kick it with."

Re:Good Luck to him

[KDR_11k]

No, selling a game is the equivalent of making that information public. It's like saying you're allowed to write your newspaper but not sell it to others. The freedom of expression also applies to being able to share that expression with anyone willing to listen. Forbidding people from listening despite both the speaker and listener agreeing on the exchange is censorship and the law is not allowed to do that when it comes to the freedom of expression. Outlawing listening is just semantics to avoid outlawing speaking while reaching the same effect, preventing one member of society to express his ideas to others.

Re:Good Luck to him

[fishdan]

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tee_pre_perc ap-health-teenage-pregnancy-per-capita

Microsoft

[bilbravo]

Why just Microsoft? Why not Sony?

Re:Microsoft

[mobiux]

Because even Jack knows that Sony will eventually implode without any outside help.

Re:Microsoft

[fistfullast33l]

Bill Gates is a household name. Notice that he didn't target Microsoft as much as he targeted Gates in the title of the letter. I doubt there are many who know Phil Harrison nearly as well.

Re:Microsoft

[seebs]

Because no one actually has a PS3 or plays games on it; they just exist to get flipped on eBay!

(Disclaimer: I have one, and it's not getting resold.)

Re:Microsoft

[budgenator]

I thought Steve Balmer was CEO of Microsoft, yeah you know the guy that does the monkey dance and kicks chairs across the stage, yup he's the guys to stop these violent video games!

Re:Microsoft

[4D6963]

Because no one actually has a PS3 or plays games on it; they just exist to get flipped on eBay!

For less than the retail price now, so you can say they are only being sold to be returned the same day to the store.

Pay attention to me!

[Gorkamecha]

I'm Jack T and no one has heard from me recently! I'm lonely and there are wolves...

On MS's side?

[Thansal]

wow, dark day, eh?

Hopefuly MS will simply ignore Wako Jako, or possibly shoot him down.

However there is a small dark corner of my mind pointing out that MS could join a campaign to keep GTA:4 from being sold to minors (after all, it isn't supposed to be sold to them, thatis what the "M" stands for), however in doing so it would add some credence to the nutjob.

Re:On MS's side?

[leland242]

I thought the M was for "Minors". Which is, conveniently, the largest group of people that are attracted to most games rated M...

Re:On MS's side?

[Thansal]

I would actualy disagre with that. Minors is defined as >17, and I would say the key age range for those games probably goes up to late 20s to early 30s, and starts around 15 or 16 (key range, I know you will find samples out side of the range as well, but not as many). That would be enough people above the age of being a minor to be no longer aimed at minors.

or were you just trolling?

Re:On MS's side?

[C0rinthian]

Children think that a game is mature because you can beat up hookers. Adults think the opposite.

The main reason kids fixate on these kinds of games is that we keep accentuating how 'MATURE' they are. Mario = kids game. GTA = Adults game. Kids naturally want to be percieved as adults, so they go for the 'adult' games.

I fully support restrictions on who can purchase mature games. I don't see government oversight as necessary.

Re:On MS's side?

[Alchemar]

No, that is not what the "M" stands for. The "M" stands for Mature, it is a guide line for parents to realize that they need to decide if their children are mature enough to play the game. If the kid can get the money and can make a purchase without an adult, you need to consider why if you do not feel that he/she is mature enough for such a game, running the streets without an adult and enough money to buy a gun, controled substances, or a prostitue is possible
 
    "AO" means Adult Only which by definition means it can not be sold to minors. It might be splitting hairs and semantics, but it is an important distiction. If you want to see where things lead when you start generalizing "it is bad for the children" then go try to smoke a cigarette in a restraunt in a major city. They expand who can't do something bit, by bit.

Mod parent up!

[Rob T Firefly]

Someone's already hit it with "flamebait" but it's actually a very good point.

Re:Mod parent up!

[jimstapleton]

I agree. Keeping such games out of the hands of minors, unless the minors have parent approval is a very good thing.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Thraxen]

No, it's not a good point at all because Jack is going after the wrong end of the chain. Why is he contacting MS? First off, MS isn't developing or publishing GTA4. He should be after the retail stores since they are the ones responsible for selling 'M' and 'AO' games to children. He should also be be imploring parents to pay attention to game ratings and to make use of the parental control features that are on all the current consoles. MS has NOTHING to do with mature games getting into the hands od kids.

Re:Mod parent up!

[ifrag]

Funny part is the people working checkout really seem to have no feel for what age people are. I really had to laugh when the girl working the BestBuy register asked to see some ID when my younger brother (who is 22) was purchasing an 'M' game. I would think when it's obvious they wouldn't need to ask, but I guess to be safe they can't take any chances on accidentally guessing someones age wrong.

Re:Mod parent up!

[R3d M3rcury]

Well, age guessing is always tricky and when in doubt, it's a good idea to ask.

Heck, I got carded for cigarettes this morning and I'm more than twice the legal age. This happened because it was a new employee and the cash register told her to ask. Maybe Best Buy's cash registers have started doing that, just to remind the person that they're supposed to check these things.

Re:Mod parent up!

[EvilBrak89]

Best Buy registers have a prompt asking the cashier if the customer was born before $DATE. I can't remember it word for word, though.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Dahamma]

I would think when it's obvious they wouldn't need to ask, but I guess to be safe they can't take any chances on accidentally guessing someones age wrong.

Yeah, it's hard to fault them for asking EVERYONE for ID... my friend's little brother was working in a convenience store when he was in high school, and was fined (I think $250 - which is almost FORTY HOURS of GROSS income to a kid making $7 an hour - ie blew away 2-3 weeks of his part time job) for selling alcohol to a minor. The minor happened to be a 20 year old undercover cop with a full beard who "looked in his mid 30s". When you know the police are out there trying to entrap 18 year old convenience store employees it's a good idea to ask no matter what the customer looks like.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Phisbut]

Well, age guessing is always tricky and when in doubt, it's a good idea to ask. Heck, I got carded for cigarettes this morning and I'm more than twice the legal age.

I don't know how it goes in other places, but up here in Québec, the law requires convenience stores to ask the ID of anyone under the age of 25 when buying cigarettes or alcohol, even though the legal age is 18. That way, it removes much of the ambiguity of "this guy looks like he's 22 but he could as well be 17". It's no longer "Show me your ID if you look under 18", it's "Show me your ID if you look under 25". Much harder for a 16 year old to look 25, and adults don't really care about being IDed.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta love America. Where's your constitutional rights to drink bitch :-) Old enough to shoot people but too young to drink away the pain.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Fozzyuw]

up here in Québec, the law requires convenience stores to ask the ID of anyone under the age of 25 ... adults don't really care about being IDed.

First, I can say, I don't think there's a specific 'law', so to speak, but there is a common policy and campaign for the exact thing. Most stores will show employees a video and have signs that say "under 2x, we card", kind of thing.

Second, adults care a lot about being carded when they're obviously old. Speaking from experience as both a cashier, manager, and customer, I've seen some adults get very verbally abusive on some poor high school girl who asked for id, some to the point where you fear a physical confrontation. While there's a lot of others (probably a minority though) will often complain and even complain to management about being carded.

It's simply not true that 'adults' don't care. There are plenty of people out there who feel they've somehow earned their due to quickly purchase restricted items without hassle. Kind of like getting asked to show your receipt when leaving a Best Buy or something. It just annoys a lot of people. Ironically enough, when someone does turn 21 (in the US for alcohol), they want to be carded as some sort of right-of-passage... but the novelty soon wears off.

Cheers,
Fozzy

Re:Mod parent up!

[l_bratch]

As an adult I care about being IDed, as it creates the inconvenience of having to carry ID around everywhere...

Re:Mod parent up!

[Karl Cocknozzle]

"Show me your ID if you look under 25". Much harder for a 16 year old to look 25, and adults don't really care about being IDed.

As an adult, I do have a problem with being asked for ID. I have gray hair and I'm obviously older than the little fucks asking for my ID. It's a power-trip for minimum-wage clerks.... "Sir, the law REQUIRES me to card you for appearing to be under the age of 60...."

What I usually do is demand ID from clerks in those situations, because I've run into clerks who look too young to be SELLING liquor asking me for ID.

But seriously, "appearing to be under 60." How stupid is that.... Welcome aboard the slippery slope, my friend! Some municipalities in the U.S. now require clerks to ask for identification for anybody appearing to be under the age of 60! Used to be 40, but some fucking do-gooder somewhere probably saw a special on High-Schoolers with beards that he thought looked "40". And as we all know, the worst thing that can happen to a kid is if a sip of beer crosses his lips before his 21st birthday...

Some (even more ridiculously) require TWO forms of identification for liquor purchase. And yes, you do occasionally get the one arsehole clerk on his first day who makes the senior citizen in line ahead of you at the grocery dig out two forms of ID to buy his one friggin' bottle of wine... Wasting minutes of your life that you'll never get back watching the guy dig for his second id, then argue that he was fighting in wars while the clerk was still a horny impulse in somebody's eye... Meanwhile, the minors with the requisite "real-looking" two fake IDs walk out unmolested.

Laws like this are an idiotic over-reaction... Carding people who look underage is logical. REQUIRING people to ask for identification from all customers appearing to be under 60 is not only foolish and inefficient, but also ineffective. Minors attempting to buy liquor are generally doing so with FAKE IDs, or through straw-buyers. These rules don't stop those purchases--the only people it stops from buying booze are minors with poor-quality fake-IDs, and adults who don't have a drivers license handy at the counter.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) -> "Now damn it, get off my lawn!"

Seriously, don't be mean to clerks simply because your parents gave you the name "Cocknozzle". Sheyeah.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Lord Kano]

He should be after the retail stores since they are the ones responsible for selling 'M' and 'AO' games to children.

JT is an asshat regardless. It's because of jerks like him that I have to show my driver's licence to buy certain games at video game stores. I'm 31 and I look like I'm 31 and sometimes the clerk at Game Stop wants to see my ID. It's a fucking video game, not a case of beer.

LK

Re:Mod parent up!

[mschallmo]

Exactly, it's like going after Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, etc for making DVD players that would allow kids to watch porn.

Re:Mod parent up!

[budgenator]

In Michigan, if the clerk askes for ID durring an alcohol purchase and the purchaser doesn't produce the requested valid ID, and the clerk still sells, the clerk is liable for a $5,000.00 fine irregardless of how old the purchaser is.

Re:Mod parent up!

[SilentChris]

Wherein we find the real reason why he's contacting Microsoft: they have money. More specifically, they're trying to mass market a device (Xbox 360) and Jack Thompson plans to link said device to various kinds of debauchery. In the process, he hopes to get a nice fat sum of money out of MS just to shut up.

Except, the plan won't work. Marketers, for all their faults, are savvy. Jack Thompson railing on your game/console pretty much guarantees sales now. Look at Bully. Decent game, certainly not on the level of GTA 3 -- sold very well. I'm sure MS is sitting back right now and saying "Bring it, Mr. Thompson."

Re:Mod parent up!

[Chibi-Hikaru]

Last time I had cashier training we were told that if the person looked under 27 we should card them for alcohol and cigs. Unlike some other posters in this thread, I don't see much of a problem with this. I wish they'd bother looking at ID on credit card purchases too. Those new self swiping registers make it oh so much easier to make use of that stolen card.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Karl Cocknozzle]

"And if this is you Mom--HAPPY BIRTHDAY!"

Re:Mod parent up!

[mrchaotica]

As an adult, I do have a problem with being asked for ID. I have gray hair and I'm obviously older than the little fucks asking for my ID. It's a power-trip for minimum-wage clerks.... "Sir, the law REQUIRES me to card you for appearing to be under the age of 60...."

And big fucks like you are the reason my girlfriend hates her job! Here's a newsflash, asshole: those clerks really are required by law to ID you! In fact, in my state it's required regardless of age -- she even has to ask 80-year-old geezers, because she'd get fired if she didn't.

Tell you what, why don't you post your name and address, so I can come beat the shit out of you for abusing people like my girlfriend, who are only trying to do their jobs! How would you like that, hmm?

Re:Mod parent up!

[UncleTogie]

As for the USA... It's usually legally REQUIRED here to carry your ID card with you, and can earn you a ticket or jail if you don't. Realistically, if the cops can pull up your info in the local state database with verbal info, you're ok, but if you dig in and refuse to tell them anything about yourself you can be held for "failure to identify."

Re:Mod parent up!

[Lost Engineer]

How so? You have to carry a driver's license if you want to drive. The supreme court ruled you have to show them ID if you have it and they ask. I don't know about this "failure to identify." I'll have to look it up, but I wouldn't put it past the 5-0 to invent such a crime.

Re:Mod parent up!

[MikeFM]

I agree - a mature rating should be fine for GTA. It doesn't need an adult rating and there should be no problem with normal stores like Walmart or EB selling GTA. It just needs to not be sold to anyone that can't buy an R rated movie. Walmart checks my id to buy spray paint and cold medicine so it shouldn't be hard for them to check for mature or adult rated games. Then it's up to the parents as to if their kid can play GTA. I wouldn't care if my kid played GTA but for parents who think it's important it should be up to them to enforce their morals.

Re:Mod parent up!

[l_bratch]

Wow, I didn't real[se that at all actually. That's not needed at all over here (in Jersey), and as far as I know the rest of the British Isles. I'm amazed by that in fact, it seems a bit draconian.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Ugly American]

I used to make it a point to ask for ID with credit cards, and my experiences with that were decidedly mixed. Some people were thrilled that I asked, even telling me that I was the first person to ever ask them. Typically, however, I got the exasperated "What do you need that for?" or even open hostility.

One of many reasons why I'm glad to no longer be working retail.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Karl Cocknozzle]

And big fucks like you are the reason my girlfriend hates her job! Here's a newsflash, asshole: those clerks really are required by law to ID you! In fact, in my state it's required regardless of age -- she even has to ask 80-year-old geezers, because she'd get fired if she didn't.

Tell you what, why don't you post your name and address, so I can come beat the shit out of you for abusing people like my girlfriend, who are only trying to do their jobs! How would you like that, hmm?

In my state, clerks are required to show their liquor license and proof of age on demand by customers... Liquor sellers are LICENSED here--you don't just get a job at a liquor store... You get a job, then get a license, and THEN you can work. One of the stipulations of that license is that it be presented on demand of a customer. I'm within my legal rights (its "the law") to demand her ID--but I don't see you lining up to defend MY rights... Maybe you should offer to beat up all the clerks who balk at being asked to present their legally required license and identification... After all, if I bought liquor from somebody underage I would be breaking the law too! (Yeah, that law sucks too.) Seems like rank hypocrisy to me... And before you ask, yes, I have communicated my displeasure with the liquor laws to my state representative/state senator.

I know that when I worked at the liquor store, I checked ID for people who looked underage and I can confidently tell you I never sold to any minors--the "law" was that I had to check everybody, but everybody including the Excise Police knew that we weren't checking everybody--through the use of something called common-sense (that your generation may not be familiar with) we managed to achieve a balance between a law written in a vacuum and the legitimate interest of the community to restrict minors' access to booze.

Your girlfriend needs to quit her job if she doesn't like it. Working at a liquor store sucks, (I know, I've done it)--My guess is she'd find one of the various other flaws in the work to hate if that law went away tomorrow. Reality is: Adults don't like being denied access to something they are LEGALLY ENTITLED TO PURCHASE, especially when the gatekeeper doesn't even look legal to vote... and DOUBLE especially when I'm old enough to be the girl's father.

Also, word to the wise on challenging somebody to fight... It isn't wise (or impressive) to challenge men you've never met to fisticuffs online... The fact that you did so publicly illustrates what an empty threat you're making. And it further underlines your cowardice... If you were serious about settling this between you and I, you would have used my email address in my Slashdot profile and named your time and place, instead of trying to post it publicly and "look tough." Go home and whine to your girlfriend about your minimum-wage customer service jobs... But a better use of your energy would be to learn some skills to get better jobs.

To the specifics of your threat: 1) You don't want my address--undesired/unexpected visitors here get a really unpleasant greeting at the end of my HK. 2) You are a hypocrite and coward, grow up and realize that customer service jobs suck in and of themselves, not because I don't want my time wasted while people on Social Security prove they're old enough to buy a 6-pack. 3) If you really want to challenge somebody to fight, send them a private message. Anything else just looks like bluster. You've got my email--it's in my slashdot profile...

Re:Mod parent up!

[DJCacophony]

No, it's more like going after porn publishers for making porn that a minor can get their hands on one way or another.

Re:Mod parent up!

[ElleyKitten]

What state do you live in that you can demand a liquor license and ID from clerks? In my state (Ohio) employees don't get a lisense. They just get a job at a grocery store, baseball stadium, pizza place - anywhere that sells alcohol, and if they're 18 or older, they're selling alcohol. I've also never heard of customers getting arrested from buying from minors, I'm pretty sure the store itself would be in trouble, not the customers. Anyways, why do you want to hassle some high school or college kid making minimum wage? Just show them your ID so they can do their damn jobs and everyone can get on with their lives.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Phisbut]

As an adult, I do have a problem with being asked for ID. I have gray hair and I'm obviously older than the little fucks asking for my ID. It's a power-trip for minimum-wage clerks.... "Sir, the law REQUIRES me to card you for appearing to be under the age of 60...."

While I do agree that requiring the ID of anyone under 60 (is that really true? 60???) is stupid, if it is law, then it is law, and the clerk is not having a power trip, he's simply doing what he must do. Don't get mad at him, get mad at the lawmakers.

Remember in school when you learned about the law system, how there were 3 independent parts... legislative, executive and judicial. There it is at work. The clerk is simply executive, and he has no power in deciding whether the law is good or not. That's for the legislative to decide (or maybe judicial to interpret), so you have no reason at all to get mad at those who apply the law. Write to your congressman for christsake. If the congressman approved a law requiring ID for people under 60, and he's the one with the power trip. If the law is really only about people under 25, and you're exagerating, then you're a jerk.

I just can't believe they can set the limit at 60... where in hell do you live that requires that?

Re:Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

What state do you live in that you can demand a liquor license and ID from clerks?

I don't know where the GP lives, but Indiana licenses all liquor-sellers... Regardless of their venue of employment. Not sure about the other legal stuff, though.

Re:Mod parent up!

[bryan1945]

"...there should be no problem with normal stores like Walmart or EB selling GTA."

No kidding- my wife, who is 31, actually had to show her driver's license to buy Robitussin at Walmart's last week. We got into a discussion with the cashier; the register prompts them to ask for ID for cough medicine, Pseudophed, even brake fluid (I think, whatever is used to make meth).

It would be no problem for retailers to do the ID thing and then the parents would be able to buy their kids "Whack a Mole for the Ho" or whatever. (Hmmm, sounds like a good title.....)

Re:Mod parent up!

[MikeFM]

I remember a friend of mine being carded to buy fuel injector cleaner. Umm so if you're 17 and your car needs some what are you supposed to do? ;)

Re:Mod parent up!

[walnutmon]

Tell your whiny little tramp to get a real job then. Or better yet, tell her to not be a tool to be used by people in their agendas of "safety". Or act like a man, and don't defend your girl-friend. Pussy whipped loser.

And stop over-reacting, you sound like a whiny little faggot.

I doubt you have a girlfriend, and if you do, I'd love to come to her store and whine about getting asked for my ID. Then I would whine about them being out of extra large condoms. Then i'd stick my dick in her vagina. Then you wouldn't have a girl-friend. Then you wouldn't bother the seniors on slashdot anymore with your ultimate bitchiness.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shit!

You just got OWNED!!!

Re:Mod parent up!

[cultrhetor]

There is no law requiring citizens to carry identification. This has actually led to the controversy over having a "National ID" for voting: because the right to vote is reaffirmed not just within the articles of the constitution, but also within several amendments, barring a constitutional amendment requiring a national identification card to be presented when voting, there won't be any laws requiring a national id for a while. Implementation of such a law would be prohibitively expensive. See here for a more in-depth discussion.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Firefly1]

The precise origin of this discrepancy escapes me at present, but I recall hearing that it had something to do with highway funding. Still, it continues to amaze me that people accept it. It strikes me as illogical to say that someone is old enough to choose to place their life at risk in the service of their country, but too young to buy alcohol.
With that said, whoever generated the 'ask for ID if the customer looks younger than X'... probably doesn't try to guess people's ages. Between older people trying to look younger, and younger folks trying to look older, doing so strikes me as pretty much impossible.

My Prayer

[Stanistani]

Please, O Lord:

Bring the mighty weight of Microsoft's legal staff to bear upon Jack Thompson, and allow us to watch him disappear in a four-colored puff of smoke.

Amen.

Re:My Prayer

[Amazing Quantum Man]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Of course, that then raises the question, is it JT or MS who's the friend in this instance!

Re:My Prayer

[Stanistani]

Actually, I'd like to see MS crush JT like a bug, and suffer bad publicity for doing so...

Win-Win!

Re:My Prayer

[Anonymous Coward]

Jack can't do squat in fairly small cases (getting bully delayed in Florida, with a fairly small time judge?) and it would be frankly funny to watch what happened if he tried to pit himself against Microsoft's full legal team... one lawyer on the edge of getting disbarred (already done somewhere IIRC) vs. the might of one of the most powerful corporations in existence...

Whatever you think of Microsoft you have to admit Jack is going to find out exactly how important he is if he tries to take Microsoft to court. Being given perspective usually hurts quite a bit.

Re:My Prayer

[thatguywhoiam]

Bring the mighty weight of Microsoft's legal staff to bear upon Jack Thompson, and allow us to watch him disappear in a four-colored puff of smoke.

No kidding. Exactly my thoughts. "Further towards the kill zone please, Mr. Thompson."

Re:My Prayer

[Anonymous Coward]

How about just "buying him out" (in the CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet fashion)?

Re:My Prayer

[DrXym]

I expect the mighty weight of Microsoft's legal staff will ignore him totally unless he is stupid enough to file suit. At which point he will be squashed like a gnat and left with ruinous legal bill.

Seems fine to me

[maynard]

Isn't the game rated M anyway? So what's the problem with restricting access to minors?

Re:Seems fine to me

[Aadain2001]

That would be a big loss of revenue for most game retailers then. There are no laws in place to prohibit selling of M rates games to minors (at least, not in my state), so businesses have to make a choice on the issue.

Re:Seems fine to me

[joshetc]

Because it is not the government's job to restrict access from minors, it is the parent's job should they choose to restrict their children.

Of course, because of our countries mentality it will soon be the case anyway, just like with cigarettes, booze, and porn. (it will be just as affective too)

Re:Seems fine to me

[GoodbyeBlueSky1]

Isn't the game rated M anyway? So what's the problem with restricting access to minors? Is this the first you're hearing of this guy? His idea of "restricting access" is to ban all sales and destroy any existing copies. Last I checked there's already a system in place, run by the ESRB, that takes care of "restricting access". Yes, some minors will get their hands on the game. Some will also manage to sneak into an R-rated movie or buy some smokes or beer. Does this mean all movie theaters and delis should be closed forever? In Jack Thompson's diseased, rotting mind, yes apparently.

Re:Seems fine to me

[maynard]

I think that's state by state. I think Indiana either attempted or succeeded at preventing sales of M rated games to minors. As for such limits affecting sales... wah. I don't have a problem with restricting alcohol, cigarettes, R rated movies - or even certain video games - from purchase by minors. But then, I'm a 38 year old adult - why should I?

Re:Seems fine to me

[sqlrob]

It's not really state by state. EVERY SINGLE ONE has been shot down.

And you need to care because of lowest common denominator. If it's too hard to sell M games, they will not be sold, and since they can't be sold, won't be made.

Re:Seems fine to me

[maynard]

Is this the first you're hearing of this guy?

Yeah. I don't approve of censoring the material. But for a state to enact a law requiring that resellers put M rated games behind a counter and demand ID, like is as done with cigarettes and alcohol is fine by me.

Re:Seems fine to me

[HTH NE1]

There are no laws in place to prohibit the sale of tickets to R rated movies to minors either.

Re:Seems fine to me

[Sigma 7]

But for a state to enact a law requiring that resellers put M rated games behind a counter and demand ID, like is as done with cigarettes and alcohol is fine by me.

The US has a pesky thing called the first amendment.

Also, there's a major difference with M rated games compared to cigarettes and alcohol: The former is a "soft" limitation, where it is not recommended to sell to children, while the latter is restricted to those above the age of 18. Putting a hard restriction on something that should be flexible is considered bad, since it locks out 17-years-less-a-day from buying Bioshock (where that last copy gets yanked by a random stranger thats 17-years-plus-a-day, and no more shipments are bound to come in.)

Also, the ESRB has an 18+ rating for pornography, which has strict regulations for sale due to it's nature.

Re:Seems fine to me

[HTH NE1]

But for a state to enact a law requiring that resellers put M rated games behind a counter and demand ID, like is as done with cigarettes and alcohol is fine by me.

So would you be fine with the same being done for R-rated (or, *gasp* UNRATED director's cut) DVDs?

And hey, some of these kids aren't yet teenagers; better put the T-rated games and PG-13 movies behind the counter too, right?

(And where do you live where alcohol is behind the counter? Utah?)

Re:Seems fine to me

[EmperorKagato]

It's not enforced on a National Level.

Re:Seems fine to me

[DragonWriter]

There's nothing wrong with private retailers deciding to do so on their own, or in response to market pressure.

When efforts are made to turn the ratings of an unaccountable private body into a legal control on who may purchase material, well, then there is a problem.

Re:Seems fine to me

[RKThoadan]

I believe that the current legal standard is that the government cannot make laws based on the ratings of a non-government agency. Basically, since the ESRB and MPAA are not government agencies, the government cannot make laws based on thier ratings. But then again, IANAL and I could be behind the times.

Re:Seems fine to me

[Anonymous Coward]

on something that should be flexible is considered bad, since it locks out 17-years-less-a-day from buying Bioshock

Voting, drivers license, cigarettes, alcohol, porn are regulated that way so underaged-less-than-a-day can not buy/do-it. Your logic fails it.

Re:Seems fine to me

[maynard]

So would you be fine with the same being done for R-rated (or, *gasp* UNRATED director's cut) DVDs?

Yeah. Sure. I mean, why shouldn't a state have that right? If it can regulate underage access to drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes, why not video games (or movies)?

Re:Seems fine to me

[Anonymous Coward]

It's censorship.

At least, what JT wants is censorship. He wants the government to decide what your children should see and hear. Let me say that a little louder.

JACK THOMPSON WANTS THE GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE WHAT YOUR CHILDREN SHOULD SEE AND HEAR.

If a group of independent creators want to put age restrictions on their creations, that's fine by me. But that isn't good enough for JT. For him, it's censorship or bust.

Re:Seems fine to me

[s4m7]

If it can regulate underage access to drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes, why not video games (or movies)?

Fundamentally different. Drugs, Alcohol and Cigarettes are substances. Video games and movies are Information.
Didn't you read the pamphlet? Information wants to be free. Although for some reason video game information wants to be USD $59.99.
No in fact I would agree I think both are stupid, and cigarettes and alcohol should be available to children, it's up to the parents to monitor what their kids do.

Re:Seems fine to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently Microsoft isn't doing their duty as totalitarian overlord of all things electronic (as seen through the eyes of JT, since in reality they have no involvement with GTA4 that affects sale to minors) to prohibit children from buying Mature games. Restricting access to minors is bloody retarded anyways, most kids (where I live) start drinking in their pre-teens, alcohol is illegal until your 19 - how do they get it every weekend then? They have older friends or siblings, or they ask the local bum to buy it for them - they do it en masse every weekend, what's to stop them doing it one time for a video game? The answer is nothing - if they want it they can get it - get over it. Expose their minds to ideas, then show them why those ideas are bad - that's the proper solution here. You let them play GTA4, they drive up on the curve and run down 15 hookers, the cops show up and kill them. What's learned? If you kill people, cops come and kill you - if you manage to kill the cops, more cops come - if you keep killing them - the army shows up, and inexxorably you die. Moral of the story? If you want to live, don't kill innocent people (the cops don't tend to show up if you kill mob leaders and goons but they will attack if you do it in front of them).

That's a very important, fucking crucial life lesson - and it's hardly the only one to be found in GTA. Violent games allow children to explore concepts without suffering the responsiblity of the result - they allow adults the same opprotunity. If you believe your child doesn't understand the difference - or more imporantly, has missed the moral of the lesson - explain it to them. Games like GTA, when properly understood - actually encourage kids to avoid the wrong side of the law, and the entire violent world for that matter (since killing mob people eventually gets you killed as well).

Re:Seems fine to me

[Duds]

You're making the same basic misunderstanding as everyone else.

In the current scheme, parents CAN'T make the choice, because a child can just walk into a store and be sold the game.

A legal restriction would GIVE parents choice, not take it away.

Re:Seems fine to me

[Duds]

FFS.

it's up to the parents to monitor what their kids do.

Which they CAN'T do if the child can just walk into the store and buy ciggarettes or alchohol.

Restrictions on sales to minors are the way to GIVE parents choice.

Re:Seems fine to me

[Duds]

So you didn't even read the summary where it clearly mentions restricting sales to minors, not everyone.

Re:Seems fine to me

[joshetc]

WTF are you talking about? My little sister doesn't have GTA because my parents said "hey, you can't have GTA" Then she borrowed it from a friend and they said "Hey, you have to give it back because I don't want you playing it"

You don't need the government to regulate who can buy what to control what kids do. All you need is a parent that isn't blind enough to not notice their kid sitting in front of the TV shooting people up and stealing cars for 100 some-odd hours.

Re:Seems fine to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Jack Thompson lies constantly. It's why even far right media restrictionist groups don't want to be associated with him, currently.

He's famous enough (especially on Slashdot) that a certain amount of familiarity with the subject (which is Jack Thompson, not whatever his latest crusade is) should be expected. Therefore, it's reasonable to ignore anything he says on this debate, even if you're keeping an open mind. There are plenty of other spokespeople for the video game restrictionist point of view that don't have Jack's credibility problems.

Re:Seems fine to me

[Sigma 7]

Voting, drivers license, cigarettes, alcohol, porn are regulated that way so underaged-less-than-a-day can not buy/do-it. Your logic fails it.

And if you carefully read the ESRB rating guide, you would have noticed that your logic doesn't counter mine.

The description for 'M' Rated games: "Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language." [Emphasis mine].

This text does not explicitly exclude people under 17 from buying the product, as opposed to the 'AO' rating that uses a different wording that excludes people under 18.

Re:Seems fine to me

[SuiteSisterMary]

Don't forget books! Man, some kid can walk right into a book store, and walk out with any number of books which contain graphic sex, graphic violence, torture, pedophilia, rape, hate crime, the list goes on. Hell, in some cases, they can then be praised for being mature and responsible enough to choose to read said book!

Re:Seems fine to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I was assigned to read 1984 and Macbeth when I was a mere child of 16 years old! (Who had obviously never seen anything as naughty as a naked girl, or looked at his Dad's Playboys, obviously.)

I'm sure it scarred me for life.

Re:Seems fine to me

[Chowderbags]

If that's the way you want to go with GTA 4, they should have a prison part where if you get caught you will spend many in game days in jail doing essentially nothing and in game rehab, where after you are "killed" you spend in game months to get back to the point of walking. Now that would be realistic.

Note: I have GTA: SA running in the backround at the moment to play in a bit, so I have nothing against the games, I just don't like bad examples.

Re:Seems fine to me

[Anonymous Coward]

That still does not mean that it can not be regulated that way. I'm all for laws clarifying it for people like you. Even if it means you're stuck with Hello Kitty Island Adventure.

Sigh

[Doytch]

Some people think that if you only disallow minors to buy the game, everything's fine. Except they're forgetting that this will just result in game designers self-censoring their games so they can get a T.

Oh yes, not to mention that it's been ruled against this little thing called the Constitution you Americans apparently have.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing in any constitution about self-censoring ...

If a developer needs to sell their product to teens then they should make content which is appropriate for teenagers. It is not a reasonable argument to say that there is something wrong with preventing content which is deemed to be inappropriate for children to be sold directly to children; if their parrents want them to have access to these games then they can buy the games for them.

Re:Sigh

[radarjd]

Except they're forgetting that this will just result in game designers self-censoring their games so they can get a T.

Perhaps, but there's also apparently a large market which wants to purchase M rated games -- GTA being one of them. If the M rated games sell more, there's a strong economic incentive for the developers to continue making them. In other words, some might self-censor, but others (who are in this to make a profit, after all) will continue to pursue that M rated market.

Re:Sigh

[TrumpetX]

Lots of things in the constitution don't apply to people under the age of 18. For example, the right to privacy? Parents can snoop on and barge in on their kids as long as they want very legally. Schools can restrict where kids can go and kids can't buy certain video games if they're not "approved". Although, I think the "M" label is not legally binding (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the game was still rated M, and even if every single shop in the world actively stepped in to prevent anyone under the intended age from purchasing the game... that isn't going to stop a single kid who wants it from getting his hands on it. Kids have bigger brothers. They have friends with bigger brothers. They have parents who don't see the problem with video games and will buy it for their child as a present. You simply cannot stop someone from obtaining a freely available product by slapping some stupid age restrictions on it. If that were true, half the high-school students in the world wouldn't be smoking cigarettes every morning behind the school cafeteria's loading dock.

Besides, this is all irrelevant. Until Jack can prove that these games are having a significant influence on the behavior of minors (something he has never been able to do), then his entire campaign to restrict sales to people over 15 (or 17, or whatever) is moot. It's just a game. Assuming the kid's parents have done an adequate job of raising them for the first ten years of their life, then there won't be a problem.

Re:Sigh

[cpt kangarooski]

No, the Constitution does apply even when minors are involved. Age has nothing to do with it (other than the voting age). But the Constitution basically just establishes and limits the powers of the government. Since a child's parents are not the government, the child's Constitutional right to privacy has no effect on the parents. Government-run schools are subject to the Constitution, but have been allowed some leeway as they act in a custodial capacity while the child is at school. Nevertheless, I would like to see schools more circumscribed in what they can do.

As for children being able to buy videogames, no law prohibits them from being able to do so. Sellers may voluntarily decide to sell or not sell games to children, but that's it. It's just like going to the movies (where ratings are a private matter for the theater to abide by or not as they like).

Re:Sigh

[DragonWriter]

Lots of things in the constitution don't apply to people under the age of 18.

The only thing in the Constitution that applies only to people 18 and older is Amendment XXVI (though, as a practical matter, the other provisions relating directly and solely to voting rights also don't have much utility, as a direct consequence of that.)

Not quite lots.

For example, the right to privacy?

...is not in the Constitution, as such, but rather is an umbrella term for the effects of diverse Constitutional protections, all of which apply to minors.

Parents can snoop on and barge in on their kids as long as they want very legally.

"Parents" are not agents of the government, and the Constitutional provisions which protects elements of "privacy" restrict the government, not private actors. (That's also true of most of the rest of the Constitution, the Amendment XIII being a notable exception.)

Schools can restrict where kids can go

Granting that there are contexts in which this is true, what Constitutional provision do you think it illustrates is inapplicable?

and kids can't buy certain video games if they're not "approved".

While the government can place some restriction on access of minors to certain materials, this is not because Amendment I doesn't apply to minors, but because those restrictions are held to meet the standards the Court applies to restrictions of First Amendment rights, generally.

(Now, one could argue, particularly as applied to the federal government, that the Court's application of due process analysis to excuse intrusions into protected rights is a bad analytical approach that weakens the Constitution's protections, but it is well established.)

Re:Sigh

[Lord Kano]

For example, the right to privacy? Parents can snoop on and barge in on their kids as long as they want very legally.

It's not because they have no right to privacy, it's because a property owner can search his or her property without anyone else's permission. "Your" room is in "your parents'" house.

There's a huge legal battle over whether teen girls have the right to obtain abortions without parental consent or parental notification.

LK

Oh, Bill

[gregtron]

I sorta like the idea of Bill Gates as in insidious mischief lover, selling lewd video game content to minors in the form of XBox games he hides under his trench coat.

Re:Oh, Bill

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

You insensitive cloth! Last time I met B. Gates he had something else under his trench coat...
I still suffer the consequences of his hard, shaking, wet copy of Windows ME.

I knew he wasn't the brightest... but wow...

[jimstapleton]

I and others will endeavor to stop Microsoft from participating in any fashion, directly or indirectly, in such sales to minors.

Last I checked, Microsquish didn't do direct sales except on XBox live, and somehow I doubt GTA will be there...

Re:I knew he wasn't the brightest... but wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, wow.... you, um, don't do much programing, do you? Maybe english isn't your first language?

I'm not sure there is any excuse for failing to understand the "or" operator... either microsoft sells the games, directly OR indirectly (supporting them on its council). The or means that at least one of the two things (directly and indirectly) is true, though not necessarily both.

Re:I knew he wasn't the brightest... but wow...

[jimstapleton]

I do program, but in the english language, when used in this context, or has a different meaning.

It means they want to stop both methods, and insinuates that both are likely to occure. English isn't like programming - it doesn't follow completely logical patterns, and there is a log of connotation and insinuation that goes beyond the obvious of the text.

Poor guy

[tgd]

Doesn't he realize he'd feel so much better if he just went a beat up a hooker or two?

Re:Poor guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Only two? I really don't start to feel better till I've beat up five hookers and run over a cop in an ambulance.

Re:Poor guy

[HTH NE1]

I really don't start to feel better till I've beat up five hookers and run over a cop in an ambulance.

Damn, that's a hard goal. Just how many rescue operations do you have to go through just to pick a cop by chance with an ambulance(*), and still get him to where you have a tank parked just so you could run the ambulance-with-cop-inside over with it?

(*) Those paramedics sure can do wonders! They can revive any non-dismembered cop in the field, fully healed and ready to chase you down again, and never take them away in an ambulance no matter how many times you shoot them.

Re:Poor guy

[geminidomino]

(*) Those paramedics sure can do wonders! They can revive any non-dismembered cop in the field, fully healed and ready to chase you down again, and never take them away in an ambulance no matter how many times you shoot them. Don't shoot them, then.

The slow blade penetrates the shield.

Re:Mod parent...Eh

[SatanicPuppy]

I disagree. Thompson does more harm than good to his purported cause.

This is a simple issue that no one disagrees with him on. Rockstar sure as hell doesn't care, and that only leaves the retailers, and I've yet to see a single one of them who has argued that they should be allowed to sell M rated games to minors. A handful of rational people could sit down and hash this deal out over a weekend.

Enter Jack Thompson, whose notion of a "solution" to this problem is probably a firmware patch that will prohibit the game from running or a law making it a criminal offense for any store to carry the game...Stuff so crazy that no one would agree to it.

I'm still not convinced that he's not being paid under the table by the game companies to make sure that no rational legislation shows up dealing with games. Either way, he practically guarantees that nothing will actually be done.

Sick of it...

[AdamTrace]

At what point do JT's repeated and unsuccessful lawsuits become illegal themselves? Is it legal to sue over the same issue over and over and over and over and over again...?

Re:Sick of it...

[Chr0me]

apparently it is.

Re:Sick of it...

[techpawn]

How many times have we seen the **AA sue for copywrite?

Total Conflict

[tprime]

Hmmmmmm..... Forget the impact on GTA and Rockstar in this, that won't be the big news. The big news will be that /.ers will be forced to either back Jack or root for Microsoft in this battle.

Wait a cotton pickin' minute

[linvir]

Major GTA releases listed chronologically:
GTA
GTA 2
GTA 3
GTA VC
GTA SA
GTA 4

Spot the preschool arithmetic mistake

Re:Wait a cotton pickin' minute

[mgabrys_sf]

Each game is part of a series:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_(ser ies)

Grand Theft Auto 1 series
The first title in the series, Grand Theft Auto, appeared on the PC and PlayStation in 1997/1998[1] as well as a reduced Game Boy Color port, and subsequently two expansion packs were offered:
Grand Theft Auto: London, 1969 (1969), an expansion pack of the original game, set in 1969 London. Available in PS and PC boxed versions.
Grand Theft Auto: London, 1961 (1961), another expansion pack of Grand Theft Auto: London, 1969, with missions taking place in 1961 London. London, 1961 is a free PC download.

These are just a few derivations. Vice City and San Andreas belong to the 3rd series. Each series is basically a derrivation of the engine used in the first title. GTA4 will be a new engine.

Re:Wait a cotton pickin' minute

[D4rk Fx]

Besides the Fact that you forgot GTA: Liberty City Stories, The ordering of the Games has been based on the Engines.

GTA3, VC, SA, and LCS all use the same basic game Engine.

Theoretically they should be using a new engine for GTA 4.

Re:Wait a cotton pickin' minute

[demon]

Actually, Liberty City Stories (at least on the PSP) uses a whole new engine, instead of RenderWare as was used for GTA3, Vice City and San Andreas; I think Vice City Stories uses an enhanced version of the LCS engine. Dunno if the materials were transferred back to RenderWare for the PS2 LCS, or if the new LCS engine was ported back to PS2.

Re:Wait a cotton pickin' minute

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold your horses there, linvir. I'm pretty sure GTA SA was the only "cotton pickin'" one of the bunch.

JT is no replacement for bad parenting

[rwwyatt]

What they see on the news may be just as bad as what they see in a videogame. It is better that people understand the humour in these videogames. Most slashdotters would never dare hit a woman (then again most slashdotters' don't know any women)

Re:JT is no replacement for bad parenting

[drinkypoo]

Most slashdotters would never dare hit a woman

That's because most slashdotters would probably get their asses kicked by that woman. First, they're dazzled because they have emerged from their mother's basement into the sunlight. Then they're dazzled because they're face to face with and actually touched a woman. That would be enough to send them into hyperventilation or a seizure or something right then and there.

Have I checked off enough slashbot stereotypes to yell BINGO! yet?

Re:JT is no replacement for bad parenting

[robcfg]

I agree with the basic idea, JT is no replace for parents. If parents don't take care of their children it's not other people's fault.

Re:JT is no replacement for bad parenting

[Chowderbags]

Is it bad that when I saw the word "dazzled" I was afraid of taking a -1 penalty to my attack, search, and spot rolls?

Better signage?

[GoNINzo]

Would something along the lines of 'Explicit Lyrics' stickers make him feel better?

How about the label: If you buy this for your kids, you are a douchebag and a bad parent.

If people would spend even 5 minutes understanding the ESRB, all these problems would go away. People understand R rated movied, why can't they understand M rated games? Jack Thompson should just get people to learn more about the ESRB, but I don't see how he can get paid doing that. heh

Re:Better signage?

[drinkypoo]

Jack Thompson should just get people to learn more about the ESRB, but I don't see how he can get paid doing that. heh

Precisely. It's the same reason oxfam went after starbucks, who is arguably one of the more responsible coffee retailers out there, instead of attacking that $5 or less per can coffee shit. Think about this - starbucks claims they pay over the fair trade price, which is around a buck and a half. Probably less, still, although it may have edged over for organic coffee by now. This shit is about $5 for two pounds, or $2.50 per pound. This includes the shipping, roasting, packaging, marketing, and shipping again. Who's the real bad guy here? (Answer: oxfam, for being such assholes. But the cheap coffee buyers/sellers are up there too.)

The simple fact is that the parents are the problem for not actually raising their children, expecting TV and video games and Jack Thompson to do it for them. But they don't have enough money to be worth suing and it's not illegal to raise a fucking horrible child (although perhaps it should be.)

Re:Better signage?

[MindStalker]

BS! Almost every time I goto an R rated movie, some dumb parent has brought their 5 years olds with them.

Re:Better signage?

[Nimey]

Yeah! I don't go to the movies often, so the most egregious example I remember was some twat who brought her five-year-old and an infant to see Terminator 3. More's the pity that she's already passed her genes on.

Re:Better signage?

[Androclese]

Lets go a step further... why not slap the Movie rating system over the Game rating system!?

GTA = R
Mario Brothers 3 = PG (animated violence)
Wii Sports = G

Well, you get the idea. If everybody in the US & Canada understands that system, why not just use it?

Re:Better signage?

[ShadowsHawk]

I saw a horror film last year (forget which one) and a parent brought in a very small child. Blood gushes, child cries and the parent tells the kid to shut up and watch the movie. The child continued to whimper and cry until people started telling the parent to take the kid out. The parent finally grabs the kid and starts walking out. Right before they get to the door, the parent starts whacking the kid on the ass and yelling at her for making him miss the movie.

Jack, focus on the parents.

Re:Better signage?

[trdrstv]

Lets go a step further... why not slap the Movie rating system over the Game rating system!?

The MPAA wouldn't allow it. In fact they were asked if they could use the same symbols to avoid customer confusion.

The rough translations of Video game to Movie ratings:

E = G

E10 = PG

T = PG-13

M = R

AO = NC-17 to X.

Ummm...

[Kirin Fenrir]

Question. How does Bill Gates or Microsoft have anything to do with GTA IV? Rockstar developed it, Take-Two publishes it, and it's coming out on multiple systems, only one of which is an XBox.

Somebody get Jack the memo.

Re:Ummm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jack Thompson's basic, idiotic claim is that Bill Gates is responsible for the sale of violent video games to minors because he founded a company which now creates video game consoles. If it weren't for the existence of the XBox and XBox 360 (or, I'm sure he would argue, a "murder-simulator-friendly" operating system like Windows), Take Two and Rockstar wouldn't be able to effectively market or sell their products.

And since, as we all know, even glancing at a GTA retail box will drive even the sanest, most normal of children over the edge and into that special "kill all your friends with automatic weapons" mode, Jack Thompson feels that Bill Gates is therefore responsible for death of any child who ever played a video game or knew somebody who had a friend who might have once played something closely resembling a video game.

I mean, that's just how dangerous this stuff is, man. Haven't you heard?

ESRB Rating

[nuggz]

I was pleasantly surprised to see a few things over this holiday season.
Parents asking about the rating system and what it means.
Game retailers pausing the transaction to point out it is a 17+/mature rated title and may not be appropriate for children.

I don't see anything wrong with carding younger customers (which I've seen). The problem is the outright bans some people want to have, or those who angrily react when someone suggests they make an informed decision.

Re:ESRB Rating

[phorm]

It's like the anti-abortion wackos. A lot of people would agree that abortions - like many things - can be abused (for example, they shouldn't be used as a method of birth-control), but an outright ban is idiotic. Yes, it might mean that Suzi-Sexaholic thinks a little stronger on using the pill and getting her boyfriend Harry Hardon to wrap it up (though even this is not always true), but it doesn't help 12-year-old Sally who was raped and impregnated by her perverted uncle.

There are very few reasons for absolutes. No, such games shouldn't be 100% unrestricted, but neither should they be 100% banned either. The same things applies to abortions, guns, games, movies, music (wouldn't an enforced rating system be ni on that), medication, controlled substances, killing (self defence, state-assigned death sentences for serial killers) etc.

WOOO, I want...

[nweaver]

Hmm, I may have to get an X-box 360 after all.

Now the question is: will there be Hack Johnson, "public interest" laywer, in the game, who you get to kill when he's frollicking with a bunch of prostitutes?

Re:WOOO, I want...

[Nimey]

Oh please Ghu, that would be hilarious.

OTOH, they've done that gag with a televangelist in San Andreas.

Re:WOOO, I want...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think "Whack Johnson" would be a better name. It's appropriate on multiple levels.

More ammo for the new year

[Warbringer87]

Lucky him, he has some more ammo The issue won't really be settled once and for all, does violent media create violent people, or are violent people attracted to violent media. Personally, I believe the latter.

Awesome!

[Thumper_SVX]

I hadn't even heard about this game until today. Thanks again, Jack T for bringing it to my attention!!!

No, seriously... does anyone else here think Jack Thompson is actually a shill for Rockstar Games and is actually part of the PR marketing campaign??? Until he arrived, I'd heard almost nothing about Grand Theft Auto, but then again I'm not much of a gamer. Having said that, once I'd heard about it through Jack T I figured I should check it out. I borrowed a friend's copy of Vice City and loved it... then bought a copy... then bought San Andreas... you're seeing a pattern here? Hell, I would've bought Bully except that I haven't had time to sit down and play it so I didn't bother buying it yet. Note the "yet" in there.

Re:Awesome!

[Wooloomooloo]

Sadly, the game is ten months away. Rockstar should thank Mr. Thompson for starting the hype machine so early.

Re:Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

does anyone else here think Jack Thompson is actually a shill for Rockstar Games and is actually part of the PR marketing campaign???

Nope, and to keep it simple, because that is fucking retarded(wasting government time with inside job lawsuits, wasting cash on lawsuits even if they are "rigged," doing screwy stunts like this for financial game with already having existing financial issues, doing risky things like this for just a few more extra sales, etc). Acclaim sort of did stuff like this with their lame PR stunts, and look what happened to them!

He only attacks GTA because it has the most noise around it and people will pay attention to it, other wise people promptly ignore him & forget any of the other stuff he barely attacks(i.e. Midway's Blitz: The League, the pedophile simulator with full genital called The SIMs, etc).

Then again, if this why people like you buy these games, the you are both equally retarded.

Re:Awesome!

[Thumper_SVX]

Don't even know why I'm bothering to reply to an AC... but;

Read this.

aspirations?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what aspirations this guy really has. Does he want to run for office? Is he trying to get himself in good with one of those christian "family" organizations? Is he trying to get PR for himself as a lawyer?

Re:aspirations?

[budgenator]

Does anyone know of a level editer for the doom2/PrBoom engine that runs in linux? I want to make a game mod where a naked woman, Eve, runs around a garden whacking snakes with an apple branch in the first level and finishes the game by fighting through pedophile priest to eventually vanquish a homosexual televangelist who has a taste for hookers while calling fagots "an abonmination before the Lord" in last level.

Barking up the wrong tree

[Sefert]

There's no way Microsoft would play along. I'm sure he's hoping to get free labour from Microsoft's considerable legal clout to help him - but one of the main features of Vista (from the gaming side) is the ability for parents to lock out children of games that are inappropriate on a game by game, and kid by kid basis. For Microsoft to fight a legal battle like this would imply that their built in solution to Vista isn't a good one. And, obviously, it'll never be as good for preventing access by minors as just having the game banned, but Microsoft's goal isn't to try and police people, it's to sell products. The more software there is for the Windows platform the more copies of Windows they will sell. Their involvement with something like this would not just be pointless, but counterproductive. Frankly, I think he'd be lucky to get even a letter from Microsoft telling him to get bent.

Re:Barking up the wrong tree

[CoJeff]

I think you may be wrong here. Isn't MS paying UMG one buck for each Zune player sold. So why exactly would MS play along with this?

Enough already

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop giving this clown free publicity you idiots, you're just playing his game. Thompson is going to fail this time just like he always fails. The man is nothing but a self-promoting crank. This is like Slashdot running a headline about Wile E. Coyote's latest plan to catch the Roadrunner, and dozens of slashbots weighing in about what a dick Wile E. is and how they really hope this plan doesn't work because Wile E. is such a big threat to wildlife and freedom and oh dearie me. Get a clue, dipshits.

Hate

[Nulagrithom]

In other news... stocks of a company selling I Hate Jack Thompson T-Shirts rise dramatically!

Re:Hate

[soft_guy]

Jack Thompson is to video games what Fred Phelps is to religion.

Another possibility

[rlp]

Or parents could accept some responsibility in raising their kids. I've got NO problem with laws requiring ratings for games. Beyond that it's up to the parent to make sure that their kids don't play inappropriate games. A pre-teen playing GTA? Where'd they get the fifty bucks for the game? How come Mom and Dad aren't paying attention to what their kids are doing? Legislation is no substitute for good parenting.

Re:Another possibility

[sqlrob]

Such laws would be unconstitutional, and have already been ruled a violation of due process for movies.

Here's the thing

[Sycraft-fu]

They are no more adult than R movies. That's what M is equivalent to in terms of movie ratings. The adults rating, or NC-17 equivalent, is AO. However because most retailer refuse to carry games with AO ratings, even in a separate section, few are made. Same deal with movies. That's why there's an "Unrated" American Pie. Basically what happened is in the original cut, the MPAA hung an NC-17 on it which most theatres won't carry. So they made the necessary changes to bring it down to R. When they released the original cut, they simply didn't submit it for rating, and thus sell it as "Unrated".

Either way unless you also think R movies should be off in a separate section then it doesn't make sense to move M games there. Not that it matters much, retailers these days card you. Seriously, I got carded buying FEAR last month (I'm 26) at Target.

Re:Here's the thing

[Traiklin]

They are no more adult than R movies. That's what M is equivalent to in terms of movie ratings. The adults rating, or NC-17 equivalent, is AO. However because most retailer refuse to carry games with AO ratings, even in a separate section, few are made. Same deal with movies. That's why there's an "Unrated" American Pie. Basically what happened is in the original cut, the MPAA hung an NC-17 on it which most theatres won't carry. So they made the necessary changes to bring it down to R. When they released the original cut, they simply didn't submit it for rating, and thus sell it as "Unrated".

That ALWAYS makes me laugh, I can't understand why it's ok for the movie industry to release a Movie as "Unrated" thus completly bypassing the rating system, yet if a Video game company even THINK'S about doing that they get fines so far up the ass they can't walk straight.

I just can't understand why they allow that double standard bullshit to go on, you go to Walmart and see 10x more copies of an Unrated movie then you do for a rated one (I actually have to go out of my way to even find one with a rating) and no one bats an eye or raises hell over that, yet you get a game that is rated M and has less sex & sometimes less violence then an R or Unrated movie and people think it's satan himself come to earth to rape your children. I wish the companies websites would let you buy unrated versions of their games, if they started doing that I bet their sales for a game would skyrocket so much they would second guess selling them in stores & I know for one I would rather buy it directly from them as it was intended then go to a store and buy it all censored to hell.

He'd better hurry

[Quila]

He's facing possible disbarment over the Bully incident where the publicly berated the judge in the case. I wonder if he'll still be able to practice law when GTA4 comes out.

Re:He'd better hurry

[Kim Jong Ill]

Please don't tease the animals. It's not nice.

Bonus...

[TB]

Least hes attacking Bill gates to...

Why no PC?

[Anonymous Coward]

After all these years, and the amazing success of GTA on the PC, why is there no simultaneous release for PC?

BTW, F Thack Jompson.

Ancedote

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm about the most non-violent person you could meet, but I love me some Postal 2.

Jaysyn (posting anon to preserve moderations)

Irony.

[Lethyos]

I did not know another Grand Theft Auto game was looming. Now I am curious and want to play it! Thanks you, Jack, for helping to generate publicity for these fine products! :)

I can understand that for porn, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

They should sell adult games the same way they sell adult magazines -- clearly labelled and with a wrapper around them, unless they're in an adults only area.

Should we really require such a thing for stuff like books, movies, music(explicit music), etc? I mean, they way the like of Jack Thompson are going, could you picture a movie store with all R-RATED(and PG 13 if you include Bully's rating equivalent) movies covered in brown paper and with labels/ratings/etc?.

To keep it short; that is my biggest beef with people like Jack Thompson, they want something equivalent to R-rated media to be classified as porn, and they do not want to be realistic about the issues(i.e. work with retailers & companies for stronger rating enforcement instead of throwing threats & frivolous lawsuits around companies/company heads).

Re:Mod parent...Eh

[JebusIsLord]

The XBOX360 at least (and, I assume the PS3) has a parental control feature that, when activated, prevents minors from playing games games with certain ratings. Of course this makes raising children the responsibility of parents, instead of Jack Thompson.

Not selling GTA to minors?

[mjwx]

Aren't they already doing this?

In Australia you need to provide proof of age to purchase GTA or similarly violent video games (I needed to show my drivers license to buy Mafia which is a lot more mature than GTA). This is backed up by hefty fines for retailers and is enforced by the AFC (Australian Film Commission).

I hope JT says his prayers

[Omeger]

Because Bill Gates will fuck him up sideways in court. Just ask Janet Reno.

What infuriates me the most about Jack...

[AbRASiON]

The main issue I have with him is not the fact that he doesn't like video games or violence, it's that he JUST PLAIN OUTRIGHT LIES - he does not get the facts, he does not get the scoops, he doesn't know things we don't know - he simply assumes!
"It's called bully, it must be bad!"

"It's GTAIV from Rockstar, it MUST be bad!"

None of us at all know a single damn thing about GTAIV - it's a mystery thus far and he's already started?
I wish this foolish, stupid little man would go away soon.

Re:What infuriates me the most about Jack...

[MadJo]

It would be fun if Rockstar would turn GTAIV into some peace-loving-hippy kind of game. :)
Instead of shooting people, you hug them and give out flowers. :)

Set in the 60s, with typical 60s music blaring out of the speakers of those love-bugs and multi-coloured VW-vans.
Putting flowers in the barrels of the guns. Real time 24hour sit-ins! More exciting than that road trip of that Penn and Teller game. Because every x minutes (random) you have to press a button, to make sure that your character doesn't fall asleep.

The goal of the game is to pick up a car, drive around, and pick up strangers and ultimately go to a Woodstock-like concert.

Now what could possibly be offensive with that?

Re:What infuriates me the most about Jack...

[ShadowsHawk]

Drugs, rock & roll, sex. Nothing at all that Jack would object to.

Oh no!!! A Jack Idea I kinda-sorta-agree with???

[BTWR]

Oh no!!! A Jack Idea I kinda-sorta-agree with???

First off, I think the guy is a raving jackass nutcase (this is NOT bias - see the Youtube video of him being yelled at by a judge for acting like a 5 year-old if you don't believe me), but he may actually be doing something that ONE THE SURFACE, I have no problem with.

This is the thing: I have *no problem* with denying elementary school kids the ability to buy GTA4. I don't think it should be censored at ALL, but I don't think that adults (and even teenagers, maybe 15+?) should have ANY HASSLES if they want it and can see some kind of rating on the box (M for Mature, etc).

It's like movies. I don't think it's a bad thing that any 6 year-old can't walk into a theatre and see Pulp Fiction, Saw or Hostel. But, if a parent is with their 12 year-old, or buys them the video, then I say that's fine (hell, even their 6 year-old - it should be legal, but they should be watching Bambi, not Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies, but that's just me). No, of course I don't buy any of the "it makes you kill people" crap, and I was allowed to watch rated-R movies that my parents approved when I was a kid (they stopped regulating that stuff when I was like in middle school or something).

We all know he won't, but if Jack was just going to launch a calm, repectful "please enforce the ESRB ratings for PURCHASE" campaign, then I seriously would have no objection. Of course, he'll rant on every TV show and newspaper he can get his claws into on how video games are responsible for all murders, rapes and even the Iraq War, 9/11 and Katrina. But in "theory," preventing "minors" (elementary school-ish age) from purchasing this (w/o an adult) isn't so bad.

Actually, they don't self-censor, but the opposite

[EWAdams]

Moviemakers routinely put in gratuitous violence or a shot of a woman's breasts in order to GET an R rating. Lower ratings, especially G (General Audience) are the kiss of death, financially.

The game rating system does the opposite of what the moralists want -- it encourages developers to play chicken with the rating board, to see how much they can get away with.

Any kind of rating system necessarily distorts the creation of the artwork to which it is applied. That includes money, government labeling, industry labeling, or the views of influential critics. Only when an artist has the courage to follow his own vision without regard for anyone else's judgment do we get true works of art.

Overboard

[Nazmun]

Just make sure that the cashiers check to make sure the people are 17+. Unless it's a video game porn.

No reason to blacklist or place mature (not porn) games like GTA 3 in the porno rooms or in porno wrappers. They should be treated like rated r movies.

Xbox not XBox

[Anonymous Coward]

For the love of god please stop typing "XBox" instead of "Xbox". It's my job to ensure games are compliant with MS's terminology and every time I see it the wrong way it drives me nuts.

knob

[__aabgfe356]

he's a knob, pure and simple.

Land of the free! Remember that

[gullevek]

Yup, get your gun when you are four, but the booze you wont get until you are 80 and with your parents.

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE

Jack needs a new quarry

[Hannah E. Davis]

Forget GTA, someone needs to set this man on Furcadia. At first glance, the game appears geared toward children with its bright colourful graphics and friendly mascot... until you get into the adult area. "Age play" seems to be a common fetish around there, and many members advertise both an IC and OOC age of under 18. Sure, there's a content filter, but it can be circumvented by merely editing the plaintext settings file, and any child can install the game and play for free without his or her parent even knowing.

I have nothing against it (or the furry community) myself, mind you, but I would LOVE to see Jack Thompson vs. the furries. No matter what, the internet would win.

Videogames can be released unrated

[Sycraft-fu]

Ratings aren't mandatory for games, it's voluntary. There are indy games that go unrated because the authors don't feel the need to submit them for rating since they aren't sold via normal channels. The prevalence of game ratings is because it is good for business, good for PR, and because the retailers like to sell rated games.

Re:Videogames can be released unrated

[Traiklin]

Ratings aren't mandatory for games, it's voluntary. There are indy games that go unrated because the authors don't feel the need to submit them for rating since they aren't sold via normal channels. The prevalence of game ratings is because it is good for business, good for PR, and because the retailers like to sell rated games.

the same is true for movies up untill the last part, just change retailers like to sell rated games to retailers like to sell unrated movies I've yet to see someone go up in arms over unrated movies in stores, yet there are constant reports about people getting up in arms over games that were rated accordingly and given to kids who didn't meet those ratings.

Kinda like...

[MikeTheMan]

Isn't this like sending letters to cigarette manufacturers urging them not to sell to minors? Sure they're not supposed to, but that's where half the sales come from :-/ I would think Microsoft won't try too hard to appease him...

'Bill Gates in the Crosshairs'?!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill isn't even very active in Microsoft's business decisions anymore, as has been announced in dozens of very well-known news articles; He's basicaly retired. But I suppose that "Bill Gates" sounds sexier, and gets you in headlines better than "X-Box" or "Microsoft."

This is grandstanding beneath contempt. I wonder when Jack is going to start running for office?

Where's the money coming from?

[Mr_Grimshaw]

Who's bankrolling Jack? I mean, his results haven't exactly been stellar thus far...has he had any successes? So who's paying for all this legal maneuvering?

No ID? No alcohol.

[Anonymous Coward]

Reality is: Adults don't like being denied access to something they are LEGALLY ENTITLED TO PURCHASE, especially when the gatekeeper doesn't even look legal to vote... and DOUBLE especially when I'm old enough to be the girl's father.

Wrong, asshole. You are *not* legally entitled to purchanse alcohol unless you have proof of age. If you left your licence somewhere else, you don't have that proof. You are not a unique, ID-exempt snowflake. That is reality.

Re:Actually, they don't self-censor, but the oppos

[dlc3007]

Yeah... a G rating is the "kiss of death."
You should give Pixar a call and warn them about how their G rated movies (Toy Story, Toy Story II, Bug's Life, Monsters Inc., Cars) are doomed to failure!
(note: think, then post)

Um Parental Controls, lock out Mature Content....

[trdrstv]

Jack is a moron for more reasons than I care to enumerate.

Now, I can't speak for the PS3 as I do not own one, but in reguards to the X-Box 360 and the Wii they both have 'Parental Controls' that read the games rating, and checks it against what you allow to be played on the console. This works on All current offerings (360 games, Live arcade games, Wii games, and VC titles), but not Gamecube games (I am unsure about original X-box games, but I don't think they would support this either). So, WORST case scenario is if you don't want your kid playing T or M rated games, you lock it out.

The best part is that all 360 games have Acheivements and the child would either Keep a record that (s)he has played the game (or been playing) or give up any associated points (s)he could have earned.

What is the issue again? Do we need to pass legislation to protect society from parents who wish to remain uninformed or uninvolved in their children's lives? Is that what we're talking about?