Slashdot Mirror
'Over 30' Section For Games Stores?
A New York law introduced by Representative Keith Wright seeks just that, a section for gaming stores that keeps 'violent games' under lock and key, and is accessible only to people over 30. The law is one of two poorly-thought pieces of legislation being considered by New York state's legal system. From the 1up article: "The history of the courts striking down such legislation goes just about as far back as politicians who attempt to bolster their own image by capitalizing on the public fear and hysteria over the bogeyman of video gaming. It's interesting to note that recently, courts have begun penalizing entities who purposely waste their time with attempts at passing frivolous and unconstitutional anti-videogame legislation. You'd think might deter motions like [these] somewhat, wouldn't you?" Update: 01/19 04:10 GMT by Z : As ahecht points out in the comments 1up has things wrong here. There is only one bill, and it restricts violent games from being sold to those under 18 only. Line 5 of the bill's text is the section in question.
"Yes, you're allowed to get drunk off your ass and purchase hardcore porno flicks, but you can't buy these video games."
People mature differently. I know a couple teenagers that are more mature than my 32-year old cousin. Leave it up to parents and oneself to make this decision.
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
GTHOML2007 (Get The Hell Off My Lawn)
As in, if a law is passed and rejected by the courts, all the people that voted for it should be forced to watch a one hour video on the constition of the United States, before they are allowed to vote for any other law.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Also, why 30? Why not 21? 18? It's one thing if the government regulates what can be sold to minors without their parent's permission, but what exactly gives them the right to arbitrarily block adults from something?
Damn hypocrites. Keith Wright, feel free to exercise your right to bite me.
Why over 30?!?!
I don't know how it is in the U.S., but the legal age here in Brazil is 21, while the driving age is 18 and the voting age is 16. I mean, ok, I can try to understand the reason to make a 'mature' section, but over 30?
Disclaimer: I'm over 30 and I'm a game geek, but I wouldn't like to see that happening...
Er Galvão Abbott - IT Consultant and Developer
Given that a substantial percentage of game developers and testers are under 30, this would definitely put the kibosh on game development there...
Actually I don't think it's such a bad idea. Parents refuse to take responsibility for what their kids do because it's inconvenient. If you make it where it is more inconvenient for the parent to get the game for the kid, than it is for them to monitor their kid, you get the same result. You keep the games out of the hands of kids. I personally am tired of my gaming experience being tamed down or ruined because kids might play the game. If you make it where instead of sending Johnny in to Gamestop with $40 to grab a game while sitting in the car and make it where the parent has to get out of the car and go in themself to buy the game, then little Johnny doesn't get the game, and game developers can truly cater to their customers.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
Featuring adult-themed games like:
Prostate Kong
Ligament Hunter
Early Bird Buffet 2142
Need For Slow: Cataract
18 is the age of becoming a legal adult, 18 should be the age for everything, games, drinking, voting. An 18 year old can pay taxes, get married, die in war, but can't play a video game or drink? Puhleeese.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
You have to be at least 35 to be president.
JUST when I get to the point where I can conveniently buy my favorite violent games, *BAM*, I get arthritis!
Related jokes:
Oh, violent games? I thought you were talking about Brain Age, Sudoku, etc.
Or
A PC game shelf with over 30 games on it in stores these days - that's quite an improvement!
Or
Yes! Finally! I can discover that the immature jerks playing games are NOT actually just angsty teens, and can be further disappointed by humanity! It's like a whole new flavor of misanthropy!
Thanks! Good night - I'll be here all week. Enjoy the veal!
Ryan Fenton
How many more retro arcade games from the 1970's and 80's do we need?
Far be it from me to criticize a kneejerk headline on Slashdot (on Slashdot? You jest!), but the bill in question would require stores to CARD people to ensure that they are over EIGHTEEN if they LOOK under the age of 30. If you're between the age of 18 and 29 inclusive, you can still buy the game, just expect to be carded when you do so. This headline has about the same accuracy as a headline that says "You must be over 45 to buy beer."
Hey, I know, I have a GREAT idea!
You know that 'Kids' section in Electronic Boutique? With "Star Wars Activity Centre"? We'll make THAT our mainstream form of entertainment!
We'll also enforce nappies be worn by anyone between age 9 to 90!
it can come close, maybe even approximate for some groups, but pulling a random number out of your ass representing the number of spins around the sun it takes to become a responsible adult is silly. In particular setting 30 as the age that someone can access violent video games is pretty silly, the kind of thing I expect from a person that would rather make a decision based on bias and lack of understanding. In this case someone long past 30. If this law is even to approach reason it should operate more like effective gun control laws that require some element of education and licensing. That's a reasonable measure, can you pass a responsibility test? But of course we are just talking about video games, games, make believe, imaginary, not actual real guns, or real killing or real explosions, you would think the honourable member would be old enough to figure out the difference.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
The games that those of us over 30 want generally run on 8-bit platforms using simple player-missile graphics and damned near every one of them is already available on MAME or via telnet.
So does this senator want to personally pay for all the then wasted resources the army has put into its whizz bang recruitment game:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Army
Or are they going to have to modify the game so nobody gets killed?
I'm 32 and when I wan't the classics I don't need some stupid "over 30 section" in shops... I have internet!
...What? "RTFA"?
...a whole aisle stocked with checkerboards. /over 30
More music, fewer hits
I'm a 20-something. I don't live with my parents, I'm self-sufficient, and I like to purchase and play videogames. I drive myself to the videogame store and buy them with my own money. If a law like this were passed, I would not be able to buy the next GTA or such (though frankly I don't think I will anyway, but that's another issue).
Some sort of age based rule, while inherently arbitrary, is perhaps a decent idea. But it should not be as high as 30, as there are millions of independent self-sufficient gamers between 20 and 30 who don't go around with their parents to the videogame stores still.
I suspect the main reason they choose 30 is to ban violent videogames without actually banning violent videogames ...
Even though there are lots of gamers over 30, and the average age of gamers is quite high, the quantity of games played by a gamer decreases with age; as a guess I would say you probably buy/rent twice as many games at 15 as you do at 25, and you buy/rent twice as many games at 25 as you do at 35. If you could successfully prevent 66% of game sales from occuring in the age of the $20 Million game you will successfully prevent any company from attempting to make one of these games (because you simply can not be profitable).
I had to go to here to figure that out, not even the linked blog article made it clear. A lot of us RTfA and still had the wrong idea.
Half the fricken' comments in this story wouldn't have been posted if people had happened to notice this point: You have to be over 18, not 30. They will only card you if you look under 30. Very inaccurate summary and headline.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Now I can look for those Sega Genesis games in one convienent place!
I was expecting the "over 30" section to have the intelligent games, not the violent ones. Sheesh, what a let-down.
And get off of my yard, you punk kids!
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Hooking their little red wagon to the ridiculous and ARBITRARY "30 years of age" rating will kill this piece legislation for sure. It makes me think it's a ploy for attention, and not a serious bill.
You had me at merlot
Now if you read into the links in the article you find
Rep. Wright's bill also calls for the equivalent of an "adults only" section for such games. Retailers would be required to check I.D. for buyers who appear to be 30 or under. The bill has been referred to the Assembly's Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection.
So its not that the summary of the article is incorrect, the writers of the article can't even cite their sources correctly... You can't just read an article these days, you have to read their sources...
1UP misread the article when they summarized it from the original article
From the text of bill:
S 391-Q. SALE OF CERTAIN VIDEO GAMES TO MINORS PROHIBITED. 1. NO PERSON, PARTNERSHIP OR CORPORATION SHALL SELL OR RENT OR OFFER TO SELL OR RENT TO ANY PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS ANY VIDEO GAME THAT HAS A MATURE OR VIOLENT RATING.... SALE OR RENTAL OF ANY VIDEO GAME ... [as described] TO AN INDIVIDUAL
WHO DEMONSTRATES, THROUGH [some sort of ID ]... AT LEAST EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
SUCH IDENTIFICATION NEED NOT BE REQUIRED OF ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO REASONABLY
APPEARS TO BE AT LEAST THIRTY YEARS OF AGE,...
This Signature does Not Exist !! FNORD
IAALS.
According to this link cited in the article, it's not that "violent" games would only be "accessible" to customers over 30, it's that retailers would be required "to check I.D. for buyers" who wanted to browse that section and "who appear to be 30 or under." It's more like the policy of checking IDs when serving alcohol than the nonsense the article and summary suggest.
Incidentally, if they were accurate, it would (comically) mean that someone could run for and win a seat in the House of Representatives and sponsor laws re video game violence before they could browse the proposed section at game stores.
It's apparently too much to expect that when a story is submitted by an editor, he check the primary sources linked in the cited article to support what's obviously an improbable assertion (and in this case, a flatly incorrect one).
At least the violent online games wouldn't be full of 12-year-old griefers =)
What about games that are not rated?
Thank you for clarifying that before I even read the article. I was going to go on about how I'm 21, am legally allowed to drink, etc, etc, but that seems rather pointless now.
Having a special section for adult only games seems like it would be a large burdon for stores (espeically small stores). Setting up a special area for these games and making sure that someone will insure that people who go in get carded. Not to mention, that stores like gamestop are normally shoved into a space way to small for them to begin with, and this would only make space tighter. Seems so crazy that video games shouldn't be held to the same sorts of standards as other things not intended for children. A small kid can go into sun coast or block buster browse through R rated movies but can't buy them without parental consent. Anyone can go down isles in a grocery store that sell beer, but they'll get carded when they try to buy them. Unless video games are some kind of danger to kids by them just looking at the boxes, forcing stores to set of special areas is a lot of crap. Isn't their point that its the playing of them games that some how corrupts the kids, not seeing a still image on a box?
I thought some game store was introducing an "over 30" section so that grumpy old men like me could go buy our copies of Brain Age and refurb wood-grain Atari 2600s without having to deal with all those pesky kids. I clicked to find the location this trigenarian utopia but alas it was not to be.
Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
I can't tell you how depressed I was when I no longer was carded for beer.
Oh well, my dad is no longer carded for senior citizen's discounts, so I guess it could be worse.
ID to buy Ultra Porn. -Professor Hubert Farnsworth
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I would have beat the living shit out of a clerk when I was 25 for not selling me a game.
that's violence.
the legal age is 18 for everything except alcohol.
to change that to 30 will kill gaming instantly.
Representative Keith Wright is a moron.
They're using their grammar skills there.
I think it's a good idea. I'm over 30, and quite honestly, I hate pouring over 10,000 kiddie or Japanime games to find the few good ones. I want my games to be good, but with extra graphic realism, or good acting/scripts. That Mario shit is about as interesting to me as Barney the dinosaur is. So I say, great idea. I'll be able to shop a lot easier.
If "violent" games can be purchased by anyone of any age, then these do-gooder politicians have an excuse to ban them completely. However, limit these games to 18+ only, and you can make the argument of, "I'm an adult and only adults can purchase these games. Stay the Hell out of my business."
(assuming that the law is 18+, not 30+ as the summary says.)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
As someone over 30, I approve this measure.
Finally we'll be able to get our ultraviolent games and UltraPorn in one place.
Then I read the article and was disappointed and confused. Damn Xbox tapes.
I am not a crackpot.
It seems like it would be more likely for someone to act violent after playing three hours of a Sudoku game than it would be after that same amount of time playing, say, Quake.
I would love the "Over thirty department", if it would have games, that handle relevant modern day psychological and social problems and challenges. That have novel, deep insights into relationships with friends, bosses, parents, spouses, children. I would love games that handle realistic social and political problems in a non-trivial, perhaps thought-provoking ways. Games aware of academic philosohical tradition and debating the limits of our knowledge and the true nature of the world around us without worn-out clichés of pop culture. Games rooted in modern academic understanding of psychology, economics and science.
I would love a single game that is worth playing even if you need to choose between a) working more hours with good extra money, b) spending more time with your beloved kids/spouse, c) exercising/sports d) any other entertainment or e) playing games.
I would love just one game that is not a glorified, graphically decorated 3-D board game/puzzle/Pac-Man with almost non-existent emotional impact, except "I found the secret way/key/lever" or "I was fast/clever enough to manouver my opponent".
Anssi Porttikivi / app@iki.fi
Those are banned by Homeland Security. They might contain nipples.
... and then they built the supercollider.
You need only request ID from people who look under 30.
/. won't let me cut and paste it because of the all caps.
You can see it in section 3 of the text of the bill http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A00547&sh=t:
As someone who recently turned 30, I say good! I want to be able shop for games without all of those 20-somethings fussing over everything with their damn iPods and text-messaging and tattos. Damn whippersnappers!
-- dR.fuZZo
As if those M-rated videogames weren't inconvenient enough for under-18 people to buy already. This isn't going to make the whole piracy problem any better, is it?
Y halo there Torrentspy!
I don't see what the deal is with all this. Why not just make a law that you have to be of age 18 to purchase M-rated games. If someone would just do that, all this would be done with. I have not been to a store in 4 years that would sell me an M game since I'm under 18. I'm pretty sure Gamestop, Game Crazy, Walmart, Best Buy and all other major retailers have their own policing of who can by M-rated games. Just make it a law and get all this nonsense about banning and being 30 over with!
As someone who entered the Army at 17, had a steady paycheck, a credit card, and an address, I would've just bought it online...
To me it read: "People have to be 18 to buy x and you must card them to prove the fact. Though lets be sensible and if they are clearly older than that, say 30 ish, then you don't have to card them".
We should be commending the writer of the act for trying to apply some common sense and flexibility.
There are adult sections in some video stores. You have to be of age to go into the back room to view the porn videos and to rent them. I don't see a problem with this. If they want to mandate a seperate section for M and A rated games I don't really have a problem with it. Where the fuck does 30 come from? I could legally buy cigarrets and porn at 18, and booze at 21. Why should I be legal to smoke and beat off for 12 years and booze it up for 9 before I can buy a video game where I shoot someones head off, when theoretically I could have been doing that in the military for 13 years for real? 30's a bit old. Make it a reasonable age, such as 17 for M and/or 18 for A like the ESRB recommends and I would actually support it. It would shut a lot of people up I would hope. Heck, if it's a video store they could put the porn in the same room.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
This is a common political ploy, for the "other side" (in this case, politicians who do not believe in banning games), they amend the bill so that it includes something utterly rediculous, like this age restriction, simply so that it cannot possibly pass. So, in actuality, the 30-year age restriction was probably put on by an opponent of the original bill.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
No no no. In media, mature means "appealing to high-school or college-aged males". Specifically it refers to gore, sex, and bathroom humor.
This is mature because we don't let kids have it. Our society apparently feels that frat boys are mature.
Thoughtful? Intellectual? We poke fun at those things. (Because we're mature.)
21 is not the age at which the brain has completed developing. Even if it were, there is no compelling medical reason to prevent the consumption of alcohol for people under the age of 21. Originally, when the law limiting the consumption of alcoholic beverages to people 21 or older was enacted, the voting age was also 21. States tried to reduce the drinking age during the 70s and 80s, but since the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1984, a state not enforcing the minimum drinking age of 21 would be subjected to a ten percent decrease in its annual federal highway apportionment. Overview of Underage Drinking Policy in the United States.
[insert witty comment here]
You mean to tell me that some 18 year old guy or girl can sign up in the military to be sent off to fight and die in a war for Darth Bush, but they can't buy a game? I can believe there is a law proposing that, because only a legislator could come up with something that fucking stupid.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Which means violent and pornographic games get treated like pornographic and violent films. I still don't understand why that's not just the default and requires special legislation.
This is a manifestation of it as well as the aim of this. How on earth did this progress so far, and what was it's origin? 30 years as an age limit? Is this unprecedented? And why wasn't it laughed out on its ass before it could even make it to the press.
You know, this bill doesn't go far enough to protect children from violence. He should expand the bill; any magazines, books, television programs, and movies that would fall under this bill if they were video games should fall under this bill's restrictions. What do you think, can we convince the representative to amend the bill?
If he did, he might rethink that once he realizes what he added to the bill -- the Bible (plenty of violence, some sex), the nightly news (airing footage of the war in Iraq and covering local murders, assaults, etc.), both hockey and American football games (violence), and just about any movie not rated G.
Wow, this summary is probably the worst I have ever seen. Blatantly untrue.
Please, tag this article 'falsearticle' .
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
I would understand this law if it was concerned with preventing the sale of Adult Only games to minors as those games are set as having graphic nudity, sexuality, language, violence, etc. on the level of that at which an X-rated or NC-17 movie contains. Having a rating AO and a rating Mature both accessible at the same age does not make sense to me.
If the government wishes a self-regulated industry to meet the standards of another self-regulated industry in order to make it easier to identify possible content of media then the age requirements for purchase of said media should be congruent. Games rated as having a Mature content should be accessible legally by any 17 or older persons by themselves, just like R-rated movies are accessible only to 17 or older persons by themselves.
By using the ESRB's rating system to label something recommended for 17 years or older and applying it so that said content is deemed to be pornographic in nature, the government is negating the effect of letting the video game industry regulate itself. At 18, constituents of the United States are allowed the choice to purchase cigarettes and pornographic material so long as said material falls within the guidelines as what is deemed legal or not. It is counterintuitive to lock constituents out of similar content even though it is contained on different forms of media.
You're right. It is 18, not 30, but I don't think it's the fault of the Slashdot editors this time. The article they link to explicitly says 30. The article that article links to explicitly says 30. From that article, you have to go to the bill summary and THEN to the actual bill text. Someone's hyping the story, but it's not the Slashdot editors this time.
While we're at it, why not an over 70 or a handicapped section? That will ensure the old folks who're not yet blind, who actually have access to a computer, who even care about games, can get to play it but are too feeble or need to piss every 5 minutes or forget about shooting up their neighborbood mall or school because they forgot what it is they set out to do 3 minutes ago? Or maybe a braille version for the "visually impaired"?
fears. It is not the product of cartoons and captions. But the comics are a handy, obvious and
uncomplicated scapegoat. If the adults who crusade against them would only get as steamed up over such basic
causes of delinquency as parental ignorance, indifference and cruelty, they might discover that
comic books are no more a menace than Treasure Island of Jack the Giant Killer.
-Colliers Magazine 1949
Video games are today's comic books.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Seriously, I'm a grown man. I can decide what I can put in my body and what I put in my mind. I don't need the damn government telling me what I can eat, watch, play, or think.
It's getting positively ridiculous. I'm so flustered that this is about the most coherent response I can come up with now. (Or maybe all the trans fats I ingested at dinner are just interfering with my brain chemistry).
Remember when conservatives where for small government?
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
I'm getting to the point where I don't even care if violent games do make kids violent. I'm sick of the waste of tax dollars every time some politico needs proof that the constitution STILL hasn't been amended so as to make way for this.
I'd rather take my chances with the kids. For this amount of money we could put 'em all on zoloft anyway.
Jeff Freeman
If you vote in three bills that are overturned, you lost your job and are forever barred from government service.
how does this compare in terms of state liquor laws? do shops ALWAYS have to ID customers when buying liquor? or do stores get to make the call on when to ID?
present day... present time... hahahaha...
When I read the title to this article, I just assumed that the over-thirties section would be like a similar section in a music shop, with classics from the 1980s that young folk wouldn't appreciate.
I was so looking forward to a whole shelf full of Infocom text adventures and ActiVision games for the Commodore 64. What a disappointment!
"I'm 31. *cough*"
"Okay then. After tax, that'll be $52.74"
Yeah, TFS sucked, but I still hate how the concept is worded, even if I can understand what they're getting at. A lot of stores already enforce this policy, at least to some extent, even if it's not law. I was once carded for buying a video game, although mind you I only look about fourteen or fifteen at age nineteen. I do think it's a bit annoying, but on the other hand, I support anything that means parents have to act as *gasp* parents and should furthermore cause politicians to shut the fuck up when it comes to video games that they don't understand. But do make sure that it includes a footnote about parents actually being held responsible if a violent video game that they purchased for Little Johnny was a legitimate cause for his psychotic killing spree so they might actually consider whether the game is appropriate for him rather than just think of it as a pain in the ass that they have to be there for the sale to happen.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
What about people suffering from premature aging? Premature gray hair? A beard at 11? And how exactly does one establish the age of a woman simply by looks? I've seen plenty of 17 year old girls who look 30!
Better ban anyone who looks under 30 from violence on TV, too. Or, better yet, ban any violence. Because that will surely solve the problem, right? When violence is outlawed...
This is what happens when minority intrest groups are allowed to use spreadsheets to make up statistics.
Right now I can safely say that most school shootings/stabbings/bullyings are carried out by children who play over 5 hours a week on violent/moraly questionable video games, however I can also say that well over 50% or the remaining pupils also play said games without finding the need to re-enact Quake with live rounds.
Unfortunately it seems for the majority of the public one only needs to show proof that a theory can be vaild and ignor overwhelming contradictory evidence
After all 99.9% of all crimes in the US/Europe are committed by people who watched TV with in 6 hourse of consuming a berad based product... what does that tell you.
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
Surprise, surprise....
Videogame 'journalists' jump to conclusions in their zealous defense of violent games.
""The history of the courts striking down such legislation goes just about as far back as politicians who attempt to bolster their own image by capitalizing on the public fear and hysteria over the bogeyman of video gaming. It's interesting to note that recently, courts have begun penalizing entities who purposely waste their time with attempts at passing frivolous and unconstitutional anti-videogame legislation. You'd think might deter motions like [these] somewhat, wouldn't you?"
Why exactly is the suggestion that violent games should only be sold to adults 'capitalising on the fear and hysteria over the bogeyman of gaming'?
The only thing worse than seeing a crackpot lawyer campaigning against games (and there are a few, don't get me wrong) is seeing a so-called journalist shoot down any kind of discussion on the topic, dismissing it as fearmongering.
Whatever happened to talking about things?
To be picky for a moment...
The topic keeps talking about this "law", but it isn't a law until it is a law. It's a BILL and nothing more, at the moment.
"Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
News story:
Is abortion a cheap way of racking up high scores, or does so-called "spawn-camping" cheapen the experience for newbies? Details at 11.
That guy EATS MONSTERS!!! O.O
diginferno
Crud, for a minute I thought they where gonna cater to us old farts whose reflexes aren't what they used to be...
Sneaky how they are training you to think critically and be a good citizen instead of sheeple, isn't it?
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
I think a possible reason for this would be that people at beging of 20's are more motivated, have more energy and are more welling to adapt what they do in the game to reality. But still, this does not mean the game won't harm people over 30. And if it is so harmful, either forbid it or allow it with current known age rank. It would be embarrassing I have kids and I still can't buy the game I want. Not to mention that if the game is only for people over thirty, then the game would lose it's fan base, that is assuming most people under 30 will not find their way to the game!
I don't know why treating games like movies isn't good enough, and we have to get special legislation to treat them like cigarrettes. It's not like games cause cancer.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
Because the self-policing doesn't seem to work? Does the ESRB fine Walmart for selling M rated games to minors? I've never heard of a retailer refusing to sell M rated games to children. It's not quite as straightforward as you claim either. There don't appear to be any federal laws in the US controlling adult printed material and films, but there are lots of municipal laws that do.
There are most certainly laws in Canada and Europe controlling the sale of adult material to minors (but not games, yet). There was a story a while ago about BC (a Canadian province) classifying a game as an R-rated movie, making it illegal to sell to minors. Activision threw a hissy fit and claimed censorship.
On a related note, here's a Podcast available from NPR - Franklin Zimring: The Decline of American Crime. His assertion is that crime (in all categories, across the board) has gone DOWN, approximately 30%, since the 90's, and held steady for the last 6 years. I think that's there's definitely a case for nature vs. nurture to be made, but as usual, politicians and parents are asking the wrong questions in lieu of actual research. They are increasingly vocal about an epidemic of violence, that, statistically, doesn't really exist.
http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R701170900 [kqed.org]
Finaly a gamesection for us old farts. None of those fast paced, violent, fps games. None of those games full of sex and violence. Al that crap can go to the teenage section where it belongs.
Great idea. I can't wait.
Yes. I imagine they care about as much as when the MPAA fines them for selling R rated DVDs to minors. But I never hear anyone bitching that the lazy clerks (or automated checkouts) don't card for DVDs.
What? Every major game store has a policy against selling M games to children, and almost every independent store (name one that doesn't). If they aren't enforcing it, it's because we leave the enforcement to lazy high schoolers making minimum wage. Which is the same problem DVDs have. How come we aren't bitching about DVD sales?
There are laws restricting pornography. There are no laws restricting R rated movies. I've never seen a pornographic game. I imagine the laws applying to pornography would apply to them.
I'm not familar with Canada's and Europe's laws. I know in America, movies and games are treated the same, but I guess some people don't understand games, so they want to ban them. Same thing happened with comic books in the 60's, and who knows what else in the previous generations. In 30 years, games will be all mainstream and no one will be calling for special laws for them. But we'll have something else that's new that we'll all freak out over...
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
"If they aren't enforcing it, it's because we leave the enforcement to lazy high schoolers making minimum wage."
So what you're saying is that current policies need to be taken a little more seriously? Perhaps by increasing the penalty until they're properly enforced? I remember when nobody took selling cigarettes to minors very seriously. Then the police started cracking down. The fines went up and regular sting operations got across the point that selling cigarettes to minors was serious. Oh, and "lazy high schoolers" aren't allowed to sell things they're not allowed to buy.
There are some nut jobs who think that would be a good idea to ban violent games. But the law under discussion here is not representative of that view. It doesn't ban anything. It makes it illegal to sell material to children that the makers themselves agree shouldn't be sold freely to children.
M rated games are for 17 and up. I was 19 when I graduated high school. There's plenty of high schoolers selling DVDs and games.
Again, we don't do it for movies, so why for games? Also, it's kinda more complicated to regulate sales of "inappropriate" games or movies than it is to merely say that things with nicotine or alcohol can't be sold to children. It's easy to say that M rated games shouldn't be sold to children, but what if the ESRB changes its system? What if the ESRB goes on crack and rates GTA IV E for everyone? Would we have to pass laws preventing the ESRB from doing that? As I understand, the way other countries are able to restrict inappropriate games and movies from children is because their versions of the ESRB and MPAA (rating department, not sue pirates department) are actual government offices, so they don't have to worry about a private company deciding what movies and games count as inappropriate under the law. I don't think that America should make the ESRB and MPAA a part of the government, but the only other way to restrict inappropriate movies and games without relying on a private company is to have the laws detail what is and is not appropriate for minors (which is what every game law has done). The problem with that is expecting clerks making minimum wage to read the bill and judge each and every game in the store, whether they've played the game or not. This bill in particular mentions "illegal drug or alcohol use". So, if a clerk sells a fifteen year old a T rated game that has teens drinking alcohol (the Final Fantasy series often has 17 and 18 year olds drink alcohol or go to bars, and invariably gets a T rating) then that clerk would get fined. Is that fair? Is that sane? Would anyone suggest that for DVDs? No. Which is why I think games should continue to be self-regulated just like movies are.
And what about books? When I was 12 I got a book from the library thats first chapter involved the 9 year old protagonist having sex with his sister. It only got worse from there. I've obviously never seen a video game that is anywhere close to that level, yet no one argues that the government should protect our kids from books. Video games have ratings to help parents, and you can see what they're playing just by glancing at the living room TV every now and then. Why can't people just get over video games and realize there's so much worse in the world to worry about?
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
You're right as well, the ratings system can't be left entirely up to a private company, although a company with some regulations to follow or oversight works just fine. That's much the way television works in the US: the FCC and other organizations establish a set of standards and fine networks that don't abide by them. In Canada there's an industry group of broadcasters that establishes guidelines. No, the salesclerks can't do the rating, somebody else does that and they just have to follow the label and ask for ID -- something they WILL do if their employers take it seriously, as evidenced by both tobacco and alcohol sales.
I also don't understand why the games industry isn't in favour. If they had a working and enforced rating system they should be much more immune to lawsuits and the shenanigans of a certain lawyer. If a company's game is rated for adults only then it can't very well be their fault if a kid goes on a killing spree, can it?
You might be interested in this, from the ESRB web site:
So no, the ESRB does not fine retailers who don't abide by the ratings system. Voluntary adherence doesn't seem to really be really working more than half the time.
Considering the entirely voluntary industry regulation doesn't work so well, a law giving the rating system some teeth doesn't really seem out of place. Such a law could certainly be overbearing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_Code is a example from the quite similar early days of the MPAA) but this one seems quite reasonable and honestly would probably be good for both concerned parents and game producers.
I don't know how Canada and Europe do things, but America has never regulated movies and books outside of pornography, because of the First Amendment (that's also why every law regulating games has been overturned). I don't understand why anyone wants change that for games. Sure, other countries might do that, but why should we?
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
Read that Wikipedia article on the production code. America HAS regulated both movies and books. There was quite extensive censorship in the early 20th century of the movie industry (though not nationally). To address that, the precursor of the MPAA implemented a rating system, and beefed it up through the century. Eventually the MPAA grew into such a pervasive entity in the motion picture industry that today they have more or less total control -- legislation isn't necessary.
The situation was much the same then for movies as it is now for games. A toothless, ineffective rating organization and a bunch of people calling for de facto censorship. So if history is a guide, there are three ways out. An all powerful industry association (as happened with movies), a patchwork of censorship (the situation before the rise to power of the MPAA) or legislation (which has worked in other countries).
The US also has a long history of regulating books, mostly for "obscene" content, but also for things like seditious content, pacifist content, and potentially dangerous material (a chemistry book). That regulation has included US customs attempting to block import, the US postal service blocking distribution, ordering libraries to remove books and banning them from school libraries. Since 1997 there has been a federal ban on any distribution of instructions for making or use of explosives, destructive devices or weapons of mass destruction.
That seems like a severely flawed idea to me.
Anybody can go in to any store and purchase a game rated E, E10, or T (ESRB Ratings, US only.), and anybody with age ID can purchase any game, regardless of rating.
What would be the point of having a 30 years and over room in game stores if the highest rating, AO games, given to very few games anyway out of the company's own fear of losing their reputation, can be bought in any store if the person has proof?
Unless the ESRB plans on adding an "X" rating, which is only given to games that contain, but more than that, completely center around explicit sex.
But even than, 21 years old, anybody can go and purchase whatever the hell they want (except child-size meals in restaurants).