ESRB Responds to 3D Realms' Kvetching

Via GamePolitics, an article at the Hollywood Reporter site on the ESRB's snappy comeback to 3D Realms. You may recall Scott Miller (3D Realms' co-founder) saying a short while back that he viewed the ESRB's smackdown as a 'sucker punch'. The Reporter article lays out the ESRB's response, courtesy of the board's president Patricia Vance: "It's unfortunate that Mr. Miller's feelings were hurt, but let's be clear ... The ESRB is the self-regulatory body for the video game industry. We were established by the industry and we simply enforce the rules and guidelines that the industry has imposed upon itself. The games industry determined that there should be rules with regard to the proper display of rating information and that ESRB should enforce those rules by notifying companies who are not in compliance ... Unfortunately, due to 3D Realms' lack of experience submitting games to the ESRB, it would appear that they were unaware of the various industry guidelines in place and the consequences of not complying with those guidelines."

Comments

Kvetch...

[andrewd18]

Kvetch... didn't I save that town in Oblivion?

Re:Kvetch...

[Eddi3]

I know you were just kidding, but Kvetching is actually a Yiddish word meaning complaining, or whining.

Re:Kvetch...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was a race... I always wanted to be a Kvetch wizard.

Slashdot Users:

[alfs boner]

I would never socialize with a Slashdot user. Sorry guys :(

Blame yourselves.

Abused

[Pojut]

While I understand that technically the ESRB was "created" by the industry, the recent shenannigans that they have been pulling makes me believe that they are "funded" by those with certain political motivations.

The inneptitude they have displayed as of late has been astounding.

Re:Abused

[badasscat]

While I understand that technically the ESRB was "created" by the industry, the recent shenannigans that they have been pulling makes me believe that they are "funded" by those with certain political motivations.

No, they are funded by the industry on an ongoing basis. 3DRealms provides some of this funding themselves in the form of the dues they pay.

The ESRB is a member-created and member-funded organization.

The inneptitude they have displayed as of late has been astounding.

They are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. And pithy response or not, Patricia Vance is exactly right in her comments.

The ESRB actually has yearly meetings all over the country for their members where they remind everybody of the rules. I've attended several of these myself. There's no excuse for anybody not to know what those rules are.

Re:Abused

[iocat]

They're funded by the fees you have to pay to get a rating, actually, not by the dues you pay to the ESA. Not everyone is member of the ESA, but you need an ESRB rating to get a product code (that is, to ship on) all the game consoles. I'm sure most retailed require one for PC games too. So it's "voluntary," but not really. But, it's also pretty straightforward. Most companies have a pretty good idea of what they'll get before the submit, but it still can have a "chilling effect" because it's pretty pricey to submit and resubmit, so sometimes you might get pressure to modify content before your frist submission to ensure that you get through in one pass.

That said, I haven't been following the current kerfuffle at all re: 3D Realms and Manhunt 2. The ESRB's ratings standards seem to have a tendency to shift from year to year -- there were a lot of shifts before the announcement of the new E10 rating as the system tried to deal with what were clearly E10 games without a rating there. Lots of stuff that should have technically been T got an E because it clearly was _supposed_ to be an E game, or games would find that one tiny thing sprung them from E to T unexpectedly, which has a big sales impact because it limits where and to whom you can market the game. (You couldn't advertise a T game in Disney Adventures magazine, for instance).

One thing I havne't seen is vindictiveness on the part of the ESRB to a specific publisher or developer, but I also haven't worked with any pubs or projects that pissed the ESRB off.

Re:Abused

[sesshomaru]

The 3D Realms one is even more interesting and troubling than the Manhunt 2 one, in my opinion. In the case of Manhunt 2, ESRB was following it's mandate, which is to prevent bad publicity for the video game industry from leading to government regulation. I don't agree with it, and I think it was probably also partly to punish Rockstar because of their irreverant attitude but it makes a kind of sense. (If you believe that caving into the hard right is the sensible way for the video game industry to protect itself.)

The 3D Realms, issue on the other hand, was punished for a purely technical violation of terms and conditions, see the following article, ESRB Picks on 3D Realms' 'Antiquities'. Because it was very important that 3D Realms update the rating for Duke Nukem 3d. (Hmm, what about game stores selling old games with out of date ratings on the boxes? I just bought Braindead 13 from an obscure web retailer, no doubt if I pointed them out to the ESRB, they'd be punished and fined as well. This is the ESRB acting as a cartel's hit squad, not doing anything remotely useful.

Ouch..

[Zebai]

Talk about a sucker punch..

"Unfortunately, due to 3D Realms' lack of experience submitting games to the ESRB,"

Re:Ouch..

[HolyCause]

That is somewhat true, since 3D Realms were formly known as Apogee (still is their legal name IIRC) and the majority of the games Apogee put out were before ESRB even existed. Even after ESRB's founding, 3D Realms (amongst others) put games under a different rating system (RSAC) for a couple years.

Re:Ouch..

[i8-p]

That isn't the sucker punch. Miller says as much himself. FTA, "Indeed, because his company is a developer, Miller says he has never had contact with the ESRB; he is used to having his publisher take care of the entire ratings process."

The punch is the aggressive, lawyerly tone of the ESRB's notice, and that while the ESRB took their time to pick on content that has been on the website for many years, they expect 3D to drop everything to fix it. I don't blame him for being annoyed. Instead of getting memos from the ESRB telling them of their latest requirements, they get demands out of the blue. Sure, it's a reasonable letter to send to the general counsel of a publisher, but it shows a lack of understanding of the industry they are supposed to be part of that they don't distinguish between publishers and developers.

Re:Ouch..

[Lehk228]

If they REALLY wanted to hit back they could work to resurrect RSAC AND they could look like the heroes while doing it, pointing out the recent failings of the ESRB, both real and perceived.

Why should this be a suprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA:
"Miller suspects that recent incidents in which the ratings system failed the public, like the so-called Hot Coffee controversy, may have inspired the ESRB to adopt a new get-tough stance."

We've seen what happens when developers thumb their noses at the ESRB and not take the ratings process seriously. One lying problem child and everyone gets slapped. This kind of thing happens everywhere, why is it a suprise? You could see it coming from miles and miles away.

Fuck the ESRB.

[Scott Lockwood]

Seriously. Fuck them right in the ear. This is no different from the PMRC in the 80's, or even back to the Senate hearings on Delinquency in the late 40's that centered on the Comic Book industry. Yes, we had senate hearings about how Comic Books caused delinquency in minors... And this is more of the same reactionary bullshit. This is what happens when you let religious nuts **Cough-The South-Cough** inject their religious beliefs into the public debate. They try to 'protect' the rest of us from ourselves, but limiting our freedom of choice.

If everyone stopped submitting their games to the ESRB, and we pink slipped those censor's like they badly deserve, would anyone even notice?

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[brouski]

Realistically, yes you would notice, because that would be when the government steps in. Then you'd see what real censorship does to the gaming industry.

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[Scott Lockwood]

I doubt that it would pass the scrutiny of the courts. Maybe shops like Rockstar don't have the balls, but you can sure as hell bet that shops like EA do.

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, there were PLENTY of religious nuts ALL OVER THE F-IN place, A-Hole. I am from the South and have been an Atheist my entire life. While I agree the problem is at least partially due to Religious Fanatics, check out where most of our Government officials (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Roberts, etc.) are from, shut up about the South and retract your ethnocentric fervor, dickcheese!

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[GrayCalx]

And this is more of the same reactionary bullshit. This is what happens when you let religious nuts **Cough-The South-Cough** inject their religious beliefs into the public debate.

I think you may be hard-pressed to find supporters for your opinions when you go off on "Reactionary Bullshit" in one sentence, and then stereotype and classify an entire region of people in the very next sentence.

In fact you could argue you're committing the same behavior as these "religious nuts". They judge the video-game industry and claim all video games corrupt their children. You judge Southerners and claim that all Southerners are religious nuts.

Practicing what you preach would work better for you to get people on your side. Otherwise you simply fall into the category of "Do as I say not as I do."

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi.

I live about as south as you can get (near New Orleans). I've also lived in many other places, mostly on the northwest coast. I can assure you that prejudicial and overall stupidass idealism is not the fault of the south any more than over-reaching and reactionary dumbass remarks are the fault of whatever area you just posted that horseshit from.

Thanks.

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[badasscat]

If everyone stopped submitting their games to the ESRB, and we pink slipped those censor's like they badly deserve, would anyone even notice?

Yes, because this is what would happen:

1. No major retailers would stock any of these games

followed by

2. The US government would intervene and create their own censoring board that would be far more strict and arbitrary and would answer to nobody.

All of you complainers need to realize a couple things. The first is that the ESRB is entirely funded by and consists entirely of game companies. This is not the PMRC. This is not the government. This is not some outside organization. This is the industry. Game companies have all banded together and agreed on certain rules, and they created this organization to enforce those rules. 3DR's position is, by definition, a rogue position within the industry. They are going against the wishes of all the other game companies out there, because that's what the ESRB is.

The second is that the reason the ESRB exists is because the industry realized that the alternative to self-regulation was government regulation. The government is not going to sit idly by while a free-for-all is going on. Their position is, why should video games be any different than any other entertainment medium? They all have various content ratings and warnings. The ESRB has in fact long been held up by the government as an example of self-regulation done right - their rating system is the gold standard. But if enforcement of that rating system ever breaks down, the government will have no problem stepping in and enforcing it themselves. Is that what you want?

I realize that some of you kids think everything should just be available all the time to anyone who wants it regardless of age or parental consent. But that's never going to happen, nor should it. Given that, the ESRB is the best possible system anyone could have come up with - it's an industry-created, industry-funded board enforcing rules set by the industry upon itself. It is exactly how this kind of thing should be done.

Contrast it with the way things work in the UK or other parts of Europe, where games can be outright banned by the government. The government does not ban games here, and neither does the ESRB. The worst the ESRB can do is give a game an AO rating, and you can blame Sony, MS and Nintendo for the fact that they won't allow those games on their systems - it's not the ESRB practicing any sort of "censorship", and plenty of AO games do come out on PC. If the ESRB was gone, these games would end up being banned outright by the government just like they are elsewhere. That's the alternative you're arguing in favor of.

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[faloi]

First off, the PMRC and the ESRB are far less related that the MPAA and the ESRB. Both bodies exist to rate the content their industries put out so that the government (ideally) doesn't have to step in.

Secondly... By "The South," you obviously mean New York, right? There's a pretty prominent Senator up there that might even be president some day that has called for special hearings into video games. Granted, she lived in the south for a while, but is from up north and represents people up north right now.

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[faloi]

I'll remember that next time I hear about TV and radio shows having to pull hosts and shows under threat of government intervention for their content.

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[EtoilePB]

If everyone stopped submitting their games to the ESRB, and we pink slipped those censor's like they badly deserve, would anyone even notice?

Okay. First of all: I've been lucky enough to meet face-to-face and to chat with several ESRB employees in charge of ratings, and to a man they are all vehemently anti-censorship. They believe -- and I am inclined to agree -- that the ratings system, while flawed, actually protects game designers and game retail. With a system that "laymen" can understand in place, at least parents and other theoretcially "for the children" prude groups aren't (usually) demanding a ban on all digital entertainment.

In fact, it IS very similar to the problems surrounding the comic book industry: you have a set of creators and consumers making art and entertainment for a target population (i.e., adults over 17 who can enjoy their sex and violence if they damn well want to) squaring off against a set of "concerned individuals" who believe that the medium in question, because it is also consumed by children, is only meant for children and should therefore not contain any "inappropriate" material or "adult themes."

I happen to think their argument is rubbish, of course, as an adult consumer of comics, games, and other media, but their argument is there and it's not going away. That's why we have organizations like the CBLDF. But unfortunately, a self-imposed regulatory board, as contrary as it may seem, is about the only tool currently working AGAINST people with such (prudish and misguided) beliefs.

It's very like the MPAA. An "unrated" movie may simply not have gone through the process, or it may be two frames away from unmitigated pornographic rubbish, but either way it's not going to get distribution. The real "cure" for this sort of misunderstanding of games lies, I think, in the next 10-20 years. The first kids to have an NES in their homes growing up are now starting to become parents. That generation has a much better and more realistic understanding than their parents did, and that will go on over time.

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[sesshomaru]

Hmm, in other industries, what do we call it when major players cozy up to each other and they create a governing body that enforces rules on "rogue elements" of the industry?

Oh, that's right, a cartel. Eventually, cartels always act to stifle their competition.

See the movie, The Aviator for examples of cartels in action. Or this article on the milk cartel, Dairy Industry Crushed Innovator Who Bested Price-Control System

The government likes cartels, because cartels embiggen business, and Big Business is a great source of graft and legal graft (campaign contributions). Small business gets crushed under the weight of unfunded mandates and "well meaning" rules that have the of course unintended side effect of making it harder for small businesses to compete.

It reminds me of an old Russian saying, "Every business in the United States has it's own Mafia."

I'm not sure why so many people on Slashdot are in a rush to defend the creation of a robust video game cartel.

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[TheNicestGuy]

If everyone stopped submitting their games to the ESRB, and we pink slipped those censor's like they badly deserve, would anyone even notice?

Hells, yeah, they'd notice. You seem to be leaving some key groups out of "anyone". Consider the two possible scenarios:

One or two established publishers stop going through the ESRB. In this case, the move would first be noticed by two groups: Retail store buying agents who might notice that some games suddenly dropped off the list of what company policy allows them to buy, and fans of those publishers' games who might notice that suddenly they can't find them in any retail stores. Both of those would move on to the available alternatives. If the publishers are publicly-traded companies, you can bet your ass their stockholders would notice, and storm the castle.

A large majority of established publishers unite in ignoring the ESRB. Let's just assume for the moment that this is even remotely likely. Since the ESRB is an industry-created group, this would be tantamount to the industry changing their mind and deciding to dismantle it. The retail buyers would notice, but with their alternatives being limited, they'd probably just change policy and get over it. Consumers might notice, but their reaction probably wouldn't be much more than tepid. Who would really notice are lawmakers. You obviously realize that our lawmakers are terribly reactionary on this sort of thing (although drawing the line straight to religion is rather oversimplified), but don't you realize the only thing that's kept the government censorship hounds at bay is the ESRB? If the games industry hadn't created its own "censorship" agency on its own terms, federal and/or state legislatures would have done it for them years ago, and they'd be a lot worse off. If the ESRB disappeared, you'd better believe government would fill the void in a heartbeat.

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[Man On Pink Corner]

The second is that the reason the ESRB exists is because the industry realized that the alternative to self-regulation was government regulation.

Except it isn't.

There are still a few courts in the US that understand the meaning of the phrase Congress shall make no law.

The ESRB was formed in response to empty threats by people like Joseph Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. These legislators demanded that the industry form its own ratings body to forestall further legislation. Of course, they lied about the "forestalling further legislation" part.

I'm convinced that the best way to get government out of the content-rating business is to let them try to impose legislative content standards... and either let the Supreme Court strike them down, as they have in what must be a thousand other prior-restraint cases, or show the country's true colors by upholding the restrictions. Only then will reform be possible.

The current system of veiled threats and Hillary-style "investigative subcommittees" is neither Constitutional nor tolerable.

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[Skye16]

I'm not agreeing with the GP at all, I want to make that clear. However, it's called the bible belt for a reason; that's where a majority of the people who bitch and whine and moan come from.

With that said, anyone who thinks everyone in the south is the same is, without fail, an idiot. It's one thing to be wary of it - to possibly expect it more than you would, say, someone from Japan - but it's quite another to write them all off all up front.

I'm wary of people from Texas. I've never had a good experience with someone from Texas. But Texas is quite a large state, and it would be irresponsible to write the entire state off due to previous bad experiences.

With that said - those people who *are* religious bible bangers can go form their own country. They can split it off, even if it means they get where I live now, and I have to pack up shop and get the fuck out. I'm okay with that. I don't hate them, but I can't see us living together peacefully for very long if they're so hellbent on legislating morality. I'm not saying I don't like religious people - I think they're fine. Sometimes hypocritical, sometimes delightfully *not* hypocritical. I just object to having said religious rules and regulations enforced upon me without any reasonable reason. I thought we were founded on *freedom*, letting people do as they wish provided they're not hurting others or directly costing others money. That's the only principle my countrymen and I need to agree on. Outside of that, they can do whatever they want, whether it's praying 95% of every day and telling me I'm going to hell, or never praying at all, having promiscuous sex, drinking, doing drugs, playing video games, listening to marilyn manson, and reading the aforementioned comic books. If they want to attempt to socially change me, ie: through coercion, then all the best luck to them. Just don't get the government involved, mmkay?

P.S. I was all over the fucking map on that comment. I'm not sure whether it should be modded off topic or not!

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[d3ac0n]

The first kids to have an NES in their homes growing up are now starting to become parents.

Not to nitpick, but the kids that had NES systems are already parents. We had an NES when I was in high school, and a SNES when I was just out of HS and my little brother and sister were still in HS and Elementary respectively. Now I'm 35, with 2 kids, my brother is 30 (no kids yet) and my sister is 25. The video game generation is all grown up now.

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[Broken scope]

The system is damn good.

The retailers and the big 3 need to let AO games on their systems, or find a middle ground possibly creating a new rating that doesn't have th pornographic connotations of the AO.

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[EtoilePB]

We had an NES when I was in high school, and a SNES when I was just out of HS and my little brother and sister were still in HS and Elementary respectively. Now I'm 35, with 2 kids, my brother is 30 (no kids yet) and my sister is 25. The video game generation is all grown up now.

Fair enough. I guess I live in a skewed population -- no-one I know except one couple has had or is planning to have kids until they're 30-35, and most of us are late-20s or just coming up 30 now. ;)

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[Jaysyn]

Easy there tiger, we aren't *all* idiots down here, just most of us.

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[Weegee_101]

Amen! I currently live in the Bible Belt and I'm from Pennsylvania. Before my family moved down here, we assumed the same "they're all religious nuts!" out of ignorance. Having lived here for almost 10 years, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of people who "blindly" support the ESRB and support government censorship. Hell, I'd be surprised if you find ANYONE who wants the Government to interfere.

The ESRB, in fact, is something that a lot of people down here don't concern themselves with unless your a gamer, and being a gamer myself, I know that most gamers down here don't agree with the ESRB too awful much. Heck, I'm trying to think of the number of people I know in Church who support censorship and I can't name a single one, although I admit I go to a small (very conservative) Methodist church with about 40 people who regularly attend. So guys, quit it with the stereotypes. Its just making the /. community look worse.

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[Zironic]

Could I have a list of games banned in Europe? I've never experienced that a game other then Manhunter 2 has ever become banned although there were a lot of people that wanted to ban the game postal 2 for excessive violence here in Sweden.

I think you have MORE control not less if the regulating body is controled by the goverment. Then at least you can vote about it. When it's controlled by the industry there is nothing you can do at all if a game or movie you're interested in can't reach the market because it doesn't comply with the guidelines.

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they might just make it impossible for game companies to release AO rated games in stores. Good thing game makers can currently put anything they want in a game and sell it on store shelves next to the unrated movies.

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[Brothernone]

And the rest of us have to deal the idiots too, you insensitvie clod!

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[Anonymous Coward]

FCC regulation, mang. FCC.

Yes, there really are things you aren't allowed to do on TV and radio.

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[Anonymous Coward]

FCC was part of the government, mang, last time I checked.

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[Daedone]

you do realize texas is down south with y'all right?

Re:Fuck the ESRB.

[Lehk228]

the problem is that ESRB is worse than than the older RSAC system which rated individual types of objectionable content. for example a store could refuse to carry any sex 3 or 4 games while still carrying violence up to 3 and language up to 4

Letters of Compliance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they send letters to every company? What really forces a company to send their game in to be rated. (other than the fact that Walmart won't sell it)? Can anyone really stop me if I wanted to put an a game online for purchase having no rating?

Re:Letters of Compliance?

[Chosen Reject]

No one can stop you from making any game and selling it online. You could make the most raunchiest, violent and out of taste game you want (provided it is legal, i.e., no child porn) and sell it online. Don't expect Walmart (or any games retailer for that matter) to sell it, don't expect it to be on any console, and don't expect to make very much in the way of sales. But you can do it and no one would stop you. This happens all the time with movies. There are loads of movies that are unrated. Some of them simply because they didn't go through the process of being rated, while others because they knew they would get a terrible rating anyway. You can find those movies in art houses, online, and/or in porn shops (depending on the movie). They are out there in droves. Same thing could be true of video games.

Re:Letters of Compliance?

[Langfat]

In a ridiculous double standard, you can also find them at Walmart

Funding

[Anonymous Coward]

"makes me believe that they are "funded" by those with certain political motivations."

The ESRB is funded by the Entertainment Software Association, a trade group of software publishers who offer services to their members (customer research, IP, etc.).

What you are seeing is a classic reaction to a "bad" child among the bunch; one who created an incident and then lied about it, creating the impression of the ESRB not having control. The result is a classic flip to the extreme in enforcement to prove the system works and no intervention is needed. Why should we be surprised?

What's the big deal?

[jwriney]

This makes sense. I mean, when DNF started development, the ratings icons were written on, like, scrolls. Or chiseled into stone tablets.

"Take ye heed - yon game containeth much violence and bare wenches"

--riney

Re:What's the big deal?

[justkarl]

This makes sense. I mean, when DNF started development, the ratings icons were written on, like, scrolls.
 
So was the game code.

Wow...

[Steauengeglase]

"Unfortunately, due to 3D Realms' lack of experience submitting games to the ESRB..."

Talk about salt in a wound.

The ESRB is fine

[VoxMagis]

I can't believe how much complaining about the ESRB there is here. Does anyone that plays games understand that if the ESRB wasn't doing what they are doing, including tightening up, that the government would take over in a SECOND?

Which would you rather have:
      - An industry-run system that allows parents (I am one) to at least look at a box and understand why something is rated in a certain way?
      - Every game monitored by a politically controlled, possibly even politically appointed, group of non-game people, with some rejected outright and others put behind glass, or only available at certain stores?

Seriously kids, just because there is a T or an M on a box doesn't mean somebody's tinkling in your cheerios.

Re:The ESRB is fine

[Chr0me]

Does anyone that plays games understand that if the ESRB wasn't doing what they are doing, including tightening up, that the government would take over in a SECOND? Then you get into a First Amendment issue, which is why nearly all of the ratings systems in the U.S. are voluntary industry-run system. While the TV rating system had input from the FCC it is still industry run. The fear of the Government stepping in is what leads to the: Comic Code Authority, MPAA, TV Parental Guidelines, and ESRB. There is always the threat from Congress "thinking of the children," however a good number of the legislation to ban (censor/regulate content) has been struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

They may not have pissed in my Cheerios (yet), but there's been a few time that they threatened to wipe their asses with the Constitution.

Re:The ESRB is fine

[Toonol]

It's worth noting that comic books have, in the majority, completely abandoned the comic code with no ill repercussions. Some comics still have "all ages" or "for mature readers" style warnings, but that's purely at the whim of the publisher. Maybe nobody's noticed because nobody is buying comics anymore, but they're getting away with it so far. And it's not chaos. Look at one other, massive, unregulated, industry: Books. My 13 year old son can go into Barnes & Noble and buy any book there he wants, shy of some state laws regarding pornography. Why can't other forms of media follow the same pattern?

Re:The ESRB is fine

[plague3106]

Hmm, I'd rather have no ESRB and no goverment intervention, aka censorship. Yes, that's what I'd prefer most.

Re:The ESRB is fine

[Lehk228]

they will eventually, remember comic books aren't new anymore, eventually videogames won't be new and parents will be freaking over kids getting their hands on sexual or violent simstims

Re:The ESRB is fine

[CdrGlork]

That would be best for us mature gamers. If only that was feasible...

miss the point

[Anonymous Coward]

"I doubt that it would pass the scrutiny of the courts."

Doesn't matter if it would pass the scrutiny of the courts or not, nor whether publishers have "balls".

The public, and thus retailers, would require some sort of standardized ratings system, voluntary or not.

If government regs didn't pass through the courts you'd see another ESRB type system -- if the industry didn't die before that. You've let the genie out of the bottle when games went "mass-market" -- there is no going back to the days of no ratings now.

Besides, the government doesn't have to succeed in regulating the industry to effectively hurt it; all it has to do is TRY. Publishers know this.

Given all of these things, you'll never see the death of a voluntary ratings board.

3D Realms still relevant?

[shoptroll]

Aside from Prey, what exactly have they done for the industry lately? Other than providing the punchline for one too many jokes...

sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

"The ESRB was formed in response to empty threats by people like Joseph Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. Of course, they lied about the "forestalling further legislation" part."

Empty? Ha.
The public, and as a result, retailers were the real reason, not Hillary or Lieberman; they were just the vehicle by which it came.

Doesn't even matter that Lieberman and Hillary lied about the further legislation; the industry was smart enough to realize that any ATTEMPT at regulation would be a bad thing, regardless of whether it was successful or not. They don't have to succeed to destroy the industry, all they have to do is *try*.

"Only then will reform be possible."

Reform of what? The process works as it is:

1. Public asks for standardized ratings system, complains to government, companies, retailers.

2 a. Government really says to industry "look guys, set up something yourselves, we don't want to police you, if we did, it would kill you -- the public wants something to be done so either you do it or we will at least try and no one wants that"

2 b. Government says this to industry but uses rhetoric that the public thinks means they are serious about legislation in the first place.

3. Industry complies
4. Public satisfied

Re:sigh

[Man On Pink Corner]

RTF Constitution. In the USA (which I realize may not be your home country) the "public" is not given the authority to regulate speech.

There is no exception in the First Amendment for commercial speech.
There is no exception in the First Amendment for "protecting the children."
There is no exception in the First Amendment for comics, video games or pornography.
There is no exception in the First Amendment for boobies on TV.

There are no exceptions in the First Amendment, period. The Founders didn't even include any grammatically-atrocious qualifying clauses like they added to the Second Amendment. They simply did not want the government to be involved in regulating content production and distribution (the 'press' at the time.)

The trouble is, your idea of "reasonable restrictions" is different from mine, and most likely different from Joe Lieberman's, Tipper Gore's, and Hillary Clinton's. Jack Thompson has his own set of "reasonable restrictions" in mind. If the government gives weight to anyone's opinion about "reasonable restrictions", the favoritism it shows has the effect of trampling the First Amendment into the ground.

So let them try... and let the publishing industry grow a pair of balls and take the offensive for once in its life. (Well, twice, if you count Larry Flynt.)

Re:sigh

[Chosen Reject]

I think this thread is missing the part of the point. What does the industry gain by not having the ESRB? Nothing. So we axe the ESRB, go to the Supreme Court and win and congress can't regulate anything. What does that do for video games? Nothing. MS, Sony, and Nintendo still probably won't let games that would have gotten an AO on their systems. Retailers still won't be selling games that would have received an AO under the current system. However, then you would have MS, Sony, Nintendo, Walmart, EBGames, etc, etc, etc, all having their own reviewers rating the games deciding if they want to allow the game on their system or sell the game in their store. So without the ESRB it becomes much more arbitrary what is E, T, M, and AO.

However, there are lots of things that the ESRB does buy the video game industry, and very little of that has anything to do with government censorship. Parents can easily look at a game's ratings and determine whether to ignore that game or continue looking into it. It helps do a lot of weeding out. It helps parents to look at a rating and see "M - Excessive Violence and Gore" and then say "My Johnny can't handle violence" and then they can keep looking elsewhere. It doesn't matter if Johnny is 7 or 17. The parent knows their child and can make those decisions.

It also helps with the retailers and the system makers. If the ESRB (an independent third-party) rates a game one way, then MS, Sony, Nintendo, Walmart, EBGames, etc, can just take those ratings and base their policies regarding suitability off of that. That way there is only one ratings system. They also like it because it removes liability from them somewhat. Imagine what would happen if Walmart had to deal 100% with the liability of the ratings when the Hot Coffee stuff happened. People would be yelling at Walmart for releasing that game, and then Walmart would turn around and start rating games even more restrictively, possibly even telling Rockstar that they would no longer sell their games. A whole bunch of games would get censored into oblivion then. The console manufacturer's would do the same.

In other words, the ESRB isn't stopping government regulation, it's stopping hodge-podge regulation that would be even worse. It also helps parents make decisions about what kinds of stuff their kids watch. The ESRB is a good thing.

Now for the counter-arguments

Parents don't ever look at the ratings. Not true. A lot of parents don't, and they raise their voices and scream out of their own ignorance. But a lot of parents do. Part of the problem is that games are new. ESRB ratings aren't as common as MPAA ratings. Everyone in the US understands the basic differences between G, PG, PG-13 and R. Fewer know what NC-17 is. But my guess is that even fewer know what the difference between E, T, M, and AO are. More people knowing about the ratings helps. Another problem is that many people still think of video games as a kid thing, which means they think that all games are desgined for 12 year olds anyway. If we got past that stigma then people will realize that video games are just like movies in that regard. Some are for younger audiences, while some are intended for more mature audiences, and everything in between.

The ESRB is corrupt. Maybe so. Maybe they rate games according to how much you pay them or according to political pressure. My point is not to get into a debate about whether the current operations of the ESRB are perfect, only to point out the role they play and the importance of that role.

What about senators from...

[OddThinking]

New York?

Kansas?

New York again?

Indiana?

Just wondering why people seem to think all of this comes from the South, when it so often comes from other areas of the country. Sure, the South has it's fair share of crazies, but I have yet to find a shortage anywhere else. Same goes for people wanting to meddle in my life, but I haven't spent time in Montana yet, and I hear they tend to leave you alone (as long as you actually pay for stuff).

Re:What about senators from...

[WombatDeath]

I must admit that when I think of American crack-pipery I tend to think of rabid southern fundamentalists. There are other types of idiot, certainly, but those of a religious bent tend to be the ones which annoy me the most. And since the south apparently has more hard-core religious people it presumably has a greater number of insane hard-core religious people, other things being equal.

I have no idea whether or not the south actually has a higher proportion of lunatics than the rest of the country. I get that impression, possibly unfairly, but I'm not sure that there's an accurate measure of religious insanity.

Re:What about senators from...

[Skye16]

Don't, for a second, think I'm claiming that the only crazies we have are in the south. Believe me, I've got more than a few neighbors who are trying to outdo anything at all many in the south find acceptable. I'm not claiming that. I am, however, claiming that evangelical christianity, which overwhelmingly (on a congregation by congregation level - i'm sure there are exceptions within each (or even most) congregations) supports the illegalization of immoral acts - is primarily located in the Southern and Midwest states. I think this image shows something of the breakdown: http://www.glenmary.org/grc/RCMS_2000/maps/Largest _Group.jpg Unfortunately, the majority of crazies I've run across have always been crazy on a religious level. There are a few that are just flat out crazy for non faith-based reasons, but the vast majority I've had to experience are not. That image is one of the overriding reasons why those of us in the North thinks the "South" is fucking wacko, as a whole. It's not as if we honestly believe *everyone* in the South is batshitfuckingloco, but enough of them are there (relative to other locales) that we want as little to do with the area as possible.

The icons are trademarks - ESRB is in their right

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is the ESRB icons are TRADEMARKS, and no one is legally permitted to use them without permission (mainly through a contract you agree to when you submit the game for a rating). Seeing as those are TRADEMARKS, the trademark owner must protect the use of that mark. This is true of ALL trademarks, be it the Pepsi logo or "Grandma's Jam".

Miller has been in the game business for a LONG time. For him to whine and plead such ignorance to something so common within the business world (trademarks and trademark usage) that I am just left speechless and wondering if Scott wasn't drunk, or lacking sleep. How detached from your own industry do you have to be to not know the simple facts about trademark usage? Ridiculous!

ESRB is just being stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The ESRB is being stupid in this matter.

And by stupid, I mean really dumb.

They could have sent warning, with a longer deadline and information on who to contact at ERSB with details on how to get into compliance or to appeal the notice.

After all this web site and these out of compliance games/icons have been up for YEARS. What's another 30 days or even longer? The ESRB could have even extended the compliance deadline to 'when it's done'. Sorry it juslt slipped out.

Instead they pissed all over one their member companies that makes the ERSB possible.

Then the ERSB continues to rail on about 3D. Just shut up ERSB. Or if you can't, then apologize for being stupid and offer to work with 3D - they are one of your benefactors/customers after all.

Lawyers should NEVER be in charge of ANY business decisions, EVER.

Wolfenstein 3d?

[Walpurgiss]

The scuffle began the week of July 9 when 20-year-old Garland, Texas-based developer 3D Realms, best known for the "Wolfenstein 3D" and "Duke Nukem" series, In what reality did 3DRealms develop Wolfenstein 3D instead of id software?

Re:Wolfenstein 3d?

[Ecuador]

Apogee (3D Realms now) was the publisher. id was the developer. You would see both logos on the game. Common practice in the video game world, move on.

wrong again

[Anonymous Coward]

"RTF Constitution."

Re-read my post, seems like you are having reading comprehension problems today -- it's not about the flipping constitution.

It doesn't fucking matter what you believe about First Amendment rights and whether this would be challenged in court, that's NOT the issue here. The end result would be still be bad for the industry no matter what the verdict.

The public and retailers want a system. They have the power (their purchase power $$$$), not the government.

Retailers have free choice of what products to stock based upon their customers, if customers want a ratings system, so do retailers. Market forces in direct action.

"There is no exception in the First Amendment...(blah blah blah blah)"

Rights do not exist in a vacuum and exist in relation to other fundamental rights.
You cannot lie in court and claim you are protected under the First Amendment.
Campaign finance laws exist dealing with fair political campaigns.
False advertising relates directly to what you can say in advertising.

Besides, a ratings system has nothing to do with abridgement of free speech; it's about commerce.

Re:wrong again

[Man On Pink Corner]

Re-read my post, seems like you are having reading comprehension problems today -- it's not about the flipping constitution.

In the USA, it most certainly is about the flipping constitution. The Constitution limits the scope of governmental authority very explicitly in some areas, and prior restraint on the press is literally first on the list.

If the "public" wants to play a role in content regulation, their only recourse is to not buy the content in question. You don't seem to understand that, but you're obviously in good company.

You cannot lie in court and claim you are protected under the First Amendment.

Perjury is a legitimate crime.

Campaign finance laws exist dealing with fair political campaigns.

Those laws are without exception unconstitutional, regardless of what a court says on the matter. The authors of the Constitution did not provide for the regulation of campaign financing, so there is no legitimate role for the use of force here.

False advertising relates directly to what you can say in advertising.

Fraud is not speech.

Re:wrong again

[Anonymous Coward]

"If the "public" wants to play a role in content regulation, their only recourse is to not buy the content in question. You don't seem to understand that, but you're obviously in good company."

You don't seem to understand that this is not about speech but _commerce_ and the regulation of _commerce_. Ratings do not regulate content itself, simply who the content is distributed to.

"Perjury is a legitimate crime...Fraud is not speech....(blah blah blah)."

Though your previous hyperbolic rhetoric on "nothing trumps the first amendment" seems to imply otherwise.

I'll clue you in: commerce is not speech.

Re:wrong again

[Man On Pink Corner]

I'll clue you in: commerce is not speech.

I'd say you need to tell the Supreme Court that, but again, I have a feeling they already agree with you. :-P

Commerce is not speech, but speech can be a product bought and sold commercially. Furthermore, the First Amendment comes, well, first, as in before the Commerce Clause. Its language brooks no exceptions.

I'd invite you to take your reasoning to its logical conclusion. How could any controversial books have survived prior-restraint challenges in Federal court? By your reasoning, we should have nothing to read but Mother Goose... because, hey, books and magazines are bought and sold, too.

Read Constitution before quoting it ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

"The second is that the reason the ESRB exists is because the industry realized that the alternative to self-regulation was government regulation."

Except it isn't. There are still a few courts in the US that understand the meaning of the phrase Congress shall make no law.

Before your start quoting the Constitution you should really read the entire thing:

"Section 8 - Powers of Congress
...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Re:Read Constitution before quoting it ...

[Man On Pink Corner]

How does your (quite flawed) understanding of the Commerce Clause account for the Supreme Court's history of rejection of prior restraint?

If the Federal government doesn't regulate the publication of books, movies*, paintings, or jigsaw puzzles, why are you and your friends so enthusiastic about allowing it to regulate games? What's the difference?

*: To forestall the inevitable horde of replies, no, the MPAA is not a government agency.

Re:Read Constitution before quoting it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Before your start quoting the Constitution you should really read the entire thing:

Amendments amend the original text. The original text could have said "Congress can legislate the killing of little kittens", but if an amendment says "congress shall make no law causing kittens to be killed", you can wave it around all you want, but they still can't do it.

Re:Read Constitution before quoting it ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

If the Federal government doesn't regulate the publication of books, movies*, paintings, or jigsaw puzzles, why are you and your friends so enthusiastic about allowing it to regulate games? What's the difference?

You jump to an erroneous conclusion. I am not enthusiastic about government regulation, I prefer the current industry self regulation. If you calm yourself and re-read my post you may realize that I was addressing the "congress shall make no law" comment that contracted Congress' enumerated right to regulate interstate trade.

How does your (quite flawed) understanding of the Commerce Clause account for the Supreme Court's history of rejection of prior restraint?

If Congress devised its own age based rating scheme, and banned the sale of certain ratings to minors, that would not be prior restraint. Again, its best to let industry and retailers implement any such schemes.

You need to re-read first ammendment too

[AHumbleOpinion]

RTF Constitution. In the USA (which I realize may not be your home country) the "public" is not given the authority to regulate speech. ... There are no exceptions in the First Amendment, period.

The first ammendment does not apply to the public, it appies only to Congress. Read it below. If I have a store I have the right to ban your book or game. If I am a publisher I have the right to censor part of your writings or game (assuming you did not negotiate a contract to the contrary - good luck doing so), etc.

"Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Re:You need to re-read first ammendment too

[Man On Pink Corner]

The first amendment does not apply to the public, it appies only to Congress.

It applies to all governmental entities on US soil. (Try having your small-town city council ban a particular religion and see how far you get.)

Again, the "public's" ignorance of, and/or disagreement with, the First Amendment does not invalidate it.

If a private distributor such as Wal-Mart wants to demand the formation of an ESRB-like board, that is perfectly fine.

If parents get together and demand an ESRB-like rating system by voting with their dollars, that's also fine.

If Joe Lieberman threatens to impose content legislation if the industry doesn't form the ESRB, that is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

Really. This stuff isn't that hard to understand, is it?

Re:You need to re-read first ammendment too

[AHumbleOpinion]

"The first amendment does not apply to the public, it appies only to Congress."

It applies to all governmental entities on US soil. (Try having your small-town city council ban a particular religion and see how far you get.) Again, the "public's" ignorance of, and/or disagreement with, the First Amendment does not invalidate it. If a private distributor such as Wal-Mart wants to demand the formation of an ESRB-like board, that is perfectly fine. If parents get together and demand an ESRB-like rating system by voting with their dollars, that's also fine.

If you calm yourself and re-read my post you may notice that we wrote the same thing with respect to who is bound by the first ammendment. By public I am referring to private citizens, your "city council" comment was an exceptionally poor interpretation given that I offered examples of a store owner and book or game publisher.

If Joe Lieberman threatens to impose content legislation if the industry doesn't form the ESRB, that is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

As discussed in another post, it does not. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=260273&cid=201 07825. Hint: note words like "ratings" and "minors".

Really. This stuff isn't that hard to understand, is it?

Until you improve your reading comprehension you may want to refrain from such comments. ;-)

Re:You need to re-read first ammendment too

[Man On Pink Corner]

As discussed in another post, it does not. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=260273&cid=201 07825 [slashdot.org]. Hint: note words like "ratings" and "minors".

Point 1: Citing your own post may be what amounts to law-review material at your school, but not in most cases. :)

Point 2: I'm still waiting for your explanation of why the same methodology of regulation wouldn't apply to books, movies, and other forms of media. If all you need to do to impose prior restraint is invoke the Commerce Clause, "it's only a rating system," and "we must protect minors," then how come the last five thousand or so attempts to regulate print publishing have been shot down by various courts?

Re:You need to re-read first ammendment too

[AHumbleOpinion]

Point 1: Citing your own post may be what amounts to law-review material at your school, but not in most cases. :)

Wow, you are just one bad guess after another. I cited the other post two avoid redundancy, to avoid two threads discussing the same point(s) in case others joined in. Your "this stuff isn't that hard to understand" comment just keeps getting funnier. ;-)

Point 2: I'm still waiting for your explanation of why the same methodology of regulation wouldn't apply to books, movies, and other forms of media. If all you need to do to impose prior restraint is invoke the Commerce Clause, "it's only a rating system," and "we must protect minors," then how come the last five thousand or so attempts to regulate print publishing have been shot down by various courts?

Again, there is no prior restraint. You may make and sell whatever you want to adults. However the courts do consider restrictions with respect to minors reasonable. Stores are prohibited from selling Playboy magazine to minors for example.

Re:You need to re-read first ammendment too

[Man On Pink Corner]

Stores are prohibited from selling Playboy magazine to minors for example.

It'll be good to hear you cite the specific law on this one.

Hint: there isn't any. Stores don't sell Playboy to minors because they don't want to be confronted by torch-wielding zealots the next day.

Your reasoning is precisely analogous to that of the probably-90% of the population who think that it's "illegal" to let kids into an R- or X-rated movie. There is absolutely no legislation of this nature in place. The MPAA was formed under the same threats as the ESRB.

The MPAA rating system guarantees that the only movies that receive distribution are those below a particular rating, and the ESRB ratings will have the same effect. Some people have a problem with that. I don't want the only commercially-viable games to be the ones that happen to be fit for children... but for some reason, you and a hundred other apologists who show up in these threads seem to want exactly that. To back up your arguments, you literally make up laws where none exist.

I'm just calling you out on that, because the more those "b... but... but it's illegal to sell Playboy or show Fight Club to kids" arguments see the light of day, the more people believe them, and the easier they are to accept.

Re:You need to re-read first ammendment too

[AHumbleOpinion]

"Stores are prohibited from selling Playboy magazine to minors for example."

It'll be good to hear you cite the specific law on this one. Hint: there isn't any. ..."

Put learning to use google on your list of things to do. ;-)

... Stores don't sell Playboy to minors because they don't want to be confronted by torch-wielding zealots the next day. Your reasoning is precisely analogous to that of the probably-90% of the population who think that it's "illegal" to let kids into an R- or X-rated movie. There is absolutely no legislation of this nature in place. The MPAA was formed under the same threats as the ESRB.

I did a quick google: "The Supreme Court of the United States has stated many times that children can be protected from adult material and such protection does not violate the minor's First Amendment rights. Material that is inappropriate for children can be regulated but it cannot be completely outlawed."
http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/pornography/protec tchild.htm

Re:You need to re-read first ammendment too

[Man On Pink Corner]

I did a quick google: "The Supreme Court of the United States has stated many times that children can be protected from adult material and such protection does not violate the minor's First Amendment rights. Material that is inappropriate for children can be regulated but it cannot be completely outlawed."

Keep Googling until you come up with the Supreme Court's definition for 'adult material'.

Re:You need to re-read first ammendment too

[Man On Pink Corner]

Also keep in mind that you're not likely to get an unbiased view of the legal landscape from the Attorney General of Utah's web site. Major court decisions since the 1970s (where their cites all come from) have gone the other direction entirely, e.g. http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp ?documentID=13519. And gee, not a Commerce Clause citation in sight.

The Indianapolis case, and the Supreme Court's refusal to grant cert to it, is the one that really makes it impractical to dictate content restrictions to retail game publishers.

The decisions referenced on the Utah site are aberrations. Go back a bit farther than 30 years, and you'll see stuff like the Comstock Laws being cheerfully upheld by the Supreme Court. Want to see that happen again? By all means, write your Congressman and ask for more anti-video game legislation.

My whole point being, don't give the Tipper Gores of the world any legal ground that they haven't actually taken.

Re:You need to re-read first ammendment too

[AHumbleOpinion]

I did a quick google: "The Supreme Court of the United States has stated many times that children can be protected from adult material and such protection does not violate the minor's First Amendment rights. Material that is inappropriate for children can be regulated but it cannot be completely outlawed."

Keep Googling until you come up with the Supreme Court's definition for 'adult material'.

Irrelevant. Your claim that restrictions related to minors are a first amendment violation has been debunked as false. In short, there is precedent for restrictions.

Re:You need to re-read first ammendment too

[AHumbleOpinion]

Also keep in mind that you're not likely to get an unbiased view of the legal landscape from the Attorney General of Utah's web site. Major court decisions since the 1970s (where their cites all come from) have gone the other direction entirely, e.g. http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp ?documentID=13519. And gee, not a Commerce Clause citation in sight. The Indianapolis case, and the Supreme Court's refusal to grant cert to it, is the one that really makes it impractical to dictate content restrictions to retail game publishers.

You are mistaken. The case you cite is very different. This case involves coin operated machines that were in public where a child could see the screen as an adult played. In such cases the court has to balance the right of an adult to play with the right of a child to be in the establishment and incidentally see the game. That is an entirely different set of facts compared to a clerk selling a mature rated video game to a child over the counter. Your citation is irrelevant.

Re:You need to re-read first ammendment too

[Man On Pink Corner]

I guess we'll just have to see, then. Your stance has not fared well in the courts for the last 20 years or so.

Learning ESRB guidelines by Trial and Error?

[mr_rattles]

Unfortunately, due to 3D Realms' lack of experience submitting games to the ESRB, it would appear that they were unaware of the various industry guidelines in place and the consequences of not complying with those guidelines.

So how I'm reading this the ESRB is basically saying you can't go out and read the guidelines and be able to submit a game with much success on your first couple of attempts, you have to submit a bunch of times and through trial and error you'll figure out how the guidelines work? It's pretty ridiculous to suggest that the only way you can successfully submit games is by having past experience submitting games.

The South will rise...

[OddThinking]

...only if everyone else lets it.

Everyone should remember where the majority of lawmakers are from - hint: not the south or the midwest. Both the south and midwest do have a disproportionately large representation in the Senate, but not so in the House. Even in the Senate, I would consider the south and midwest to have no more than half the vote (depends on where you draw the lines).

Doesn't it annoy you that, even with the majority of the vote coming from outside these "trouble" areas, you still have to worry about morality legislation? If it does, consider blaming someone other than religious and/or southern "crazies".

History lesson

[pnuema]

With that said - those people who *are* religious bible bangers can go form their own country.

They did - and called it "The United States of America".

Re:History lesson

[Skye16]

Actually, those religious bible bangers just formed their own colony.

Their descendants, however, decided it would be a better idea to form their own country *without* religious requirements enshrined in laws. It was good in theory, but people can never leave well enough alone.

MOD parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod it up! It's the only sane posting here. Everyone else is just reacting in ignorance, unfairly chastizing the ESRB.

That depends...

[SvnLyrBrto]

> One or two established publishers stop going through the ESRB. In this case, the move
> would first be noticed by two groups: Retail store buying agents who might notice that
> some games suddenly dropped off the list of what company policy allows them to buy,
> and fans of those publishers' games who might notice that suddenly they can't find them
> in any retail stores. Both of those would move on to the available alternatives.

That depends a lot on who those one or two publishers are.

If some two-bit developer from Armpit, Texas; who's really doing nothing more than living off past glories and empty promises were to take this stand; then yes you're right, they'd die an ignominious death and be quickly forgotten.

If it were someone like Square, EA, or Blizzard who were to grow a pair and take the principled stand that they were no longer going to be censored by the bunch of nosy busybodies that are those esrb people; than the results would be different. Denied their Final Fantasy, Madden or World of Warcraft fix, they'd be at the gates of EBgames, and the like, with torches, pitchforks and ropes, and a makeshift gallows. Having had their lynching, they'd promptly flock to whatever retailer didn't give in to the xtian-right goonsquad and buy the games they wanted; accepting no substitutes. Seriously... have you ever met or seen those people?!?!? FF, Madden, and WoW player cosplay as their favorite characters, FFS!!! Those people are stone-cold fanatics!

cya,
john