Slashdot Mirror


Crytek Considers Leaving Germany Over Game Law

Heise is reporting that the largest German game developer and makers of the much-anticipated upcoming title Crysis, Crytek, are considering leaving the country in anticipation of a new restrictive law. "The Conference of Interior Ministers (IMK) of the countries had unanimously decided on a production and distribution ban for violent computer games for the first time in the end of May. The responsible Federal Ministry of Family Affairs is presently working on a less drastic draft of a law for the protection of children and youth. Instead of only the previous 'violence glorifying' games, also the 'violence dominated' games should be indexed by the Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons (BPjM) in the future. These may then no longer be advertised and sold to youths."

124 comments

  1. Old news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Old news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Jack Thompson is furiously smoking a crack pipe and muttering to himself in german about the nature of violence...

      If Crytek actually *does* change location due to legislation like this, I think that *IS* news. Otherwise.. meh.

    2. Re:Old news? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      It's quite possible that they're just considering it again.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  2. This should not exist anywhere by Sciros · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons"

    As socially progressive/liberal as Germany is in many ways, the sheer fact that it has such an organization is astounding and disappointing to me. First of all, it sounds way too much like something only a "Totalitarian Regime"(tm) would have. Second, it's such a misappropriation of resources it's laughable.

    --
    I like basketball!!1!
    1. Re:This should not exist anywhere by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, yes and no. Just by the name, you can't be completely sure their purpose. Maybe they approve videos appropriate for classroom viewing? Maybe they are the organization that enforces not selling porn to minors?

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:This should not exist anywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah because no way could liberalism ever end in ridiculous nannyist control over everyone's every thought or action.

    3. Re:This should not exist anywhere by Sciros · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heh, on that note, given the average German high-schooler's attitude/approach to sex, they might as well *market* porn to minors for all it matters.

      Maybe I was a bit too surprised when a close relative of mine in Germany first nonchalantly said something like "oh, here everyone's slept with everybody" w.r.t. her school... it's like, thanks but I didn't really need to hear it from you T_T

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    4. Re:This should not exist anywhere by nuzak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Meh. At least Germany wears its totalitarian nomenclature on its sleeve. In the USA, the same department would be part of the Department of Commerce, created by part 79, paragraph 34, section 5(b) of the Oil Drilling and Cuddly Puppy Recognition Act.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    5. Re:This should not exist anywhere by icedcool · · Score: 2

      You'd think they would have learned from certain incidents back in the 1940's. Any censorship in general is bad.

      --
      Most people aren't thought about after they're gone. "I wonder where Rob got the plutonium" is better than most get.
    6. Re:This should not exist anywhere by sykopomp · · Score: 1

      The US isn't the only country that's suffering a conservative revival. Even in France, the cons are making a big fuss (and taking over the gov.) It seems to be a pretty widespread phenomenon in the western world atm. At least good ol' Scandinavia is still liberal and awesome. Fuck Canada, I'm moving to Norway.

    7. Re:This should not exist anywhere by Clazzy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think they're under the impression that censorship in the "right areas" will prevent that kind of thing from happening again. Your guess is as good as mine on this, though.

      --
      If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards... Checkmate.
    8. Re:This should not exist anywhere by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      What are you surprised about more? The idea that a liberal country would be like this or that your understanding of liberal might be wrong?

      There have been some conservatives out for a while claiming the liberals are like that. I personally expected something like that from Germany but never expected it to go as far as it did. However, I have looked past the liberal is this and conservative it that rubbish people attempt to force us and look to what is actually going on. You see the friendly liberals wanting to Vchip your TV and Flag the broadcasts, They wan't to censor music, movies and videos and all that.

      Don't get me wrong, It isn't a case or the conservatives being innocent on this. It is just that I expected it from them. Kipper Gore or whatever her name is, along with the liberal hillary (Mrs. clinton) have led the charge at stuff like this. Step far back and take a look. I'm willing to be that a lot of things you think about liberal/conservative/fascist/whatever are different in practice.

    9. Re:This should not exist anywhere by aichpvee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, liberal means what we think it means. These people just aren't liberal. Anyone who thinks that Hillary Clinton is a liberal in any sense is a fool.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    10. Re:This should not exist anywhere by Shihar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, but the Department of Commerce would be lynched by the courts if they tried to even think about this level of bullshit. In fact, that is exactly what has happened. Various regulatory branches and legislators made up of in-bred idiots who have apparently never read the constitution have tried multiple times to pull such worthless crap and been shot down.

      Say what you will about the US, but that Bill of Rights is a mighty fine thing to have. It certainly has been eroded over time, but it did just fine smacking down another handful of anti-video game laws this year.

      Personally, I find Germany a nice to place visit, but considering the crap going on there, I wouldn't want to live there.

    11. Re:This should not exist anywhere by samkass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This attitude is somewhat ironic. In Germany, content with nudity and some sex are not banned but violence is, while in the United States you're not allowed to see an exposed breast as a kid but you can buy a game in which you blow people's heads off and have their blood splatter everywhere. It's not really about the degree of regulation, but about the values of the society.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    12. Re:This should not exist anywhere by koi88 · · Score: 2, Informative


      In Germany, content with nudity and some sex are not banned but violence is

      That's exactly the point. There would be no nipplegate in Germany.
      Whenever American friends come to visit here in Germany, they are surprised about the "level of nudity" you can see in public TV. You can see completely naked women in shower gel ads in the afternoon, but nobody would be shocked about that.
      However, there is this tendency of some politicians to blame violent video games for everything that goes wrong with a young guy. I think this is stupid, but I know a lot of people who agree with these politicians.

      --

      I don't need a signature.
    13. Re:This should not exist anywhere by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      What better marketing is there than saying "you're not allowed to have this"?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    14. Re:This should not exist anywhere by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Or they learned that where there's a will there's a way and all the anti-censorship laws in the world won't stop a dictator from censoring things.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    15. Re:This should not exist anywhere by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Fuck Canada, I'm moving to Norway. I wonder what the best option is among English-speaking countries.

      I basically just want somewhere that won't bother me for owning a gun, hunting, playing any type of video game I want, and whose government won't bitch about porn like it's the epitome of all evil. Cheap broadband and low cost-of-living wouldn't hurt :).
      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    16. Re:This should not exist anywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? It fits our general populace mindset pretty good. Most of Germanies "social progression" (whatever that is) is just another facette of a population that almost generally trusts authorities and thinks those could solve almost anything.

      It's a pity and I have the feeling that this country is slowly turning into the old GDR.

    17. Re:This should not exist anywhere by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      I basically just want somewhere that won't bother me for owning a gun, hunting, playing any type of video game I want, and whose government won't bitch about porn like it's the epitome of all evil. Cheap broadband and low cost-of-living wouldn't hurt :). Uhm... Texas?
    18. Re:This should not exist anywhere by hauntingthunder · · Score: 1

      oh and the banning of ww2 models with swaticas on has been so sucsessful in curbing neo nazi parties. BTW Crytek come to Bedford in the Uk its a nice town near to london 35 min on train (ill get the local MP to open your new offices :-)

      --
      You will never get to heaven with an Ak 47... But A Zu 30 is good for Low Flying Cherubim
    19. Re:This should not exist anywhere by nuzak · · Score: 1

      Various regulatory branches and legislators made up of in-bred idiots who have apparently never read the constitution have tried multiple times to pull such worthless crap and been shot down.

      Shot down again and again and again and again and again and ....

      Eventually, they get some kind of "compromise" that sticks, but it always pushes in their direction. Then they start over again.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    20. Re:This should not exist anywhere by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      All English speaking countries are a pretty bad bunch on this. I'd recommend learning another language. But if you MUST choose an English speaking country, I think New Zealand probably meets the most of your above criteria - just stay out of Auckland. Preferably somewhere much further south like Dunedin is good for the "do what you want as long as you're not hurting anyone" attitude.

      (please note: attitude, not law. The law isn't too bad there, but there's still some pretty screwed up ones)
      (second note: live on a farm, it's easier to get a gun then)
      (third note: I grew up in NZ, but I live in Germany these days - and I'm LOVING IT HERE. Stupid laws exist everywhere. Overall, the only place I've ever been happier with life and a feeling of personal liberty than here in Germany was when I lived in the Netherlands (which I'm only a few hours drive away from now anyway (I don't live there anymore, but only because I have a job here)))

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    21. Re:This should not exist anywhere by sykopomp · · Score: 1

      Scandinavia is basically English-speaking. Pretty much everyone in the cities is fluent in English, and they do a lot of business in English. I'm not sure about Norway, but I know Finland (aka Winland) actually has some local TV stations that broadcast in English with Finnish (or maybe it was Swedish...) subtitles. Plus, after 2-3 years living in a country and being immersed in a language, it's not too hard to learn it fluently.

    22. Re:This should not exist anywhere by mjhacker · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're so sensitive about violence because of WWII? And they're afraid of not looking like they're doing enough to make Germany a peaceful country?

      Just speculation on my part.

    23. Re:This should not exist anywhere by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Maybe I was a bit too surprised when a close relative of mine in Germany first nonchalantly said something like "oh, here everyone's slept with everybody" w.r.t. her school...

      I guess that's one way of making the job of a teacher more appealing ;).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    24. Re:This should not exist anywhere by PhoenixOne · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the US in the 1970's.

      God! The 80's sucked! :p

      --
      Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
    25. Re:This should not exist anywhere by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      While the UK nanny state has not emulated the banning of games yet, I think it is quite possible they might do so in the future. In some regards, the UK is already worse than Germany.
      I think it would be smarter for Crytek to do what they hinted at and make their office in Budapest the new headquarters ;-)

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
  3. I'm gonna coin a new word here: by Stanistani · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nannyfascist.

    1. Re:I'm gonna coin a new word here: by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:I'm gonna coin a new word here: by Stanistani · · Score: 1

      ...seven results on Google means I came close. ...except that one of the results was two years old. Drat!

      How about NannyNazi? Nope. Four results. Snick.

      NannyFürher? There we go...

    3. Re:I'm gonna coin a new word here: by BUL2294 · · Score: 1

      Nannynazi?

      --
      Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
    4. Re:I'm gonna coin a new word here: by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      Yeah dude, like 3 people, according to Google... in this case he came up with a pretty fucking original phrase, I'd say. ;)

    5. Re:I'm gonna coin a new word here: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not think that word means what you think it means.

  4. I can't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are authoritarian governmental forces in Germany?! What's this world coming to?

  5. Piss people off enough and they move by Applekid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This really shouldn't be much of a surprise. If a government essentially makes your business illegal, you've got three options. Close shop, move, or go underground.

    I have empathy for the Germans, but, let it happen. Let the gaming entertainment industry leave. Let the nanny-state take over. Then pay attention as crime doesn't go down, as youths don't magically become better adjusted, as tax receipts go down due to industry lost.

    Look how long it took for Prohibition in the US to be tossed out the window. Look at what the War on Drugs STILL hasn't managed to succeed in. And, compared to gaming, these two examples are MUCH more important.

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
    1. Re:Piss people off enough and they move by Pojut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look at what the War on someDrugs STILL hasn't managed to succeed in.
      Fixed.
    2. Re:Piss people off enough and they move by Corporate+Drone · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This really shouldn't be much of a surprise. If a government essentially makes your business illegal, you've got three options. Close shop, move, or go underground.

      Agreed. However...

      I have empathy for the Germans, but, let it happen. ... Then pay attention as crime doesn't go down, as youths don't magically become better adjusted, as tax receipts go down due to industry lost.

      Ahh, yeah, right. Tax receipts will go down over this? Not likely, at least not in any measureable way.

      Look how long it took for Prohibition in the US to be tossed out the window. Look at what the War on Drugs STILL hasn't managed to succeed in. And, compared to gaming, these two examples are MUCH more important.

      Prohibition got tossed 'cause mainstream, voting Americans made it happen. The "war on drugs" isn't getting anywhere 'cause mainstream, voting Americans... don't really care about it. Gaming? Not even on the radar...

      --
      mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
    3. Re:Piss people off enough and they move by Khaed · · Score: 1

      Tax receipts will go down over this? Not likely, at least not in any measureable way.

      If every video game publisher closed up shop in Germany, they'd lose any sales tax revenue, and any corporate taxes the companies paid.

      It might not be much, but if other media companies followed? It might sting enough. Never underestimate how much governments value other people's money.

    4. Re:Piss people off enough and they move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look how long it took for Prohibition in the US to be tossed out the window.

      Can they tax the games instead of banning them?
    5. Re:Piss people off enough and they move by yoprst · · Score: 1

      Then pay attention as crime doesn't go down, as youths don't magically become better adjusted
      This (paying attention) never happens
      What really happens is that after "major advancments in protecting our youth" "we need to put more effort" because crime doesn't go down and youths don't magically become better adjusted. Nanny-state is like gas, it expands unless confined by sitizens. It's a form of power. They can't kill you and rape your wife, but still they can decide what you can or cannot do. That's satisfying. A moral empire is still an empire.

    6. Re:Piss people off enough and they move by KlausBreuer · · Score: 1

      And the interesting (and quite unsurprising thing) is: in 2005 more germans left their country than ever (since WW2, that is).
      145,000 people. And those are merely the ones who *say* that they're leaving - an estimate 250,000 people are simply leaving without comment. Over half of them are under 30.

      2006 there were more. The 2007 numbers will be even higher.

      Germany is not particularly evil (I know, I live here). The politicians are morons like everywhere else, so this doesn't count either.
      But they're a) amazingly bureaucratic (the lawbooks, stacked on each other, make a much higher pile than *any* other country) and
      b) they're more and more crawling into the USAs arse (which the population does *not* consider amusing).

      And now we're probably loosing an interesting company as well. Wonder where they'll really move to - not many people here want to move into the USA, as it'll probably collapse rather irritatingly in the near future...

      --
      Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
    7. Re:Piss people off enough and they move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the Leipzig games convention (running this month) is trying to fill the hole left by E3 imploding, it might be kind of hard to do if the industry is mostly outlawed.

  6. Unfortunately par for the course by Eco-Mono · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In general, I've found that the German government is extremely concerned about not repeating the mistakes of the past. Unfortunately, they seem to choose censorship as the way to accomplish that goal time and time again. C.f. laws making it a felony to deny the Holocaust (I don't deny it, but the cones who do still deserve their free speech).

    --
    (rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
    1. Re:Unfortunately par for the course by Sciros · · Score: 1

      Yeah I agree it shouldn't be a felony. Of course to be fair it also shouldn't be a felony to deliver a swift elbow to a Holocaust denier's jaw. :3

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    2. Re:Unfortunately par for the course by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Of course to be fair it also shouldn't be a felony to deliver a swift elbow to a Holocaust denier's jaw. :3

      In the U.S. at least, a swift elbow to anyone's jaw is treated as a misdemeanor assault, isn't it (as long as you don't break the jaw and the assaultee isn't a cop)?

    3. Re:Unfortunately par for the course by ShaneThePain · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Screaming at someone is considered simple assault in the US, I would know. Did 32 hours of community service for that bullshit.

      --
      Fascism is the greatest political ideology ever conceived. Sorry.
    4. Re:Unfortunately par for the course by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech is how we've gotten into most of the big social messes that we have in the last 30 years. Personally I don't think people should have the right to teach ridiculous lies to children so that they grow up thinking that the truth is absurd. Felony seems a little light for these kind of people.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    5. Re:Unfortunately par for the course by koi88 · · Score: 2, Informative


      Unfortunately, they seem to choose censorship

      While I certainly don't agree with this kind of law, I don't this this could be called censorship. Violent games would not be forbidden. From tfa: "These may then no longer be advertised and sold to youths."
      Adults (over 18 years) may still purchase these games.

      --

      I don't need a signature.
    6. Re:Unfortunately par for the course by DerWulf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who decides what can be said then?

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    7. Re:Unfortunately par for the course by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      It's a bit hard to buy such a game because putting them on shelves where minors can see them counts as advertising and many major chains won't carry something they can't put on shelves. Indie game stores will probably work, though as well as rental shops since those have 18+ sections anyway.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    8. Re:Unfortunately par for the course by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      I just wanna know whose goofy idea it is to strike first with an elbow rather than a fist? "Nerd fight!"

      I keed, I keed :).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    9. Re:Unfortunately par for the course by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Who decides what can be said then? Apparently, the "Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons".
      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    10. Re:Unfortunately par for the course by Sciros · · Score: 2, Informative

      Elbow hits harder and hurts the hitter less. Unless you hold your fist at the right angle and connect well you're liable to damage your hand. Far too many people learn this the hard way. So, not so much "nerd fight" as, say, "muay thai" perhaps... :-P

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    11. Re:Unfortunately par for the course by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      Not to question your credentials (I don't know if you're german) but are you sure this applies to germany? I live in belgium (where porn is regulated in a similar way) and it is perfectly legal to put porn on the top shelf above a bunch of video games, for instance.

    12. Re:Unfortunately par for the course by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Germany's laws differ. I'm not sure about porn but putting indexed games on shelves is pretty much illegal. It may be allowed but noone wants to risk it.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    13. Re:Unfortunately par for the course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      after a couple of elbow strikes, believe you me: you'll be begging for a fist.

    14. Re:Unfortunately par for the course by grumbel · · Score: 2, Informative

      ### I don't this this could be called censorship.

      Game magazines had to destroy whole charges of their magazines because they reviewed the wrong game, which could easily happen since the BPjM reviews games after their release, not before release. So at the point the review was written it might have been legal, but not when the magazine went to print some days later. The thing to keep in mind is that advertisement doesn't refer just to a commercial on TV, but to virtually any mention of the game in a positive context, like a simple review/preview. What the BPjM does isn't just restricting sales to minors, its censoring any kind of normal reporting on the game. Its censorship at its best and yes, theoretically you might still be able to buy such a game, practically it is close to impossible, unless you import them from some other country.

      Luckily things have calmed down quite a bit after the USK (Germans ESRB-like thingy) ratings got mandatory, since it got a lot more predictable which games get indexed and which don't, which before this was quite random and sometimes happen month or years after their release. But on the other side the USK ratings make the BPjM look even more then censorship. I mean why is there a need to index games when its already illegal to sell them to anybody below 18 years?

  7. Dieter by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    game developer and makers of the much-anticipated upcoming title Crysis, Crytek, are considering leaving the country in anticipation of a new restrictive law. Said one local, "I am so filled with anticipation that my genitals have sucked up into my body cavity."

    Google it. I can't make this shit up.

    1. Re:Dieter by notamac · · Score: 1

      I feel spent, like a man who is forced to wear his genitals around his neck like a pendant.

  8. Is the air that thin high up on your horse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Organizations and laws which regulate the media with regard to protecting minors from harmful/disturbing content exist almost everywhere. Try to say "shit" or show a nipple on American television. Ask Rockstar how they feel about hot chocolate.

    1. Re:Is the air that thin high up on your horse? by Sciros · · Score: 1

      Am I saying they're OK in the US but bad in Germany? No... in fact much of my point was that Germany *is* socially progressive (in the sense you're talking about) -- more so that the US.

      So, yeah I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, or why you assume there was something self-righteous about what I stated earlier.

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    2. Re:Is the air that thin high up on your horse? by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      It's not that liberal vs. conservatives means to ban or not to ban. Both are equally keen on shaping society through law according to their world view. Conservatives will try to ban matierial they consider 'pornographic' and liberals would want to outlaw violence in the media. Two sides, same coin. Consquently, being suprised about such an insitiution in a 'liberal' country only shows a flawed understanding of what 'liberal' means.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    3. Re:Is the air that thin high up on your horse? by Sciros · · Score: 1

      I wasn't basing my assessment of Germany on someone else defining it as "liberal." Rather, my personal experience. Also, you are confusing "liberal" with "Democrat" in the political party sense. There's nothing "liberal" about outlawing violence in the media; that's just not how the word is defined.

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    4. Re:Is the air that thin high up on your horse? by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      technically you are correct. The common usage of the word liberal is a synonym for 'democrat', at least in the US. I was using it in this sense and thought you were too. Describing Germany as liberal in the classical sense just blows my mind. You can't take a shit around here without needing government approval.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
  9. Parental responsibility, anyone? by llamalad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do we need legislation to protect children?

    Isn't that what parents are for?

    Parents should know their kids and what their kids are doing.

    Outlawing lazy/ignorant parents, I think, would be much more productive than banning video games and porn.

    1. Re:Parental responsibility, anyone? by kalirion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do we need legislation to protect children?

      Isn't that what parents are for?

      Parents should know their kids and what their kids are doing.


      You realize the same argument can be made against child molestation laws, right? I'm not trying to compare the two, just saying that you should modify your argument a bit ;)

    2. Re:Parental responsibility, anyone? by WhyDoYouWantToKnow · · Score: 1

      You realize the same argument can be made against child molestation laws, right? I'm not trying to compare the two, just saying that you should modify your argument a bit ;)

      I realize that your point was likely directed at the statements "Why do we need legislation to protect children?" and "Isn't that what parents are for?". But I believe you chose a poor comparison (yes, I know you didn't mean to compare the two).

      Child molestation (and child abuse in general) is a very damaging crime with far and wide reaching consequences. Child molestation is often perpetrated by someone close to the family and quite often the commission of the act is done very subtly and the revelation of the act comes as a surprise to others. Laws are needed to prosecute people who commit these crimes, which can be read as legislation to protect children.

      Enacting a law to prevent the sale of violent video games because some dimwitted mother decided to purchase a game rated as adult or 17+ or mature for her eight year-old and who then complained about the violence in the game is inane. This is not legislation to protect children, this is legislation to protect zoned-out, out-of-touch, uninvolved parents. If a parent doesn't want their child to play violent video games, then don't buy them. If a parent doesn't want their child to be exposed to violent video games outside of their view, get to know their child's friends and the parents of their child's friends. That is called responsible parenting.

      This law is nothing like child molestation laws. Child molestation laws are there to punish those who have committed the crime and to prevent that person from repeating the crime; thereby protecting the children. This law says "we don't think children should see this type of media so we're going to ban it"; thereby protecting the children and removing the responsibility from the parent to decide for themselves if they think it is appropriate for their child to be exposed to this type of media and taking the appropriate measures as a parent to ensure their decision is enforced.

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them."
      Marvin the Martian
    3. Re:Parental responsibility, anyone? by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most parent don't know how to be a parent. And some who think they do never become a proper parent. It is because we have a generation of kids raised by kids attempting to raise kids. They are just burdens and tax write offs now. Whenever someone offer to take part of the parenting role away from parent the majority of them say "OK, less I have to do now" or they had never even though about it long enough to know someone should have been doing it.

      The guberment needs to raise your kids because it takes a village and even if it doesn't, they can.

    4. Re:Parental responsibility, anyone? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Except that video games don't go stalking your children in the park. They sit there on the shelf waiting for you to buy them. They don't download and install themselves on your computer, and then hold the child down and make the child play the game. See the difference?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:Parental responsibility, anyone? by llamalad · · Score: 1

      You cannot possibly equate publishing Doom with accosting children. That's absolutely ridiculous and more than a little offensive.

      Legislation is no substitute for parents' being actively involved in their childrens' lives. If you don't want your children to play violent games, don't buy such things for them. If you're concerned that they'll play them at a friend's house, ensure that your childs' friends' parents' values are similar to your own. YOU are responsible for raising your children.

      Here's a better way to accomplish the desired result- make it illegal for children to possess/play such games and have consequences for parents who fail their children in this regard.

    6. Re:Parental responsibility, anyone? by grumbel · · Score: 1

      ### Why do we need legislation to protect children?

      Why should we make it extra hard for parents to do their job? Simple restriction of games to minors is perfectly fine to me, it doesn't take any power out of the hands of the parents, instead it gives them some more, since all the possibly inappropriate sales have to go through them. Really nothing wrong with that and even a lot of retailers in the USA seem to agree, since they also try to enforce ESRB ratings, even without being required from the state.

      Where things go crazy is when some clueless politcans want to outright ban not only the "Killerspiele", but even the production of them and that with a mandatory age restriction already in place. All that of course without ever explaining what those "Killerspiele" exactly are.

  10. Got you now! by Daimanta · · Score: 2, Funny

    Godwin'd in less than half an hour

    NEW RECORD!

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  11. More important... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why don't legislators ask for actual evidence of harm to children or society in general before chasing economically-productive companies out of their country?

    Is it one of those "socialism" things, or what? Somebody help me out here.

    1. Re:More important... by Duffy13 · · Score: 1

      Besides their not being any, they are either:

      a.) looking for a new scapegoat

      b.) realize that if they pursued a true investigation that would eventually reveal it's actually bad parenting, which in turn would indicate they are bad parents since they did not realize this

      I have the strangest feeling if B is ever true it's a minority case.

      --
      "Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!"
  12. germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well it makes sense, Germany has always, through out its history been a peace loving nation.

    1. Re:germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stay - go - just as long as Crysis gets released

  13. Jews consider leaving Germany over genocide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ach du lieber!

  14. Why is Germany such a scapegoat, still?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, the mishaps of the (in alphabetical order)

    Chinese
    English
    French
    Japanese
    Mongols
    Portuguese
    Russians
    Spaniards

    and many many other over the centuries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_lethal_wars_in_ world_history) and then repeated by the Germans sixty years ago, which apparently cannot be forgotten and forgiven unlike the other? Why on Earth is the WWII repeated in games over and over again? There are more interesting and more technologically advanced battles to render, if the gameplay itself is the motif:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1945%E2% 80%931989

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1990%E2% 80%932002

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2003%E2% 80%93current

    Why is Germany such a scapegoat, still?! It makes no sense. Yet, do you think that the "Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons" is a self-imposed institution? Probably it is, after all. Introspect is not that uncommon.

    - - -

    1. Re:Why is Germany such a scapegoat, still?! by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      WWII is the most recent, and now allot of games simulate "Iraq" and in the late 90's, early 2000's before Iraq there were a few "Vietnam titles" over here in the west. I think the western attitude is: "We will ban it put it on the books, wear our crosses, go to Sunday school, and fuck like catholic school girls on Sunday anyway." My deepest apologies if I offended anyones sensibilities with my choice of colorful metaphors, but I feel that its the only way I can express the reality of the situation. Anyway, it supposedly goes in cycles, were liberty is upheld and broadened and people fight for stuff like equality, until we get oppressed again, then everyone gets antsy and, comes out of the closet so to speak.... then gets repressed again... In my opinion each cycle seams a little more extreme one way or the other.

  15. False premises, false logic, false conclusion by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless you give up your job and homeschool your kids, it's kind of hard to know (let alone control) what they're doing 24/7. And I'm not sure that's desirable, either.

    I'm sure you wouldn't like to see explosives manufacturers (for example) targeting your 8-year-old kids. Buy a stick of dynamite, throw it at your friends, it'll be a blast! (add footage of cartoon character covered in soot, but still in one piece, and then everbody laughs).

    Likewise, some people think that certain kinds of games (or certain kinds of movies, powertools, guns, junk food, industrial chemicals, cigarettes, liquor, etc.) should not be advertised or sold directly to children. It's a crazy notion, I know...

    Your talk about "banning videogames" suggests that you don't know what this law says, and didn't even bother to RTFA (in fact, it looks like you didn't even read the fucking summary, let alone the fucking article). The law doesn't "ban" any games and doesn't even forbid children from playing those games. All it says is that the games can't be advertised or sold directly to children. If your kids want to play it, they can simply ask you to buy it for them.

    So you see, this law is exactly what you were asking for: it "outlaws ignorant parents" by making sure they are informed, and forces them to make a conscious decision.

    What Crytek is doing here is called "getting free publicity". Their "threat to leave the country" is nonsensical, for two reasons:

    1. The place where the game is developed makes no difference; the law applies to all games marketed and sold in Germany. They could move to Mars and that wouldn't make any difference.

    2. All this law does is force kids to buy the games through their parents. Is Crytek's target market "kids who buy and play games without telling their parents"? Even if it is (which I find hard to believe), there's still #1.

    1. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by TheLink · · Score: 1

      If that's the law then it sounds fair enough to me.

      Just like the many other laws preventing minors from doing/getting stuff unless their parents/guardians approve.

      --
    2. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      Actually, the parent's wouldn't be allowed to let their kids play such games. Secondly, the law prohibits advertisments so no TV spots, no posters, no standup figures, no games convention booth and no copies on retailers shelfes. This might harm them, don't you think?
      I'd act the same way: why the hell pay the high taxes if the country effectivly prevents you from selling you product?

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    3. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by nefertari · · Score: 1

      1. The place where the game is developed makes no difference; the law applies to all games marketed and sold in Germany. They could move to Mars and that wouldn't make any difference. No, the new law which some politicians propose would also forbid to make such games in germany.
    4. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      It's still a retarded law that's only introduced because they want to look like they're doing something (yeah, bringing back the Reich!) while the laws are already set up to prevent minors from getting violent videogames. All they're doing now is try to get more games forced under counters and into 18+ sections because the authorities doing that part aren't willing to obey every whim of the govt and don't just file a game as 18+ becasue some retarded wannabe Nazi needs to get some more voter support from the soon-to-be-dead.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    5. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 1

      gt; Actually, the parent's wouldn't be allowed to let their kids play such games.

      Can you please post a link to the part of the law that says that?

      gt; the law prohibits advertisments so no TV spots,

      TV spots would probably be allowed after a certain time of day, as happens with ads for alcoholic drinks, for example. The current draft of the law does not forbid advertising; it forbids advertising targetted at minors. I don't remeber any TV spots for FarCry, anyway, so even if they couldn't run TV spots at all, that would make very little difference.

      > no posters,

      Nothing prevents them from making posters as long as those aren't ads for the game.

      gt; no standup figures, no games convention booth

      They're free to have a games convention booth, as long as they limit access only to people over the legal limit (ex. 16 years of age). This is already true for games with explicit sexual content. And, inside that booth (or any other space limited to adults), they can even have all the ads and stand-up figures they want.

      and no copies on retailers shelfes.

      Of course they can have copies on retailers' shelves, just as restaurants are free to have whisky bottles and cigarette packs on their shelves. They simply cannot sell those products directly to minors.

      This might harm them, don't you think?

      Yes, I think it will (not much, though - there are still game review magazines and the internet, which is how most people learn about new games), but I don't feel the least bit sorry for them. I feel that advertising targeted at children is harmful (to the children and, indirectly, to their parents).

      This might also force game developers to be a bit more original with their future games and come up with something that's isn't just a repetition of the same "shoot everything that moves" formula. I don't mind if my kids want to play violent games, but am concerned with advertisers brainswashing them into buying and playing dumb, repetitive games, when they could instead be playing something that stimulates their intellectual abilities (regardless of whether it's violent or not).

      I guess it will boil down to the details in the final draft and on how the law is applied. If it's used to limit access to every game that shows a drop of blood, that's obviously stupid, but I don't think that limiting the marketing of games that revolve exclusively around violence is a bad thing. First-person shooters have become the junk food of the games industry, and I don't want marketing departments trying to get my kids "hooked".

    6. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 1

      In every country, "some politicians" will propose very stupid things. But this is what the Heise article says:

      "The responsible Federal Ministry of Family Affairs is presently working on a less drastic draft of a law for the protection of children and youth. Instead of only the previous "violence glorifying" games, also the "violence dominated" games should be indexed by the Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons (BPjM) in the future. These may then no longer be advertised and sold to youths."

      If this is what the law does (limit advertising and sale of violent games), I have absolutely no problem with it, and in fact think it could be a good thing. There is far too much advertising targeted at children, nowadays, and the gaming industry has been losing originality and repeating the brainless FPS formula ad nauseum.

    7. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Godwined before the end for the first sentence. Impressive.

    8. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      So it doesn't bother you (or the idiots who modded you +4, Insightful) that throwing dynamite at a kid will actually harm them, while exposing him to violent videogame content will not?

      Other than that, yeah, good argument. Dumbass.

    9. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 1

      So you equate "targeting explosive ads at children" with "throwing dynamite at a kid" ? In that case, maybe you should compare it with "beating kids to death with a stack of Doom 3 CD-ROMs".

      It's perfectly possible for kids to handle explosives (or guns, alcohol, etc.) correctly. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to advertise and sell those things directly to them.

      As to your claim that "exposing kids to violent games does not harm them", good job posting all those supporting links.

      Study after study has demonstrated that violent games make children and teenagers less sensitive to violence (not necessarily more agressive, assuming they're stable to begin with, but less likely to intervene in situations where others are victims of violence, and more likely to consider violence as an appropriate solution to problems). It has also been shown that more agressive people are naturally drawn towards violent games, which means the games can be used as an early warning sign - if the parents know their children are playing those games (which is the whole point of a law banning direct sales to children).

      Here:

      http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html
      http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8449
      etc.

      On top of that, the time that kids spend playing Doom 3 (for example) is time they do not spend doing other, more intellectually stimulating activities (which can include playing other videogames, coding, reading, playing sports, plotting world domination, etc.). In my personal experience, people who play FPS games obsessively and exclusively tend not to be very smart. Maybe they play FPS games because the other games are too complex for them, or maybe it's the other way around. More liklely, it's a self-reinforcing loop.

      While I wouldn't have any problem with my kids playing FarCry, I definitely want to know that they're playing it, and I do not want marketing departments and retailers conspiring to undermine my parental responsibility just so they can increase their profits (at my cost, no less). I don't have any problem with kids being "exposed" to violence, but I do have a problem with companies trying to shove it down their throats.

    10. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      So you equate "targeting explosive ads at children" with "throwing dynamite at a kid" ?

      Um, no, you did that. Read your own opst.

      Study after study has demonstrated that violent games make children and teenagers less sensitive to violence...

      Call me when one of those bogus "studies" actually uses the Scientific Method.

      Hint #1: that means the conclusion comes at the end of the study, not the beginning. "Here's a grant, go find some evidence for effect XYZ" is not a valid study.

      Hint #2: it also means using a meaningful control group. Find some kids who've just come in from a rough game of Cowboys And Indians, and compare their responses to the Doom 3 fans.

    11. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by grumbel · · Score: 1

      ### If this is what the law does (limit advertising and sale of violent games),

      Germany *already* has laws that forbid sales to minors (USK ratings are: everybody, age 6, age 12, age 16, age 18). Germany also has the BPjM, which 'indexes' games, which not only restricts sales to minors, but also forbids any kind of advertisement, advertisment here has a very broad definition, meaning basically every mentioning of the game in a positive context, so you can't review the games in a game magazine and even mentioning them is problematic, having them openly available in a shop is forbidden as well (yes, this is basically censorship).

      Was this new law is meant to do, is for one to apply the restriction to a lot more games then currently, so not only games with excessive violence get banned, but all games with violence (i.e. even stuff that might currently get a 'age 16' rating). Politicians however don't seem to have much of an idea what they are talking about, so its hard to guess what they actually want to restrict. And in addition to that they want to outlaw the production of such games, which would simply mean that Crytek had to leave the country or close shop.

      The current talk is really way way beyond reasonable measures to protect the children (which already are in place anyway) and deep down into the crazy-territory where you seriously have to question the the sanity of the politicians.

    12. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by DerWulf · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry but you have no idea of what you are talking about. This isn't meant as a personal attack but you obviously don't know how the german jugendschutz (and laws thereof) operate.
      I'll just debunk your first point and would ask you to get to know the actual law before arguing about it:
      From the current JuSchG (law for protection of the young)
      http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/juschg/__12.html

      (3) Bildträger, die nicht oder mit "Keine Jugendfreigabe" nach 14 Abs. 2 von der obersten Landesbehörde oder einer Organisation der freiwilligen Selbstkontrolle im Rahmen des Verfahrens nach 14 Abs. 6 oder nach 14 Abs. 7 vom Anbieter gekennzeichnet sind, dürfen 1.einem Kind oder einer jugendlichen Person nicht angeboten, überlassen oder sonst zugänglich gemacht werden,


      Translation:
      Picture-Carriers that don't have a rating or are rated 'M' according to 14 Section 2 [.. part specifies who might rate according to which law ..] can: 1. not be offered, handed over or made accessible in any way to a child or teenager
      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    13. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 1

      I see you know a lot more about psychological studies than the American Psychological Association (and the universities and institutes that have conducted long-term studies in this area). Have you considered writing to them, offering your services (either as a test subject or self-proclaimed expert)?

      Unless of course (as I think it's safe to assume), by "non-bogus" you mean "a study that agrees with your opinion".

      But look at it on the bright side, even if the study confirms all the other ones, you'll get to kill virtual people all day long without mommy and daddy finding out!

    14. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 1

      What the article says is that "The IMK had decided on a production and distribution ban for violent computer games [...but...] the Federal Ministry of Family Affairs is presently working on a less drastic draft of the law which would make "violence glorifying" and "violence dominated" games indexed by the BPjM, meaning these could no longer be advertised and sold to youths".

      In other words, only "violence dominated" and "violence glorifying" games (which I take to mean things like GTA, deathmatch games, etc.) would be banned from sale to minors and advertising, and there wouldn't be any problem with developing them or selling them to adults.

      Is the article incorrect?

      P.S. - I don't think there's any question about the sanity of most politicians; they're very clearly insane.

    15. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by sesshomaru · · Score: 1
      I really wish that some one would mod the parent post up. Reading the posts attached to this article, I see a lot of people just don't understand German law.

      It kind of reminds me of the people who don't understand that when Britain bans a game or a movie, it is actually banned. They think because you can't legally do that in the U. S. that its just some kind of extra restriction. Then I usually have to bring up Video Nasties, etc...

      Also, the people who are for this law, probably don't have to worry. I expect this measure to become law, and for video games to become even more restricted in Germany than they are now. I assume Crytek is not kidding about leaving either, since they don't want to once again experience the fun of German Stormtroopers... er, S.W.A.T. teams invading their offices again. I just don't understand why they haven't already left, but then my family saw the writing on the wall back when Bismark was in charge.

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    16. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by grumbel · · Score: 1

      The thing is that "violence glorifying" games are already banned. Both BPjM and USK are there and doing exactly that and have been doing so for quite some years, in the case of the BPjM decades. This new draft seems try to ban "violence dominated" games as well (whatever that would be, since it kind of applies to almost all games), which basically means that some politicians, who have absolutely no clue what they are talking about, want to overrule the decisions made by both the BPjM and the USK on what games are appropriate for what age. This is really doing nothing to protect the children, they already are perfectly fine protected by the current rules. This is just crazy politicians that want to ban games they don't understand (i.e. CounterStrike is for them the game where you shot schoolgirls and they can't figure out why that got an 'age 16' rating).

    17. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 1

      I don't think I've ever seen schoolgirls in CS, but I admit a lot of players behave that way. :)

      But I have seen the effects of CS addiction on some kids, so that is one game that I definitely think parents should be required to "approve". If they have to be the ones to buy the game, then at least they can't say they "didn't know" and that's "it's not their responsibility".

      Anyway, the Heise article states that the current draft of the law will only forbid advertising and selling to children. Is that not true? Does it say anything about banning the sale or development of the games completely?

      As to "violence dominated", unless it's clearly defined, I guess it will depend on the criteria of the BPjM. Personally, I interpret it as games where killing (or torturing, etc.) people is the primary objective. And if they apply it that way, I have nothing against banning direct sales to children, or advertising targeted at children.

      But, like I said on the other post, Germany does have a history of very silly videogame "modifications" (like the green blood in Doom, as if that makes any difference). I wonder if Pac-Man counts as "violence dominated", since you keep eating ghosts and being eaten by them. No, wait, that's "extreme sexual content".

      Do you have any examples of games rated as "glorifying violence" by the PBjM?

    18. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by grumbel · · Score: 1

      ### Anyway, the Heise article states that the current draft of the law will only forbid advertising and selling to children. Is that not true?

      That might be true, I haven't actually looked at the current draft. The point however is that we are *already* banning games. We have mandatory age ratings and even stricter bans (no advertisement, no public sales). All the child protection is *already* in place. So any change isn't adding any child protection at all, its just meant to go one step closer to completly outlawing anything that some politicians might not like, even if it already has a mandatory 'age 18' today.

      ### Does it say anything about banning the sale or development of the games completely?

      No, but thats the plan of some politicians and has been for quite a while.

      ### Do you have any examples of games rated as "glorifying violence" by the PBjM?

      Wikipedia has a nice list: Verbotenes oder indiziertes Medium

      I think one of the trigger events that causes this mess was that CounterStrike got a 'age 16' rating instead of getting banned after a school shooting (which didn't have anything to do with CounterStrike and everything with legal real world weapons training, but thats a different story) like some politicians wanted. Of course the politicians never had a clue about the game and still don't have, while the rating organizations hat a very in depth look at the game and the surrounding culture. So politicians just want to force the organizations to apply stricter measures against their will.

      ### or advertising targeted at children.

      Yep, but as mentioned advertising has a *very* broad definition, aka. every mentioning of the game in a positive context. So they not only ban the game, but also ban any talk about it in public gaming press. I am all for mandatory rating and stopping sales to minors, but stopping the press from reporting about a game is flat out censorship.

    19. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 1

      That might be true, I haven't actually looked at the current draft. The point however is that we are *already* banning games. We have mandatory age ratings and even stricter bans (no advertisement, no public sales). All the child protection is *already* in place. So any change isn't adding any child protection at all

      Again, the impression I get from the article is that the new draft is less restrictive than the current law, no? It says "The Conference of Interior Ministers (IMK) of the countries had unanimously decided on a production and distribution ban for violent computer games for the first time in the end of May. The responsible Federal Ministry of Family Affairs is presently working on a less drastic draft [...]"

      advertising has a *very* broad definition, aka. every mentioning of the game in a positive context. So they not only ban the game, but also ban any talk about it in public gaming press.

      In that case I'd say the problems with german legislation (and semantics) are a lot deeper than just an issue with videogames. A critique of a product, written by someone who does not stand to gain directly from the sale of that product, is simply not "advertising" by any sane definition of the term.

    20. Re:False premises, false logic, false conclusion by grumbel · · Score: 1

      ### Again, the impression I get from the article is that the new draft is less restrictive than the current law, no?

      No, its only less restrictive then what the crazy politicians wants, but its more restrictive then the current law, since it tries to also ban "violence dominated" games instead of just "violence glorifying" onces (what exactly those terms mean in terms of games I have no idea).

  16. RTFA by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 1

    Did you bother to RTFA? This law simply forbids companies from advertising the games directly at kids ("stalking" them, to use your analogy) and shops from selling the games directly to kids (picture your own analogy). See the similarity?

    Companies are still free to develop the games and kids are still free to ask their parents to buy the game for them.

    1. Re:RTFA by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      Actually the law would mean that any game centered around any form of violence could not be advertised for AT ALL. Neither could it be on shelfes (cause thats also advertising). We all know how keen retailers are to carry products they would have to hide from customers ...

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    2. Re:RTFA by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 1

      Cigarettes can't be advertised in most places but just about every coffeshop throughout Europe sells them. Porn can't be advertised, either, but the porn industry makes more money than Hollywood. So what was your point...?

      And I believe the keyword in your first sentence is "centered". Is it too much to ask that games have a plot and some gameplay beyond pressing the trigger and killing anything that moves?

      Germany has some really stupid "anti-violence" laws (which led to silly things such as changing the colour of blood from red to green in Doom), but IMO limiting the advertising and sale of "violence-centered" games to children is a good idea (let's see if they don't screw it up in the final draft of the law). Not only does it force the parents to take responsibility for their kids' education, but it also puts some pressure on developers to come up with more original, more constructive and more challenging forms of gameplay.

    3. Re:RTFA by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      Listen, you wouldn't know. Trust me: the current law already limits advertisment for M-Rated (M-Rated is much easier to get in GER though) games. It explicitly states that the product can't be showcased either. Basically you can not put anything up in the public that even mentions the games name. M-Rating is a death sentence for any game in Germany. The proposed law would extend this treatment to ALL games that focus on violence (C&C, HL, WoW etc etc pp.). The current violent game law is already much tougher than the prohibition of tabacco and alcohol sales to minors.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    4. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what is the definition of "focus on violence"? I definitely wouldn't say that HL, C&C, etc., are "focused on violence". Maybe it's a translation thing, but I interpret "focused on violence" as meaning that is the fundamental goal of the game. This wouldn't even apply to the original FarCry (where the objective is to save the girl, escape from the island, etc., and the "violence" is mostly a means of survival and self-defence).

      Several online deathmatch games, on the other hand, do focus exclusively on killing other players.

  17. What "desired result"? A fascist state? by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 1

    > Here's a better way to accomplish the desired result- make it
    > illegal for children to possess/play such games and have
    > consequences for parents who fail their children in this regard.


    While you're at it, why not prosecute parents that fail to indoctrinate their children with the state-approved worldview or religion? Surely they are "failing their children" by letting them see or think about something the Beloved Leader doesn't approve. Yes, let's turn parenting into the KGB.

    If my kids want to play Doom, and if I think they're mature enough to play Doom, it's none of the government's fucking business. But since I can't (and have no desire to) control what my kids see 24/7, I expect sane limits on what can be advertised and sold directly to them. That is what this law does; it prevents marketing departments from undermining parenting, by forcing children to buy violent games through their parents.

    Your notions of parenting and capitalism (not to mention freedom) must be seriously screwed up if you think that it should be legal to advertise and sell a certain product to children, but then it should be illegal for them to own it, with consequences for the rest of their family.

    1. Re:What "desired result"? A fascist state? by llamalad · · Score: 1

      Sarcasm doesn't come through well over the 'net.

      My "better idea" was meant to show how ridiculous the situation is. It's intended to put responsibility where it should be (on parents) but also points out the degree to which it restricts parents in how they raise their children

    2. Re:What "desired result"? A fascist state? by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 1

      How does requiring parents to know which games their children play "resctrict the way they can raise their children"? Unless your definition of "raise" means "let them do anything they want and not even be informed about it".

      If anything, forcing parents to act as intermediaries between their children and commercial corporations will force them (and, eventually, the corporations) to act more responsibly.

      I'm strongly opposed to any law that bans or criminalises access to any kind of information, but the issue here is that companies are actively marketing (potentially harmful) products to children simply because that increases their profits. And when a company has millions in marketing funds and easy access to the media, 24 hours a day, things get a bit skewed against the parents, no matter how "responsible" they are.

      Do you also think that it's "ridiculous" that kids can't buy whisky or cigarettes, in most countries?

  18. Germany destroys games by koinu · · Score: 1

    First I want to mention that I consider games as art. Many people put much effort into the production process with graphics, sound and gameplay. Each game is individual (has its special character). I am German and I won't buy any games in Germany that were originally produced for adult gamers. Why? Because they all have been changed until "child-safe". Wtf should I do with such a game? I give you one example... one of the worst things I've ever seen. Remember the game Commandos? Sometimes when you want to silently kill a soldier you have to take him on your back and pull him somewhere where you can hide the corpse. What did Germany do with this game, you ask? Well, when you kill the soldier he instanty becames a grave with a tombstone. Well you can imagine how idiotic it is to see someone carry a grave around. Then there are "war glorifying games", like Commando (not Commandos!). It's one of the first games that have been restricted here. What the hell is war-glorifying in this simple shooter with 8x8 pixel sprites? They are INSANE here in Germany. I warn you not to care about selling games here, because it is expensive to alter graphics and sound to make it "Germany-compatible". Forget it simply. Adults will buy games in foreign countries and hope that the expensive art pieces won't be discovered by the customs. And to the games industry: please don't alter games. Don't release them here, if you can't. We gamers are adults and can use our credit cards, if we really like something.

    1. Re:Germany destroys games by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Informative

      1. The censoring went down as time passed. Try Company of Heroes, it has bloody, severed limbs flying everywhere and its rated 16.
      2. Customs doesn't give a shit what games you are importing. Well, unless it's Manhunt or something because that's banned. They don't care about indexed or unrated games though.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    2. Re:Germany destroys games by grumbel · · Score: 1

      The censoring is done by the publishers/developers themselves not some government organization, if stuff looks stupid, they simply did a bad job. Censorship done right can actually be pretty cool at times, the robots in Prototector are for example way cooler then the simple Rambo look-a-likes in Contra.

  19. So what about Nintendo? by payndz · · Score: 1

    Nintendo Europe is also headquartered in Germany (I've been to their offices; it's weird, because they're on an industrial estate on the outskirts of this little village in the middle of nowhere) - what happens if this creeping nannyism spreads to include killing creatures with a sword or a bow (Zelda) or shooting aliens (Metroid) or jumping on turtles (Mario)?

    --
    You must think in Russian.
  20. It's lonely at the top. by remmelt · · Score: 1

    "Various regulatory branches and legislators made up of in-bred idiots who have apparently never read the constitution have tried multiple times to pull such worthless crap..."
    Ah, you're talking about George W. Bush!

    "...and been shot down."
    Oh wait, you weren't.

  21. damn video games! by arse+maker · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hitler played too many PS1 games back in Austria, look what happened to him! War and violence is a new phenomenon, lets burn everyone at the stake till the issue goes away. Oh and for people surprised germany has so many totalitarian laws, the funniest part is they create them to counter Nazism, apparently strict over reaching laws will stamp this issue out, oh, the delicious irony :)

  22. A new generation of political refugees ? by skahshah · · Score: 1

    Crytek leaving Germany because of a law prohibiting them to advertise and sell violent games directly to kids ? That would give the expression "political refugee" a whole new sense.

    Seriously, we already have had examples of that kind of laws. I can't remember now in which country it has been prohibited to sell and advertise some product to minors, causing all the industry, for that reason, to emmigrate, staff and employees and their families. The product was alcoholic beverages, I believe...

    I bet that law will be as efficient. The kids already know about the game, they'll be more interested in having it, they'll love the challenge, and they'll find young adults to buy it for them.

  23. Re:Unfortunately par for the course for aichpvee by Catmoves · · Score: 1

    If you'd like to be shocked (as I was) pick up an American History textbook from a teens history class. You'll have to dig through a lot of other facts in records to even understand how the "historians" could get so screwed up. Garbage in, garbage out.

  24. Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young P... by Moniker42 · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure how this is any different to the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) or the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). I'm not opposed to violence in film just because they are violence but I don't like the idea of children growing up with the idea that it's okay to run around a city shooting people where the worst thing that can happen is you are shot by police and wake up outside the hospital without your weapons. It's a fine line between over-the-top-censorship (like Wal-Mart's beeping out of expletives in all their music) and rightful prevention of exposure to the kind of violent ideas that might influence a child (a nine-year-old playing Hitman: Blood Money or Bully).

    I remember being around age 13/14 when GTA San Andreas was released, I had some contrasting thoughts. On the one hand I was fed up listening to people at school go on about gratuitous violence and it seemed to me they were becoming de-sensitized to it on some level; on the other, i enjoyed playing the game as much as they did as soon as it came out on PC - and it hasn't made me a violent person. As far as I know no-one at my school has went on to kill people for money or for the sake of it, surely realising the distinction between fantasy and reality, but I wouldn't find it hard to believe that some people were influenced by it. I think what we need is an objective study by some reputably psychologists into the way teens distinguish between reality and what happens in video games, there surely is evidence out there but I'm not aware of it...

  25. Sexy germans by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Last year I spent a couple of nights sleeping in the same place as German choir which was on tour. Everybody was just walking around naked the whole time.

    --
    No sig today...
  26. It's actually a new 'gun law' technique by Zareste · · Score: 1

    Citizens are weary of fascist governments banning weapons before a takeover, especially in Germany. But they won't notice if the government bans all media displaying violence. That is, violence not used by police. A few 'cops and robbers' games get by with no 'mature' rating as long as you play a cop shooting civilians. As a result, people are naturally defenseless with or without arms, and they fear and obey the government with only verbal protests. They just vent their anger with peaceful political drawings and debates.

    I noticed this tactic when I lived in Colorado and saw a few Mexican news channels. Things are different in the outside world. They showed wars, riots, people who actually stood up for themselves and returned fire at police. They showed raw videos of deaths and injuries in Iraq. You never see any of that on American TV. A news report of bombings will show an overhead map of Iraq, and a cute little 'bomb' symbol where the incident took place, or maybe a demolished building and a kill count. No carcasses, nobody physically getting an arm blown off. You'll see a few riots on the 'shocking police videos' shows - a high-school protest riot accompanied by the narrator, saying "Fortunately, the kids were detained with minimal deaths from police fire." A passing news report "Riots in the mid-East were quelled by police today. 45 deaths, mostly civilians. Now for sports."

    So, we believe there's nobody fighting the government and no hope for humanity. Might as well set back until the aliens kill us.

    --
    I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
  27. CryTek technology licensed to other games by trondotcom · · Score: 1

    CryTek has licensed its CryEngine, graphics engine, technology to other games like Entropia Universe from Sweden where you can kill monsters for money.

    I think that if CryTek finally needs to move won't need to go too far within Europe, but I don't think this measure is going to be too effective as Germany is not an isolated island in a globalized world.