Slashdot Mirror
Minnesota Pays Video Game Industry $65K In Fees
I Said More Ham writes "Minnesota's attorney general will drop the state's efforts to fine underage buyers of violent videogames after a high court struck down a state law as unconstitutional.
The Entertainment Software Association, one of the plaintiffs in the case, announced Monday that the state paid $65,000 in attorney's fees and expenses."
Uh, why do movies have ratings?
So that parents can have some idea of the content in the games they buy their children. And stores can implement policies preventing the sale of violent games to minors independent of the government.
ooh ooh...my turn...
Why does food have listed ingredients?
To provide the customer an objective analysis of things they or the party they are purchasing for may find offensive in the game before purchasing the game in an effort to reduce returns or unsatisfactory feelings arising from the purchase.
So, what's the point of having those ratings in the first place? Aside from letting people know if a game is gruesome or not, there's no real repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games.
Well, highlighted IS the reason for the rating system. Although the "people" in question are supposed to be the parents who are supposed to,you know , be parenting their children.
If children are buying these games without parental supervision, then they are already being trusted by their parents to have enough assets available to them to be able to do so. If their children are able to obtain the funds without their parents knowing, then they should be able to realize this when unknown 40$ games appear around the house.
Busy or not, theres correlatable signs to be able to track your childrens actions. And as a parent, no cry of correlation isnt causation will fly as you don't need a warrant to check their room.
Do apologize if you're wrong though.
Ice Cream has no bones.
This is false. It is not illegal, it contravenes the contract the most movie theaters have in place with the distributor.
What about my right to play M-rated games online without prepubescent rants about how my mother is a slut who sleeps with any guy who can pwn her n00b of a son who can't even sploit his way to the 1337 sn1p3r spots? Or listen to little Billy discuss how he discovered the joys of masturbation!
Thanks Minnesota attorney general. You really saved the day, you jackass.
too bad that 15 year didn't have GTA to play. He would have known to have sex with the hooker first.
Realize where that money comes from they're now paying, and what it was being used for in the first place.
Such things affect everyone, no matter how much he doesn't care about games. Or whatever other trivial matter that should be handled by people individually is being made a public issue.
Nannystates aren't just interfering with your privacy and free decision, they also cost a ton of money that could be spent better.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...there's no real repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games.
Just because there are no legal repercussions, doesn't mean there are no repercussions. Likewise, if your kids watch an X rated movie, the police don't bust them, but you might ground them. It's the job of the parents to raise kids, not the police.
That would be a best case scenario. But if you are a parent, and you have 3 children all aged of 12-18 (mine did at one point about 15 years ago, not the mention the 10 year old they had at that point) and the children are all interested in different things, it becomes a nightmare to try to keep track of every individual thing they want. Now, if one of the children is interested in video games, the parent should probably try to keep some handle on what the more popular games out there are, so they can easily make calls if the kid asks "Can I have this game?" However, if kid suddenly asks for "Obscure Game X" the parent might not be able to make an easy call while at the store...it's quite convenient if there are ratings in that situation. If the game is rated "E for everyone" or "T for teen" then the parent should be safe assuming it is an acceptable game for their 15 year old child. However, if the game is rated "M for mature," the parent can THEN say "Well, not right now, let me look into it a bit and I'll decide for you." Again, these are close to ideal parents in this case, but just an example of how ratings are useful, even if there isn't a law governing how games are sold based on ratings.
So the only thing ratings do is allow parents to determine whether a film is suitable for their kids?
Sounds good, let's keep it that way.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It ain't that easy.
Do you remember the Quake ad? Unfortunately I can't find that picture online, but it depicted one of those "ideal families", mommy, daddy, two kids, gathered around the computer, all smiling, the only thing that was missing was some sort of halo around them to make it a poster for some religious group.
Now imagine someone buying Quake based on that ad.
But even aside of ads, it isn't easy to find real information about a game online. If anything, you get opinions, praise and slander alike, but really little info what it's about. You also can't say that you go by producer, there is no studio that produces "only" a certain kind of games. Playing it yourself may also yield no sensible information within a few hours, or at least can't rule out that sooner or later you run into something you don't want your kids to see.
Not to mention that there are few parents who actually play well enough to get far...
So I do see ratings as a good thing to give parents guidelines. What's important, though, is to also note why a game got a certain rating. Why has a game a certain rating? Violence? Sex? Drug use? Language? I think I'm not alone when I say that a PG13 (language) is not the same for me as a PG13 (violence). I laugh at the former, you hear worse on the average schoolyard. I would at least take a look at the latter.
But what stands is that the final arbiter when it comes to what a kid can or can't see is the parents. No state, no government, no "opinion group", no lobbyist, no organisation, no company.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Because allergins can lead to severe medical problems?
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
Of course they can. But it's not illegal to sell someone milk, even if they are lactose intolerant. It's the person's responsibility to know they can't handle milk.
I can just hear you asking, "But wait! Kids don't realize that their allergens are bad for them. We currently handle selling video games EXACTLY how we handle selling milk: Making the kids PARENTS responsible for preventing them from getting their hands on things that their parents think are bad for them.
Jenny's got a new number! 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
PSOGC
Phantasy Star Online for the Gamecube for those of us left baffled.
Which is exactly the point. Ultimately parents are responsible for their children, and they should be held accountable.
TANSTAAFL GIGO Acronyms to live by!