Slashdot Mirror


Could CA Violent Game Law Lead To an Industry Exodus?

donniebaseball23 writes "Oral arguments for the California games law are set to begin on November 2. It's a hugely important court case for the industry, and if the Supreme Court sides with the legislators it could lead to an exodus of talent from the games business, says one attorney. 'Certainly less games would be produced and there would be a corresponding job loss,' said Patrick Sweeney, who leads the Video Game practice at Reed Smith LLP. 'But I expect the impact will likely be significantly deeper. I believe the independent development community would be severely impacted. Innovation, both from a creative and technological aspect, would also be stifled. The companies, brands and individuals that we should be embracing as the visionaries of this creative and collaborative industry will migrate their talents to a more expressive medium.' Meanwhile, Dr. Cheryl K. Olson, author of Grand Theft Childhood, notes that even if California gets its way, it could backfire."

109 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. No by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it would not cause an exodus. If putting age restriction and fines for violating them hurt industry, there would be no porn made in CA.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:No by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Inversely, would the porn industry be bigger or better if there were no age restrictions?

    2. Re:No by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Probably not. If anything I would suspect removing it's 'bad' mystique would cause sales to fall.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:No by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Really? I don't think sex is one of those things that people like just because its Taboo. I think a lot of teenage boys 12 and up would be venturing into Adult Source and buying stuff if it were legal to sell it to them.

    4. Re:No by Surt · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the 12-18 block has the most intense levels of urges, the least developed skills for satisfying them, and often substantial disposable income. In the years before unfathomable volumes of porn were completely free, there would have been a huge market to sell to them.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When the Hayes censorship code was adopted in by the motion picture industry in 1930 it arguably led to an in increase in movie artistic creativity. Paradoxically art often thrives in repressive environments. I'm bored with hearing special interests warn of the the end of civilization as we know it (or at least the game industry). Where there is money to be made people will find a way.

    6. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Game developers - Come to Tennessee! We know about guns and are a good spot to have an east coast distribution center. Housing here is cheaper, so you can pay a bit less and people will still be happy. It's hard as hell to find a job in the industry that isn't on the west coast or in an expensive area to live.

    7. Re:No by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Probably, but then drop off at about 24-25. Over all, probably a decline.

      While 12-18 year olds would probably have enough income for a magazine, the price goes up quite high. will, it used to. Now it's free.

      And you know what? people seem to be a lot more casual about sex these days, and I think that's going to trend towards no one cares about what other people want to do..

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ugh. /. raped my comment.

      I disagree with you. "Vanilla" sex may not be taboo anymore, but the sexual urges of pubescent children are still stigmatized beyond recognition.

      If we encouraged children to explore and understand their sexuality (SAFELY, with condoms, with consenting people of similar age) instead of ostracizing them for expressing their sexuality, or telling them to suppress their urges, I would surmise that those children would be mostly disinterested in those kinds of materials.

      To put it shortly, I think that if the sexual capacity of a human body is fully formed, it's absurd to tell that human it can't to what it's made to do.

    9. Re:No by LordNimon · · Score: 1

      the 12-18 block has ... substantial disposable income.

      Um, no.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    10. Re:No by timeOday · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I've noticed most of the politcal ads this season say the opponent's policies will "cost jobs," no matter what policy it is. "Costing jobs" is simply today's language for "do not want," exactly like "terrorism" last decade. Whatever the current bad thing is, that's what will happen if I don't get what I want.

      Note: I am not defending the California bill. I have no idea what might be in it. I followed the two links from this article and they are completely devoid of any actual factual content. Next time give us some actual information to debate.

    11. Re:No by Surt · · Score: 1

      Why would you say that? Nearly everything they make they can spend on whatever they want because others typically provide their food, clothing, and shelter?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    12. Re:No by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Assuming they can get a job in the first place. When I was that age there were paper routes available and other jobs. These days it's getting quite challenging for kids to get work, as a lot of those jobs are being taken over by adults or eliminated due to concerns about child welfare.

    13. Re:No by hedwards · · Score: 1

      You got more creative within the acceptable boundaries, but you didn't see a lot of movies being made which pushed the social consciousness either. Restraints do indeed spur creativity, but censorship doesn't do that. What it does is stifle expression and eliminate the possibility of certain stories being told.

      That's the reason why people complain about the damage it does to civilization.

    14. Re:No by hedwards · · Score: 1

      If they ran from CA it's more likely that they'd consolidate up here in WA. Seeing as we already have a video games industry. Nintendo of America, Bungie and a few others are already headquartered up here, consolidating near the others would make more sense.

    15. Re:No by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

      Only 20% of 16-18 year olds are employed, and the numbers drop off very quickly under that. A teenagers allowance is derived entirely from an adults disposable income, and generally not "substantial".

    16. Re:No by hedwards · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A measure like that would cost jobs. That sort of a ban would reduce the copies sold if by only the people who are no longer able to buy it for themselves. I doubt that it's a significant enough number to make much of a difference though.

    17. Re:No by toadlife · · Score: 1

      in fact, that cultural/technological evolution is directly proportional to sexual frustration

      That explains why those middle eastern cultures are so much more evolved than most other cultures.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    18. Re:No by Nikker · · Score: 1

      As much as I dislike this whole idea of censorship your comment made me think for a second. Maybe as far as creativity goes we have stagnated. Don't get me wrong graphical detail has increased, artistic representation of the story has gotten pretty good but it's the genres that need to change or get shaken up anyway. Right now pretty much every game needs a gun or has one anyway. Point, shoot,point,etc. Not that it's not entertaining but the only thing that's changed is the blood and gore. Now that will never change we will always have FPS but artists seem to "buck back" in some pretty cool ways when cornered and maybe this will give way to a new game maybe new meme or a new genre but the FPS will never go away. What ever the court room outcome there is way too much money to be made to close up shop and management wouldn't know a good thing if it snuck up and kicked them in the nuts, they will just put their heads down and go forward till something sticks.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    19. Re:No by archont · · Score: 1

      No underage commercial porn is made and publically released in CA. Brazil for example had it's share of commercial and interestingly enough (at the time of the 80s) legal porn flicks with underage actors before the age restrictions kicked in. While this didn't make child porn producers from CA go to Brazil, this meant the child porn in Brazil earned more than it's counterpart in CA. Well at least the official firms, we're not counting basement tapes, just like we're not interested in clandestine developers (however cheesy that sounds)

      So yes, putting age restrictions on porn means porn without age restrictions is produced elsewhere.

      No, I didn't miss the anonymous tick.

    20. Re:No by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      Yeah because underage kids have no direct access to infinite amounts of porn, violence, and naughty language... Imagine if they had something like this... we could call it the internet! This just dumb, lets face it.. EVERYONE HERE grew up with sex and violence. I remember seeing every damn Arnold Governator film, every stalone film, ever Freddy Krugar, Troma films, etc... And I remember wanting to squeeze titties. Its called growing up. We transition from child to adult.... and in that transition, we must be exposed to things at our own pace. To everyone that is different, but it happens universally for all. That is how we became adults. I used to run around int he backyard with a very realisitic looking m16 toy gun, killing imaginary people... pretending to be GI Joe... I grew up into a pretty good person I feel. My father before me, grew up with toy guns as well, playing cowboys and indians... My father is a great man. So... what is this law? Its another way for government to get its hands on the videogame industry's money. Thats all. Government is looking for every penny possible right now. I work in videogames now btw....

    21. Re:No by AtomicOrange · · Score: 1

      I slaved in a grocery store at that age for meager wages, working with morons for managers, and probably violating many OSHA codes for age-related work. I paid for gas, insurance, and taking a girl out on dates. I'd call that pretty disposable because none of those are required for a teenager - just strongly desired.

      --
      "What is there a tank on the boat? WHY IS THERE A TANK ON THE BOAT?!?" L4D2
    22. Re:No by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      Wait a second... are you saying we can get free porn now?

    23. Re:No by davester666 · · Score: 1

      This is the critical part of your statement:

      "Nearly everything they make"

      Typically, the amount of money they make is rather small. Some do get a wack of cash from parents, and some work like mad [but they tend to be goal driven, like to be able to cover the current months rent or save for college or a car].

      The ones that spend most of their disposable cash on porn normally spends their time actually consuming it, and not on working to be able to support their porn needs.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    24. Re:No by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Easy success. Make a film or game with sex or violence, and you can be fairly sure it'll sell. People *like* sex and violence. A lot. Take away those options though, and you find it takes a lot more skill to make something successful.

    25. Re:No by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Political ads have to be tailored to the current public concerns. Post 9/11, they were all about terrorism. But fear of terrorists is starting to fade now, and the new public concern is unemployment - many people lost their jobs during the recession, and many more are barely hanging on to theirs.

    26. Re:No by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "age restriction"

      What good does this do? All it does is take away more freedoms for no reason. The people who are detached from reality are the ones that honestly believe that others can't differentiate between reality and a video game. Even at the age if five I knew that video games weren't 'real'. These laws are absolutely worthless, much like stores not selling certain games because of an AO rating.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    27. Re:No by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "EVERYONE HERE grew up with sex and violence."

      Whoa! You must be a murderer and a rapist! Everyone knows that children can't differentiate between what we know as reality and entertainment! Everyone also knows that pornography is the leading cause of rape!

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    28. Re:No by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      DUDE.. if you only knew how many raped carcasses I have fucked and buried in my backyard... holy shit.... ;)

    29. Re:No by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Assuming they can get a job in the first place. When I was that age there were paper routes available and other jobs. These days it's getting quite challenging for kids to get work, as a lot of those jobs are being taken over by adults or eliminated due to concerns about child welfare.

      There are other reasons. I was watching a prime-time news program last year which was decrying the lack of such "transition jobs" available for our youth, and how that was seriously impacting their ability to enter the workforce as adults. Now, this particular program placed the blame for this entirely at the feet of the elderly. I was listening to the voiceover solemnly declare that our senior citizens were not gracefully accepting their retirement (as if some 80-year-old is working retail because he or she wants to be) and were injuring the nation's young people with their greediness, and thinking "what kind of a crock is this?"

      The final scene showed a white-haired old woman working the register at a Macdonald's, the voice carrying on about how in the past an up-and-coming young American would have filled this job, on his way to fame and glory. I almost fell out of my chair when I noticed the half-dozen Mexicans slaving busily away in the background.

      If the producers did that on purpose, it was brilliant. If not, they were just being assholes. Some of the "adults" you speak of who are taking menial jobs from children are doing so because for the past half century or more, our leaders have looted our treasury, pillaged our economy, broken every promise they, and left millions of elderly in the unenviable position of having to work until they die. Others are working people who spent much of their lives doing real work, but (for the reasons outlined above) have found themselves having to take any job they can find just to feed themselves and their families.

      Yes, Mr. President(s), and members of that august committee known as "Congress", you did this. I hope there is a God, because that means there's probably a Satan around here somewhere, and I think most you know where you'll be going.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    30. Re:No by Surt · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of substantial as being in the $20/wk range. That would be plenty to drive a multi-billion dollar porn industry.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    31. Re:No by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The biggest reason why there are so few jobs for youths today is wealth. Yes, I'm serious. Wealth has made employer time a very pricey resource and something businesses have gone to great lengths to replace with machinery or avoid completely. The primary industries (farming, lumbering, fishing etc.) are now full of machinery instead. Same with all the production industry, there's hardly people moving things around or packing crates, it's conveyor belts and machinery. The service industry isn't quite as badly affected, but they too try to automate.

      My dad and I have many times gone making firewood. We have a chainsaw and gasoline-powered cleaver and the forest has been ours, but when you start summing all the costs we're still starting to lose money on it. If it's not too steep, today they just have big machines that grab a tree and does all the cutting and either takes the pieces with them or leave it for another big machine to pick up. Compared to that, all the "manual" cutting we have to do with the chainsaw, the rounds carrying it back and chopping it with the machine just doesn't pay off. Another manual task that is simply gone, only thing left is for some highly specialized machine operators who might just as well be 50 where they sit in their control chair.

      Don't be surprised if in another 10 years, the back end of a McDonalds store is a burgerbot and the staff is just feeding it orders on what to make - despite it already being a very low cost job. When you're serving dollar menus then the staff wage makes up a great part of it after all.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    32. Re:No by arkenian · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of substantial as being in the $20/wk range. That would be plenty to drive a multi-billion dollar porn industry.

      A teen today making $20/wk. is likely to try to spend most of spending time with real people, and lame attempts at getting real sex, over porn, I think. That's basically one date a week..... (and only for a very teenager definition of date, I should add)

    33. Re:No by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      The biggest reason why there are so few jobs for youths today is wealth. Yes, I'm serious. Wealth has made employer time a very pricey resource and something businesses have gone to great lengths to replace with machinery or avoid completely. The primary industries (farming, lumbering, fishing etc.) are now full of machinery instead. Same with all the production industry, there's hardly people moving things around or packing crates, it's conveyor belts and machinery. The service industry isn't quite as badly affected, but they too try to automate.

      Those are the usual arguments against automation, the same ones made by the Luddites so many years ago. The reality is that a machine is a machine, and it's the choices we make that determine how beneficial they are. We, as a society, have been making some very bad decisions in recent decades, and yes, the result of those has been a transfer of wealth from the middle class to government and foreign corporations that is unprecedented in U.S. history, but it doesn't have to be this way, nor do we have to throw away advanced technology and the benefits it does offer.

      Like most matters involving human beings and whatever passes for civilization at any given point in time, it's a matter of finding the right balance. America actually did a pretty good job of that, for a long time, but like every economic and/or military empire since we first starting building those things, we're collapsing from within, from our own inability to guide our own future to the betterment of all. Do I have all the answers? No. But there has to be one, or we're thoroughly screwed.

      Still, some would argue that if a machine can do it, a person is better off doing something else. Others would say that that's ridiculous, 99.99% of humanity isn't capable of doing anything more complex than running a punch press, so we need to limit the spread of technology, hold ourselves back, in order to accommodate the relatively mindless majority.

      The answer is somewhere in the middle, as it often is.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  2. Tip: by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    If it's a hugely important case for the industry, you can spend a sentence describing the law.

    1. Re:Tip: by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2, Informative

      "You must be over 18 to buy an M rated game."

    2. Re:Tip: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      "You must be over 18 to buy a violent game

      FTFY. This law doesn't recognize ESRB ratings. The standards for this law are much lower.

    3. Re:Tip: by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 1, Troll

      We already do the same thing for porn, you have to be 18 to buy it. If someone wants to argue seriously that violence isn't as harmful as depictions of sex, and therefor doesn't require an age limit, i'm all ears.

      Until then, this law is actually a step in a less hypocritical direction, albeit an even more ridiculous one since limiting access to information based on content is both more offensive and more dangerous than anything a teenager could see in a video game.

    4. Re:Tip: by demonbug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no law, federal or state, that prohibits theaters from showing R (or higher) rated movies to minors. It is all voluntary, from the ratings issued by the MPAA to the individual theaters enforcing those ratings. The fact that lots of people do think it is actually illegal for minors to see these movies just shows that there is really no reason for the gaming law - the film version was struck down in 1965 (according to wikipedia) but the "voluntary" system still seems pretty effective (though I do seem to recall managing to get into numerous R-rated movies before I was 18).

    5. Re:Tip: by LrdDimwit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about the fact that it is not illegal to let a minor into an R-rated movie? Many people think it is, but in fact it is not. If a movie theatre lets someone under 17 into an R-rated movie, nobody is fined or imprisoned. Someone might get fired, but getting fired is a far cry from being subject to prosecution. Instead, the theatre chains all have agreed to voluntarily impose policies enforcing the ratings. Note that exactly the same is true of all the major game retailer - and modern game consoles come with parental controls, which when enabled won't allow games of certain ratings to be played.

      This law would create an entirely new kind of legal trouble just for violent video games that doesn't exist for any other medium. In my book, that's reason enough to oppose it.

    6. Re:Tip: by vell0cet · · Score: 1

      I'll bite.

      There are many MANY works that are considered appropriate for minors although they contain graphic depictions of violence. Lord of the Flies, Ovid Metamorphosis, The Iliad, the Three Little Pigs, Little Red Riding Hood... hell... the BIBLE!

      However, (with the exception of the Bible) there are few (if any) depictions of sex that are in adolescent literature. American history itself is filled with a lot of violence. But you'd be hard pressed to see any documented record of detailed sex.

      For all those people that say we're already doing the same for porn, I've got a good example for you. When was the last time you saw any porn that had real artistic merit? That really told a great story. I think it's telling that Stanley Kubrick, one of the greatest directors to ever live had his last movie Eyes Wide Shut significantly censored so as not to be labeled porn just so that it could be released in theaters is indicative of the type of censorship that would arise.

      You would cease to have games that have graphic violence in them just as mainstream movies don't depict sex even when it's part of the story because people wouldn't make them. Imagine Dead Space without graphic violence... not quite as effective a game, is it?

    7. Re:Tip: by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "I'm all for anything that forces parents to pay more attention to what their kids are doing for entertainment."

      Why? Are you one of those people that are so detached from reality that you believe that others can't differentiate between reality and video games? I could do that at five, and probably even younger if I would have had games.

      No, what we need is more freedom, not censorship. Why should parents lock up their children in a bubble because the parents are idiots? There is no conclusive evidence (read: absolutely none) that proves that video games lead to violence, and yet they are still trying to pass this law, and idiots are still saying that parents, for no reason, should restrict what games their children can buy (provided they have money) or play. If the parents don't want to buy it for them, fine, but if the child has money, there is absolutely zero reason they shouldn't be able to buy a game where they play as an imaginary character. We don't need parents to indoctrinate children with garbage. Society does that well enough on its own. What we need is actual choice. What we need is to utilize basic logic.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    8. Re:Tip: by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      "When was the last time you saw any porn that had real artistic merit?"

      Interestingly, if you showed some serious artistic porn, many people would simply deny it could be porn. Take, for example, this image:
      http://www.abm-enterprises.net/leda-swan-da-vinci-student.jpg
      Here we have a naked woman, with exposed breasts, holding on to a swan. The swan matters, as this is based on the myth of Leda - and her relationship with that swan is very much sexual. Draw something like that today, and it'd be called soft-core pornography. What kind of pervert would draw a picture involving sex with a swan? Leonado da Vinci, considered one of the greatest artists ever to have lived.

      I could post far, far more explicit leda pics, drawn by famous and respected artists from various eras, showing leda and her feathery lover caught in the act. But I shall resist temptation here. The point is that the difference between art and porn can sometimes be so vague, the determining factor is just age, artist and the respect given by culture.

    9. Re:Tip: by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 1

      You've given examples but not addressed the point, why is sex more censor-worthy than violence? Simply because of some subjective definition of "Art"?

      So lets take your art claim and run with it:

      Exposing a child to violent dismemberment is ok so long as you're telling a great story in the process?

      But letting them see 2 people having sex is *worse* because you didn't also show all the time spent courting the woman, taking her out to eat, getting a loan for a car, buying a house and paying bills?

    10. Re:Tip: by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      Really? I am not aware of any such laws in Texas and you can't really go any further south.

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
  3. Uhhhh, why? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless I badly misunderstand, the law bans sales of games to people under 18. So the only impact here is on stores that sell the games, not on developers. Developers are free to make whatever they like, it is the stores that have to restrict who can buy it. They can still sell anything, they just can't sell it to anyone. Same as tobacco or alcohol.

    The only way it would cause an exodus is if game sales plummeted and that would only happen if large amounts of sales of M rated games were being made to people under 18.

    I don't buy that for a second. For one, most retailers already ID for games (Target IDs me and I'm 30 and shop there all the time). Also, kids don't tend to have a ton of money to spend. There's a reason there have been more adult targeted games: Adults have more to spend. When I was 14 I had to beg games out of my parents a couple times a year. Now I buy them as I please. Finally parents will just buy the shit anyhow, and that's still legal. Rare is it you hear about the kid who bought their own violent game, the parents bought it for them.

    So unless I really misunderstand this, and if so please show me a link to the reality, I can't see it mattering much to the VG industry, it'll just ber a stupid burden on the retailers.

    1. Re:Uhhhh, why? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. The sales restrictions would apply to games whether they are produced in California or somewhere else. So it wouldn't matter where the developer happened to be located. I don't understand, then, why this law would cause an exodus of game developers from California. I'm not saying I agree with the law, but the headline here is puzzling.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    2. Re:Uhhhh, why? by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      actually, kids have a lot more control over the purse strings then people used to think. This is why so many toys for ads are geared at children.

      I know a lot of 10-15 year olds that have 50 or more dollar lying around.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Uhhhh, why? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's because the submitter hates video game sales restrictions and doesn't mind twisting the truth to push his agenda.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Uhhhh, why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As someone from Germany (we have some of the strictest regulators here concerning violence in games) I can tell you, it WILL affect you as an adult. These for the children laws inevitably affect adults too.

      You won't be able to buy 18+ games without jumping through a lot of hoops. Offline stores don't stock them and online stores have to comply with absurd age-checking requirements that cause the likes of eBay to ban anything 18+ outright.

      On top of that developers pre-censor their games in fears of getting an 18+ rating. Hell even 18+ games in Germany are censored compared to international versions because our fucked up youth protection laws affect material solely targeted at adults.

      As for the exodus, many companies (video game review sites, movie and game mail orders, etc.) had to move to neighbouring countries like Austria because they could not afford the asinine age-checking requirements.

      Things will change for you, too.

    5. Re:Uhhhh, why? by ninjacheeseburger · · Score: 1

      This law is already inplace in the UK and I'm pretty sure it hasn't harmed the industry, I don't know about CA but here its still legal to be under 18 and play the games, you just have to get your parents (or anyone over 18) to buy it for you.

    6. Re:Uhhhh, why? by gamecrusader · · Score: 1

      if this then they may think now we should ban first persons because they promote violence this would lead to a down fall and a violation of our rights this is BULLSHIT

    7. Re:Uhhhh, why? by vxice · · Score: 1

      If it is harder to purchase violent video games fewer people will buy them, not necessarily in giant droves however, decreasing revenue over all. Now how much of an affect this is will be hard to judge but could potentially, don't read certainly, lead to large decreases in game sales. Also the argument doesn't seem to be that developers will leave California but in general will disappear. On that note we are too obsessed with jobs recently, if a job is not useful or is in fact harmful we are keeping people from performing useful beneficial work in other industries and defense of them is basically a make work argument.

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
    8. Re:Uhhhh, why? by DeadboltX · · Score: 1

      Less games sold means less game bought means less games made means less game developer jobs.

      This isn't about game developers leaving California, it is about game developers being kicked out of the industry to increase profit margins.

    9. Re:Uhhhh, why? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Funny

      All these teens and pre-teens you give many dollah to... you might want to keep quiet about that.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    10. Re:Uhhhh, why? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      It does impact developers (I am one)

      Because If you force the stores to sell to only 18 or older, you're forcing the developers to make games that can be old to 18 years or younger.

      For example: If you want your game to hit a wider audience, you would be forced to make it acceptable for that wider audience as per whatever the government deems is acceptable. Which is frankly unconstitutional.

      There are many parents who have no problem with their child playing violent video games. How will their children buy these games? Mom and Dad will have to buy them personally? Mom and Dad are working 2 damn jobs.

      This is the government trying to find a way to make money off the game industry.

      The government has no concern for the children. If they did... Universal Single Payer Health Care would be a law! If they cared about your children, they would impose strict tariffs on imported goods. so that Americans are not competing with slave wages overseas.

      This is just another "for the children" law, that is unconstitutional, and a way to increase government revenue.

    11. Re:Uhhhh, why? by vell0cet · · Score: 2, Informative

      Many states have tried to pass laws that restrict the sale of games to minors. So if the California law is upheld, all the other states will follow suit and craft laws based on the California one.

      In reference to why people would leave the industry... It's not because they wouldn't want to make games, it's because the ability to express creativity would become limited. Any depiction of violence could potentially cause your game to be restricted by the law and not get carried by any of the large retailers (not being in Walmart destroys any sales potential of your game). Thus publishers will always "play it safe" to protect their investment.

      In regards to stifling creativity. Here's a comparison - When was the last time you saw any porn that had real artistic merit? That really told a great story or carried political, cultural themes? Stanley Kubrick, one of the greatest directors to ever live, had his last movie Eyes Wide Shut significantly censored so as not to be labeled porn so that it could be released in theaters in the US. If this law were passed, you'd only have one type of violent game... brutally graphic and heinous. Just as we pretty much only have one type of movie/magazine/etc that contains sex... porn.

    12. Re:Uhhhh, why? by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      Been there, done that.

      Kids usually just had an adult buy the games or simply got a pirated version.
      In the best case the regulations were rendered useless (only wasting time & money) and in the worst the game companies didn't get paid.

      Of course in Germany the games were screened by representatives from the catholic and lutheran churches, psychologists and other education "experts". In other words, senile old farts and other people so far removed from reality (and games in particular) it's not even funny.

    13. Re:Uhhhh, why? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I don't buy that for a second. For one, most retailers already ID for games (Target IDs me and I'm 30 and shop there all the time). Also, kids don't tend to have a ton of money to spend.

      That's extremely false. Kids are super-important to game developers. They control an amazing amount of their parents' money, collectively.

      On the other hand, you're right that more mature gamers have led to more mature games. And by that I mean fishing, hunting, and golf.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Uhhhh, why? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "It's because the submitter hates video game sales restrictions"

      What kind of brainwashed tool doesn't? Oh, wait, all of them.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    15. Re:Uhhhh, why? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      They would probably try to tone down the violence a bit in an effort to stay on a lower rating. Expect to see enemies dropping dead rather than exploding into gore or losing limbs, and blood mystiously appearing green in an effort to be less realistic. A shame, as gore is fun - I made a mod for ut2k4 invasion mode that lets you explode enemies with a crazy amount of mess, and it's really quite entertaining to get a few friends together and charge at the invading monsters with tesla coils shooting out arcs of glowy death and the pieces of your victims raining down so heavy they cover up to your eye-line.

    16. Re:Uhhhh, why? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Slashdot, where everyone has an agenda except me!

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    17. Re:Uhhhh, why? by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
      No, the law in the UK acknowledges the existence of age ratings (i.e. BBFC) and has a process for rating them, instead of it just being up to the whim of every judge in the state and how they are feeling on the day. So it is possible for retailers to know if they are breaking the law or not.

      A law where you don't know if you are breaking it or not is probably a bad law.

  4. Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Physical game sales are on their way out the door anyway. Or they are with PC games that is... next-generation consoles will probably see the same displacement.

  5. Illogical, Illogical by serutan · · Score: 1

    I don't see how banning sales of some games to minors will cause an exodus of game developer talent. No matter where the games are made they will still be subject to the same ban.

    1. Re:Illogical, Illogical by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Obviously the exodus of talent would be to the porn industry.

    2. Re:Illogical, Illogical by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      I don't see how banning sales of some games to minors will cause an exodus of game developer talent.

      That's probably because it won't.

      And the article isn't illogical. It's hyperbolic demagoguery.

  6. Welcome to Nevada! by PatPending · · Score: 2, Insightful

    California's neighboring state, Nevada, would welcome these businesses because it would diversify its economy which is predominately based on alcohol, tobacco, gambling, and sex.

    Plus, Nevada has no corporate income tax nor personal income tax.

    --
    What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    1. Re:Welcome to Nevada! by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be an "exodus from California" it would be an exodus "from the industry" altogether according to the lawyer.

      Moving to Nevada wouldn't change anything. And if no longer being able to sell M rated games to minors "stifles developer creativity" then I can only imagine what living in Nevada would do to them.

    2. Re:Welcome to Nevada! by geekoid · · Score: 2, Funny

      but it is Ugly, has poor services, and no class.

      Of course, if you like brown it's the place to be.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Welcome to Nevada! by demonbug · · Score: 1

      Kind of like a brown version of Alaska, but not pretty, and they don't pay you to live there.

  7. I fail to see why CA has any businesses at all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's a very beautiful place to visit, but I would hate to try to run a business from CA. HORRIBLE economy and regulatory environment. The state is bankrupt, and Americans can watch CA if they want some insight into where the country is headed if we keep allowing our government to load us up with debt. When Bernard Goldberg "borrows" money to create bogus profits he goes to prison, but when our Treasury Department does it by selling T-bills to the Federal Reserve it's totally legal. Go figure.

    1. Re:I fail to see why CA has any businesses at all. by netsavior · · Score: 1

      your stupid rant aside, I will answer your question. California has a PERFECT climate. Year round, it is an absolute delight just to wake up and walk outside. That really is the reason why all these rich people and rich companies are there, because they can afford to be delighted every morning just by opening their door.

      you can move your headquarters to say Texas, and many companies do... They don't really have to pay taxes, the wages you have to pay out are lower, the cost of living is nothing, but the truth of the matter is the weather sucks, pretty much everywhere except California.

  8. Re:No. by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Your comparison doesn't make much sense. Try something with a car instead.

  9. can't read the article by demonbug · · Score: 1

    The law is stupid, but claiming it would cause an exodus of developers is equally stupid. It doesn't change in any way what they do, or what they are able to sell nationwide, it only affects what they can sell to minors in California - and in that respect affects developers equally regardless of where they live/work. The law should be struck down, as it was originally before our (nominally Republican - I thought those guys were supposed to be against such idiocy) loveable governator decided to appeal the decision, but it doesn't help matters any to spout such nonsensical hyperbole.

    1. Re:can't read the article by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but American pr0n (especially Californian) is rubbish. The push towards making it all about snuff movies (i.e. bareback) is also creepy.

  10. Nonsense by westlake · · Score: 1
    if the Supreme Court sides with the legislators it could lead to an exodus of talent from the games business

    Production is based in California because talent, production facilities and resources of every kind are to be found in California.

    1. Re:Nonsense by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It could happen. I doubt very much that it would as a result of this, but there is a pretty substantial games industry up here in Washington, and the courts here are amicable to software companies. Between that and the cheap electricity MS stays here, even though they feel like paying most of their taxes in Nevada.

  11. No... Look at movies. by __aazsst3756 · · Score: 1

    Look at the movie industry. Rated R movies make getting in for minors much harder. What do the directors do? Make PG-13 movies, and push the limit all they can. There is not a shortage of people wanting to make movies.

  12. mod parent up by Hatta · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is the best post yet in this thread. People need to remember that children grow into adults. If you want to do what's best for your children, make sure they inherit a world that an adult will want to live in.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:mod parent up by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This is the best post yet in this thread. People need to remember that children grow into adults. If you want to do what's best for your children, make sure they inherit a world that an adult will want to live in.

      I was just thinking the other day about how we ended up "here". And what I came up with is public school. Most children are sent into a system of indoctrination where they are aggressively taught to run with the herd. Most of them will be effectively programmed by it, even the majority of those who think they're above all that and managed unscathed.

      Spending your formative years being deprived of supposedly human rights can not achieve anything positive.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:mod parent up by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      How about just 'school?' Public, private... they both indoctrinate. The only difference is in who choses the contents of the indoctrination, the government or the parents. The herd mentality barely needs teaching - it's deeply encoded in instinct by natural selection since before humans were humans. The tribal weirdo doesn't get to mate, but the adaptable socialite who is always popular by imitation can pass on their genes very effectively.

  13. Why do the states keep doing this? by jonwil · · Score: 1, Interesting

    States all over the union have passed laws restricting "violent video games" (with various definitions for that term) and every time the courts have overturned them as unconstitutional.

    Why do the states keep wasting taxpayer money on laws that they know wont survive in court? (are they just trying law after law until someone finally finds language that wont get overturned?)

    1. Re:Why do the states keep doing this? by Tawnos · · Score: 1

      Yes. For historical examples, check out the New Deal and its Supreme Court history.

  14. Because only violence is fun? by aGuyNamedJoe · · Score: 1

    The reasoning appears to be that if we can't program violence, there's nothing worth doing, so everyone will quit...

    What a strange world it is, where creative imagination can't come up with anything unless it involves mayhem and death.

    1. Re:Because only violence is fun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Strawman argument. No one besides those who support the law has said that.

  15. They'll just change the games by billsayswow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All military shooters will take place in a parallel universe where the world's governments realize that while war is a means to an end, the cost of life is too great to be a viable option. All firearms were discarded, used only for sport now, and instead all guns are paintball guns. The UN sends judges to determine when soldiers have taken enough hits to be considered unfit to continue. In the end, the soldiers meet in the middle of the battlefield, shake hands, and pull out wet sponges to clean paint off the opposing teams's uniform and kit. In this world, in war, no matter which side is victorious, everyone is a winner.

  16. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's a requirement which does not exist. Theaters card voluntarily, much like every major game retailer cards voluntarily.

  17. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The similar requirement that theaters card teenagers for R-rated movies...

    ...doesn't exist. Please do not perpetuate myths.

  18. Re:What? Government-knows-best is bad for us all? by hedwards · · Score: 1

    Nice trolling. The government won't be any more in charge of healthcare than it was previously. The only difference is that nearly everybody will have health insurance.

  19. California Games ha! Best game ever! by drunken-yeti · · Score: 1, Interesting

    On a serious note America doesn't have any violence issue compared to the rest of the world. Most of the places with the worst violence don't have much of a TV/video game playing population. Serbia, Africa, the Middle East yep all video games fault.

  20. Another double-standard by Krater76 · · Score: 1

    This is the same stuff legislators were trying to pull with the motion picture industry. In the end a self-regulating body was put in place, accepted by the consumers and producers, and all is well. Do younger kids end up seeing violent or sexual movies? Sure, it can happen and there is recourse if a parent thinks a theater isn't adhering to the system. TV has it's rating system that is enabled by the V-chip and controlled by the household authority (presumably the parents). All gaming systems (computers too? I assume so) have this in place, so why isn't the ESRB given the same right?

    If this was something as simple as unrated pornographic games that 8-year-olds were getting a hold of, I would be inclined to agree with the legislation. This isn't the case. This is parents being unwilling to take the 30 seconds to check the rating on a game or, baring that, spending some time with their kid seeing what they are consuming. Meanwhile, legislators in the bankrupt state of California have more pressing matters to deal with than trying to subvert the Constitution.

    That said, the conservative court will drop this one like a bad habit. It already has precedence on it's side with movies and TV, a ratings system that works, and that little thing called the first amendment. IANAL but I doubt there will be more than 1 or 2 dissenters - possibly one of the whacko judges, ie Clarence Thomas.

    --
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  21. Re:No. by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

    No, but it has forced the MPAA to self censor every film for it to satisfy the ratings board. Which is censorship... and even R rated films are censored. So much that no one makes an NC-17 film... and X films are just flat out porn. So there is a certain area of content missing in between R and XXX.

  22. A Persian invented algebra by tepples · · Score: 1

    That explains why those middle eastern cultures are so much more evolved than most other cultures.

    At least their numbers were. A Persian popularized Arabic numerals (123 vs. CXXIII) and invented algebra.

  23. One-stop shopping by tepples · · Score: 1

    Mom and Dad will have to buy them personally? Mom and Dad are working 2 damn jobs.

    And does that slow them down? Hardly. Mom and Dad already have to buy groceries regularly. Big-box supercenter chains, such as Walmart*, Target, and Meijer, sell both video games and groceries.

    If they cared about your children, they would impose strict tariffs on imported goods. so that Americans are not competing with slave wages overseas.

    But then the United States would lose its export market as other countries retaliate with their own tariffs. Think of the children whose parents would lose their manufacturing jobs due to the export decline.

    1. Re:One-stop shopping by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "And does that slow them down?"

      You're right. Clearly people can't differentiate between reality and video games (not that you, specifically, said that) so parents should have to buy their children the games instead of the children just buying them. There's absolutely zero reason that children should not be able to buy these games, and "parental supervision" is not a good reason.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:One-stop shopping by tepples · · Score: 1

      There's absolutely zero reason that children should not be able to buy these games

      I can think of one: child labor laws. As I understand the law, children aren't supposed to have money; their parents are supposed to have it on their behalf.

    3. Re:One-stop shopping by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "I can think of one: child labor laws."

      So they shouldn't be able to buy these games?

      "As I understand the law, children aren't supposed to have money"

      Something is seriously wrong, then. Again, there's no logical reason for this or this new law about games.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  24. Expect an increase in piracy. by Restil · · Score: 1

    I don't expect the number of kids playing the forbidden games to go down, just a change in their method of obtaining them. Of course, if the kids are playing them NOW, they probably don't have parents that care a great deal, and those parents are unlikely to object greatly to acting as a filter for the purchase.

    And for those situations for which piracy is an option (every non-online PC game), expect it to be exploited more often than it might have been in the past. More and more games are also sold online, for direct digital distribution. How does the law
    apply in that case? Even if some method of adult verification is required, the possession of a credit card to purchase it is usually sufficient. Extremely resourceful children with uncooperative parents will be able to cash purchase a pre-paid debit card, populate it with whatever owner data they wish, and purchase the games with that..

    Ultimately, this all boils down to the parents monitoring the activities of their children and rearing their children in the way they best see fit. If restricting violent video games is part of their parental ajenda, their involvement will have much more effect than any law will.

    -Restil

    --
    Play with my webcams and lights here
    1. Re:Expect an increase in piracy. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "(every non-online PC game)"

      Even some that are. Some of them have figured out how to access online services while some people host private servers.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:Expect an increase in piracy. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Also...

      "Ultimately, this all boils down to the parents monitoring the activities of their children and rearing their children in the way they best see fit."

      Why? The only type of people who would want to do that are those who want to indoctrinate their children to believe false information. "Video games cause violence! People can't differentiate between reality and video games!" We don't need such indoctrination, we need choice. If the parents don't want to pay for the games, fine. But if the child has the money required, there is absolutely zero reason they should not be able to buy the game.

      "If restricting violent video games is part of their parental ajenda"

      Yeah, many parents do have an agenda. An agenda that revolves around indoctrinating their children with their own beliefs. It's an unfortunate truth.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  25. Self inflated politicians by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    The companies, brands and individuals that we should be embracing as the visionaries of this creative and collaborative industry will migrate their talents to a more expressive medium

          Or better yet, they will just move to a different state/country.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  26. California is not the center of the universe by scottbomb · · Score: 1

    They just think they are. There will always be a market for violent games. And besides, kids will still get them. This is nothing more than BS "feel good legislation".

  27. Re:No. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    There's something similar in games. An AO rating is a commercial death sentence for a game - even though it's still legal (in most states), all the major retailers have a voluntary policy of never selling AO games. So an AO, no matter how good a game, will still be unable to sell. It's impossible to turn a profit. Thus the games developers and publishers strive to stay below an AO. Even an M rated game will suffer from reduced availability - wal-mart will carry them, but some other retailers refuse.

  28. Re:No. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    The old Hayes code worked in the same way. It was prefectly legal to make a noncomplient film - by no cinema would show it, no distributor would distribute it, and no factory would duplicate the films. People made some for art's sake, but there was no way to turn a profit.

  29. Re:No. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    Yet the law is still terrible all the same. Even if it didn't cause an "exodus," censorship is and always will be a bad thing.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  30. Because it already works so well for movies by Madsy · · Score: 1

    Movie censorship in the US of A is bad enough as it is.
    Skipping all the issues with the actual censorship process, movie companies effectively sensor themselves, which gives us a clusterfuck of PG-13 rated movies, just so they can cash in more on the extra audience/target group. I'm not saying all PG-13 movies are bad, but I'm personally left with a feeling that such movies don't show their true potential; especially when the story/theme inherently targets adults. I feel I was robbed for a better experience, just so some children's feelings won't get hurt. $deity forbid if they were to see a boob.
    I like games and movies that push the limits of what's considered 'proper' (by the US moralists and people in general), and I also enjoy my slasher/grindhouse/exploitation movies occasionally (Incidentally they're all made in the 70's). There is no reason to believe that game censorship won't have a similar side-effect. This could be remedied by stretching the limits of what is considered appropriate for teenagers, so most games could be made for this age demographic without having to butcher their expressiveness in the process. Be it scary scenes, violence, cussing, drug use or sex. But since the moral values of whomever makes these censorship laws are warped compared to most people who actually *watch* movies and *play* games, I don't see this happening anytime soon.

  31. California only? by severn2j · · Score: 1

    This law would just affect California right? What percentage of the gaming market is situated in California? Im pretty sure the rest of the world will carry on as usual...

  32. Re:No. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    It's also possible that they were just lying - like when the airlines insisted that it was against the law to board a plane without an ID, when that was not the case.