72 Percent of Adults Support California Game Law - UPDATED

[LetalisK]

Which is pretty much what this law does. Whether the law passes or not, nothing is really going to change, contrary to what Chicken Little Gamer says. The decision in this case will result in a philosophical distinction, not a practical one. That distinction being between treating video games like film, regulations being voluntary, or treating video games like tobacco, regulations being mandatory. Either way, children won't be able to obtain M-rated games without parental consent, adults still will, and M-rated games will still be produced like normal.

Originally I was entirely in favor of the law(though I did see it as unconstitutional) because it would be something to put in the face of whiny parents when they start bitching about their little child playing a violent video game. Making the parents legally responsible, as opposed to pointing at a corporate policy, is a stronger argument. However, I got tired of appealing to the lowest common denominator and said "fuck 'em." If they don't understand their responsibility, it's their own fault.

The problem is the full ramifications of the miller test (the legal concept the law is based upon) can, on it's own, remove the first amendment protections of video games. If any game trips the miller test, all games are subject to being treated like controlled substances.

Meaning rather than deal with the bullshit associated with it, most retailers will simply not carry any game that trips this law. The same way they refuse to carry AO games. With retailers giving very clear definitions of what they will and will not carry, publishers stop commissioning anything that might fall into that criteria.

As much as I'd like to see mainstream gaming crash and burn, this is not right.

I disagree with your assertion that if any video game fails the miller test, they all fail the miller test. The games that are being targeted have very mature themes to them. Now, the law does have a bit of ambiguity with the words "killing" and "maiming"(which would actually be my main argument against it). Could someone use that as a loophole to affect T and even E rated games? Possibly. However, it's far more probable that a court would either make the legislature be more specific in their law or the principle of legislative intent would be used(I seriously doubt it was the intent of the legislature to restrict the sale of sports games where the players can get injured).

Assuming that a loophole isn't abused, your scenario is no different than it is now. Publishers already consider what stores will or won't sell and stores will very eagerly sell M-rated games, as long as the customer is of age. Stores are voluntarily treating M-rated video games as a controlled substance.

edit: "ban" was not the correct word to use.

 

[Volothos]

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Contun]

It saddens me that the fate of video games may be decided by people who don't understand how it works.

If we were talking about a movie, most parents would immediately look for its rating and would not allow their child to watch said movie if they felt it was inappropriate. This cannot be said for video games.

Why are video games any different?

When I was young, my father would always check the rating before allowing me to purchase any movie or video game.

It isn't the businesses fault either. Video games do practically everything movies do in order to get their product to the right audience, so I don't see what the fuss is about.

I think video games are just a scapegoat for their bad parenting. Parents need to regulate what content their children get, or stop complaining.

 

[guntotingtomcat]

Well, it is THE PLAYER'S CHOICE TO DO SO IN THESE GAMES. THEY DECIDED WHAT TO DO.
Besides, beating up people is NOT my idea of Ultraviolent. It's brutal, but I was expecting them to show more gory games.

Again, ANY VIOLENCE IN A GAME IS UP TO THE PLAYER TO COMMIT. THEY ARE NOT FORCED TO DO SO. With certain exceptions, such as

Spoiler

bioshock

. Also, just be a better parent, instead of expecting the government to be the parents.

Surely, though, alot of games display violent or explicit content that the player doesn't have control over. Cutscenes, npcs, enemies can all behave in a violent manner that the player cannot help but see. MW2 terrorist level, for example. YOU didn't have to gun down civilians, but your allies did, regardless of your actions. I wouldn't want young children watching a film with such content, so why let them play a game like that?
But yes, you are correct. The age rating is right there on the box. Parents have to take responsibility.

 

[nash_clovis]

It isn't the industry's job to keep the kids from buying games, it's the parents. If you can't keep a hold on your kid's wallet, you're doing it wrong. Grow up, take your responsibility, and learn to take care of your child.

A parent can't watch their children 24/7. It was pretty easy for me to leave my house, or especially after school, and spend my money on games, especially considering they couldn't look at my bank account.

I think people seem to overestimate how easy it is to use subterfuge on your parents.

I literally don't see the problem with this law. A 10 year old shouldn't be able to walk into BestBuy and walk out with GTA. I played GTA at that age, but I had my parents permission, and they bought it for me, since the shop wouldn't sell it to me. (Actually, I did once get GTA Liberty City Stories from the market, but he wouldn't sell it to me, so I asked a random guy to get it for me, literally in front of the seller.)

Basically, parents don't have infinite capacity to watch their children, it's good to have parents know what their kids are playing. As far as I see all this law does is make sure that parents know what their kids are playing, and if a parent doesn't think it's suitable for their kids then they don't get it.

Most game stores I've been to including Best Buy ask for ID when someone tries to buy an M rated game and won't sell it if they don't provide, no matter how much of a fit they throw. I even did that and they refused to sell it because they saw me.

In this case, where you asked the guy to buy it for you, you could say that the employee was negligent if he REALLY let him by that if you did that right in front of him. In that case, more power to you.

But it's a matter of possibly not being able to buy them at all because they'll be censored. What's the point of marketing a violent video game like God of War if stores won't sell it for fear of putting it in the hands of a minor?

 

[ckam]

1. Would you support or oppose a law that prohibits minors from purchasing videogames that depict killing, maiming or sexually assaulting an image of a human being? (Support: Adults 72 percent, parents 72 percent; Oppose: Adults 22 percent, parents 24 percent)

2. How concerned are you about the impact of ultra-violent videogames on your child? (Very/Somewhat Concerned: Adults 61 percent, parents 65 percent; Somewhat Unconcerned/Not at all concerned: Adults 28 percent, parents 31 percent)

3. How would you rate the videogame industry when it comes to protecting kids from accessing violent videogames? (Excellent/Good: Adults 12 percent, parents 13 percent; Fair/poor: Adults 76 percent, parents 75 percent)

via: Gamasutra [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/30374/Common_Sense_Media_Claims_72_Percent_Support_Game_Ratings_Bill_.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GamasutraNews+%28Gamasutra+News%29]


Permalink

Wow. I can't believe surveyors would stoop so low as to make every question make video games look downright negative.

Hey, "Should U.S. troops stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq has a stable democracy, even if it takes a long time, or leave as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable?" Notice the extra words like "make sure Iraq has a stable democracy" and "even if Iraq is not completely stable?"

"Would you like the government to raise their taxes?" or "Would you like the government to financially enhance its levies?" (Sorry about this example, I seem to have forgotten the original text.)

Wording effects, though not the only problem, certainly helped in this survey.

 

[BurnedPizza429]

What!? Its a game, we're not gonna actually be criminals because of a game.

 

[Loonerinoes]

Hrmm...I wonder how diverse of a pool base they used (not just 'across the country' but also between different types of family units with varying economic standings).

 

[WaysideMaze]

"What we've learned from this poll is that parents want to be the ones who decide which games their kids play, not the videogame industry."

I thought parents were already in charge of what their kids had content to?

I dunno, maybe it's different in California, but I didn't think the gaming industry went around to childrens home giving them games whilst the parents weren't looking.

I have a fantastic image of Bobby Kotick dressed like Santa, creeping around houses handing out CoD whilst the parents aren't looking.

 

[Thorvan]

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the norm? I got ID'ed to buy Mafia 2 the other day because the cashier didn't think I was 17 (I'm 21, lol). Isn't it already illegal to sell these games to minors? Isn't that why there's a rating system in the first place?

What will this Californian law change?

It's not illegal, although most stores have that policy; neither is the restricting of selling games to minors the meat of the problem. The issue is (and correct me if I'm wrong, for I am not American) that by having the government able to restrict, influence and regulate games directly, even to this small degree, they are essentially no longer protected by the first amendment. Thus, the potential to have mainstream games with their artistic merit looking into darker issues, like the oft mentioned Bioshock, is essentially left up to a game of prayer and sacrifice to the mighty government.

For a nation under god, they sure do try a lot to be him.

 

[blinkgun96]

It makes me wonder what parents think the industry SHOULD be doing if they are so dissatisfied, let alone the fact that they are PARENTS and should be able to control what their children are exposed to. I think that bill should changed, instead of children being unable to determine what is good for them and change it to their parents being unable to determine what is good for them, then they'll have a much better argument.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

I say everyone here who IS a parent go say something about this to the news or something.

 

[FeralDynasty]

HOW IS THE 50 CENT GAME RACIAL PROFILING?!??!!!!! He clearly had a large amount of input or at least KNEW what was going to be in the game, why not give children blindfolds and earplugs so they don't accidentally see "racial profiling" on the streets?

 

[Lullabye]

Well, alls been said that could be said about the actual law, so, I'm going to talk about something else.
WTF is with the "violence against women" category? Obviously never played Armored Core before have they. Or Metroid. Or any actual Fighting Game.

 

[ANImaniac89]

Bullshit scapegoating at it best people.
People willing to sell and up incoming art form down the river because their too lazy to flip a package over and look at a rating, or the even lazier approach of simply talking to their kids.

 

[nash_clovis]

I don't think just going to the news would be enough. You'd just be portrayed as a nutjob who wants to give your children violent video games because you don't think they're detrimental.

Really, the only thing to do here is to wait and watch what'll happen, IMO.

 

[Jumplion]

This is extremely dangerous, whether or not the statistics are valid. Seriously, we should really be more active in this case, this could make or break the industry as we know it and effectively classify Video Games as drugs (going by the Extra Credits video).

We shouldn't be writing here, arguing pointlessly because nobody cares what we have to say here. We have to make some noise somewhere else, damnit, we need to make sure the press knows out position on this. This should not be taken lightly, this is going to the fucking supreme court. Treat is as if it's life or death for the industry, and it is!

And damnit, I wish I knew what I could do besides ranting here. I'm still technically a "minor", so fuck if I know what I can do. But we need to defend our industry here, we need to stand up for our hobby.

Somebody think of the children!

 

[Lullabye]

HOW IS THE 50 CENT GAME RACIAL PROFILING?!??!!!!! He clearly had a large amount of input or at least KNEW what was going to be in the game, why not give children blindfolds and earplugs so they don't accidentally see "racial profiling" on the streets?

"Mommy, what's a black man?"
"shh, darling, we don't talk about those things."

I thought the same thing when that popped up in the vid.
'Racial Profiling'
*shows 50 cent'
Isn't that like saying....50 cent is a stereotypical black man? Now, doesn't that seem a little racist itself?

 

[Wrists]

I'm sooo glad I don't live in America. Ah The UK. We're so great at the whole freedom thing.

We just skipped the legal battle and started with a legislated rating system, not that it seems to work....but at least we're doing the "right" thing.

 

[Autofaux]

I just hope our side has some damn good lawyers.