As I recall the Supreme Court is supposed to make a decision soon.
- Thread starter Canid117
- Start date
Recommended Videos
More details are needed. I have enough trouble reading minds in person, let alone when it's across the internet.
I see your link, but why not edit it into the first post rather than making another comment?Canid117 said:
Also, please give an explaination as well as the link for the 'too long, did not read' crew, of which I am a proud member.
Just because you know does not mean that we all do. For example; I am english and don't give a flying fuck what your supreme court are up to most days...
EDIT: Just read it.
My view; I'm 18 in 2 months so I don't really care anymore
Yes but this is the kind of decision that means no more M rated games get made in the united states and by extension you lose a nifty collection of games to play because devs dont want to risk the fines caused by accidentally selling a single copy of said game to a minor.TheEndlessSleep said:
Well what's the problem with this? Minors should be restricted from playing games that are innapropriate for them...Canid117 said:
EDIT: Read the above post...HUH WHAT? No more M rated games? Even for 18+?
There's a whole big issue because the law restrics a few games that ERSB have said are ok for kids to play.Nautical Honors Society said:
So we get a few occaisions where kids in California can't play 7s or something because they are 'too violent'
You will if SCOTUS ended up siding with Schwarzenegger. Since the USA is pretty much the major market for games, and California is its biggest state, the survival of a law that would prevent the sale of "violent" games to younger people (even if they shouldn't play some of those anyway) would cut considerbly into the gaming industry and force them to re-adjust. In other words... you may see fewer M-rated games due to a fear that some arbitrary judge in California will say it is "violent" and make it illegal to sell to under-18's. It could prevent the creation of otherwise great games that just happen to have a higher than average level of violence because the developers may be afraid that the game won't be profitable thanks to the loss of sales.TheEndlessSleep said:
So... yes. You should care about this one, if any SCOTUS case.
I don't see how this is an issue... Why would the games industry be afraid of this when they already have to slap 18+ stickers on their uber-violent video games, and can't sell them to kids without breaking the law anyway.Yureina said:
Why is this different?
The law stipulates that the stores who accidentally sell games deemed "too violent" would be fined $1000 for every copy sold to a minor even on accident. Since the law is incredibly vague about what would fall under said ban it has been widely theorized that devs would stop pumping money into M projects and even some T projects because they would be afraid of tripping up the ban and being a liability to place on store shelves. Retailers would stop carrying these products because of the risks and developers who make these games would stop because retailers would refuse to carry them. This also puts Steam in a tricky situation because it is impossible to verify age over the internet and Valve and other digital retailers could get fined into bankruptcy. All this while the parents who are too stupid to actually watch their kids and guard their credit cards arent held accountable at all.Nautical Honors Society said:
Wouldn't the retailer get fined and not the developer? I don't see M rated games going away. Putting fines on the sell of tobacco and alchohol to minors hasn't stopped them making them.Canid117 said:
Also, I thought this was going on for awhile, I still get carded every once in awhile even though I'm 26. But, usually they say it is "for the camera".
Isn't it the retailer that would get fined for selling M rated games to kids?Canid117 said:
This is how it works in good ol' England;
- You have to be a certain age to play certain games (18+ for "18+" rated games, etc)
- This rating only applies to the purchase of games, kids aren't going to get into trouble simply for playing 18+ games.
- If a retailer is caught selling 18+ games to kids then they can get fined.
Might I say that works perfectly well. And I'm pretty sure that's how the law would be set up in the US too. It's the same as the law stopping bars from selling alcohol to minors.
Because it's NOT illeagle to sell them to minors. The ESRB and the video game industry as a whole is a SELF-REGULATING industry. The ESRB makes an age recommendation. Stores are bound only by their own discretion wither to follow the recommendation or not. The key issue here is the sloppy wording of teh bill which would have the government regulating what would be "too much" to allow. You run into cases like Left for Dead, where you debate weither it's allowed or not, because the bill won't allow "excessive violence towards humans", but wait are the zombies humans... if so... is what we do to them "excessive". This is the main problem with this bill is is WAY too vague and open to interpretation.TheEndlessSleep said:
The importance goes beyond the ruling to the industry.
If they start with a huge violent games crackdown, you'll start to see a lot more Farmville and Little Big Planet and little to no Duke Nukem, Halo, or Call of Duty within the next few years. It basically makes M into the new AO, sure there will be a few games that come out with the rating, but given how restricted they are it's not very profitable.
If they start with a huge violent games crackdown, you'll start to see a lot more Farmville and Little Big Planet and little to no Duke Nukem, Halo, or Call of Duty within the next few years. It basically makes M into the new AO, sure there will be a few games that come out with the rating, but given how restricted they are it's not very profitable.
Then my response would be;Mouse_Crouse said:
Why are they passing a half-formed, vague bill in the most powerful court on the planet?
That's like a gourmet restaurant selling chicken Mcnuggets; its not supposed to happen.