As I recall the Supreme Court is supposed to make a decision soon.

[Canid117]

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.

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.

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".

Exactly. The retailer is fined for every copy they sell to minors and so they refuse to carry these games out of fear of one of their clerks having a bad day and selling a couple of copies of postal 3 to a 16 year old. There is currently no law banning the sale of M rated games to minors. Stores simply enforce the ratings as company policy because it is good PR and lets most Judges know that this law is unnecessary as well as unconstitutional. If this law passes then it is highly probable that stores will refuse to carry products because of how harsh the fine is and how stupid some parents are. If all stores refuse to carry M rated games then devs wont make them because there is no way they will be able to sell them. Alcohol and Tobacco also do not fall under protected speech like video games do. If this law is upheld by the Supreme Court then violent video games will fall under the same legal classification as porn but with a much nastier fine. The problem is how vague the law is, how big the punishment is and how it breaks a previously established law that supersedes it.

 

[BoredDragon]

In my opinion, I think kids under 16 should have to get their parents permission before buying/playing rated M video games. However, after that you should be home free. Basically its up to the parents.

 

[Ando85]

-snip-

Okay, I see. I wasn't aware that it was independently upheld. I really hope it doesn't come to no more M rated games. I prefer games to be able to express the atmosphere of whatever they are portraying without having to worry about what is appropriate for children who shouldn't be playing the game anyway.

 

[Yureina]

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.

Then my response would be;

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.

They haven't passed it. To be honest... it is expected that this won't pass. But... you never know. I do have faith in SCOTUS though. Though it's had its bad moments (Dred Scott, anyone?), it has tended to be the most sane branch of the US government throughout history.

 

[Spud of Doom]

I don't see any problem with this. Restriction systems have been in place in other countries for a very long time and there's no kind of interference with game releases or availability in those territories because of it.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I've been trying to follow this case since it started, but I have not found anything since that one first day (that went REALLY well for our side).

I don't think this law will pass, But I still worry about what will happen if it does.

 

[Fbuh]

Aren't M rated games already illegal to sell to minors? I'm not sure I understand the point of teh law, other than to brin in the dough for the California state government. I mean, $1000 per fine is a little ridiculous. I can see their sick and twisted reasoning, though. Kids don't technically have freedoms, so it wouldn't be an issue of supressing the 1st Amendmant (games as speech/art). It's still a bastardy thing to do.

 

[Canid117]

Aren't M rated games already illegal to sell to minors?

No. All major retailers refuse to sell to minors as a matter of company policy.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

And by soon I mean sometime this month. Anyone else anxiously waiting for the result?

A decision about what exactly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association

Also known as Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association for those too lazy to follow the link.

Well what's the problem with this? Minors should be restricted from playing games that are innapropriate for them...

EDIT: Read the above post...HUH WHAT? No more M rated games? Even for 18+?

Who's to say what's inappropriate for kids? This law says that it's the government, which doesn't fly with me.

Yea I agree, but the ESRB should be kept as guidlines for the parents to judge, stores shouldn't be accountable for dumb parents.

This is lame.

 

[Canid117]

I don't see any problem with this. Restriction systems have been in place in other countries for a very long time and there's no kind of interference with game releases or availability in those territories because of it.

Most of those countries are not nearly as large a market as the United States. Without the massive market in the US supporting losses elsewhere it is likely devs will start to cut their losses.

 

[DaHero]

In my opinion, I think kids under 16 should have to get their parents permission before buying/playing rated M video games. However, after that you should be home free. Basically its up to the parents.

This is the US, part of the "American dream" is having kids and not having any responsibility for their actions, expecting the government to regulate that stuff.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

So I should support selling violent games to minors because making it illegal might result in fewer mature games for my age demographic... ?

What kind of bullshit logic is that?

Little kids shouldn't be playing GTA, CoD, or Mortal Kombat. You should be at least 13 years old before you're exposed to that kind of content. Are some kids ready before then? Of course, but we're not governing for outliers here.

If enforcing these restrictions causes some publishers to back away from my demographic, so be it. They won't get my money, and others will. That's how this shit is supposed to work.

 

[InsanityRequiem]

Let's have a math class regarding this. Games are $63 (including tax) here in the US. One fine is $1,000. Now, what is the cut retailers get from that $63? About 10/15%? Retailers get over $7 from that one game.

1,000/7 = 142.86 games. A retailer has to sell 142.86 NEW games to cut into that fine they received. Now, statistics say that there is a, roughly, 15% chance for a minor to buy a M game. That means 3 out of 20 tweens. If that is monthly, maybe the fine will not be all that much, but if that's daily, then the retailer's literally screwed.

It's all math people. Continual fines are a risk to retailers, and places like Wal-Mart, Costco, Target, and big chains don't want that risk. Gamestop and other purely game stores may take it, but the big chains won't.

 

[Innegativeion]

So I should support selling violent games to minors because making it illegal might result in fewer mature games for my age demographic... ?

What kind of bullshit logic is that?

Little kids shouldn't be playing GTA, CoD, or Mortal Kombat. You should be at least 13 years old before you're exposed to that kind of content. Are some kids ready before then? Of course, but we're not governing for outliers here.

If enforcing these restrictions causes some publishers to back away from my demographic, so be it. They won't get my money, and others will. That's how this shit is supposed to work.

No, parents are supposed to be responsible for their own damned spawn. That's how this shit is supposed to work. I feel sorry for kids whose parents aren't attentive enough to not buy games with a big ass "M" plastered on the front to their children.

The government shouldn't be doing that job for them.


That aside, doesn't the fact that the federal government declared video games a medium of art put the governator in a pretty weak position in trying to prove games aren't covered by the first amendment?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I'll put money on Scalia writing for the majority in his normal style (which is really funny).

I am kinda split on the case, but I think the ban will be overturned. Then again, I don't know for sure, but I hope my home-boy Antonin will side with gamers.

Spoiler

 

[godofallu]

Let's have a math class regarding this. Games are $63 (including tax) here in the US. One fine is $1,000. Now, what is the cut retailers get from that $63? About 10/15%? Retailers get over $7 from that one game.

1,000/7 = 142.86 games. A retailer has to sell 142.86 NEW games to cut into that fine they received. Now, statistics say that there is a, roughly, 15% chance for a minor to buy a M game. That means 3 out of 20 tweens. If that is monthly, maybe the fine will not be all that much, but if that's daily, then the retailer's literally screwed.

It's all math people. Continual fines are a risk to retailers, and places like Wal-Mart, Costco, Target, and big chains don't want that risk. Gamestop and other purely game stores may take it, but the big chains won't.

I like the math part, but your actual logic is just sooo flawed.

There are fines on Cigars and liquor when sold to minors, BUT WAIT! Walmart sells both.

So does this mean that not for sale to minors =! won't sell it? In fact yes.

It's already against company policy to sell M rated games to kids, this new law would change nothing. All it would do is make it so companies would be LEGALLY forced to attempt to verify age. Since they already do it isn't a big deal.

This reminds me of chicken little, running around talking about how the sky is falling.

 

[Terminate421]

Two things:

A. The NREA said that games are classified as art (as in the government)
B. The bill itself is extremely generic so thats what keeps it from being put out

 

[InsanityRequiem]

I like the math part, but your actual logic is just sooo flawed.

There are fines on Cigars and liquor when sold to minors, BUT WAIT! Walmart sells both.

So does this mean that not for sale to minors =! won't sell it? In fact yes.

It's already against company policy to sell M rated games to kids, this new law would change nothing. All it would do is make it so companies would be LEGALLY forced to attempt to verify age. Since they already do it isn't a big deal.

This reminds me of chicken little, running around talking about how the sky is falling.

Two things.

1) Video games are not cigars and alcohol. To equate a medium of visual stimulation(Movies, books, and TV are akin) to consummations products is not only flawed, but degrades video games to that below cigars and alcohol.

2) Do you see Adult/Porn/NC-17 items in places like Walmart, Target, Costco, etc? No, those stores do not sell Adult material. Video games would be Porn/NC-17 items.

 

[godofallu]

I like the math part, but your actual logic is just sooo flawed.

There are fines on Cigars and liquor when sold to minors, BUT WAIT! Walmart sells both.

So does this mean that not for sale to minors =! won't sell it? In fact yes.

It's already against company policy to sell M rated games to kids, this new law would change nothing. All it would do is make it so companies would be LEGALLY forced to attempt to verify age. Since they already do it isn't a big deal.

This reminds me of chicken little, running around talking about how the sky is falling.

Two things.

1) Video games are not cigars and alcohol. To equate a medium of visual stimulation(Movies, books, and TV are akin) to consummations products is not only flawed, but degrades video games to that below cigars and alcohol.

2) Do you see Adult/Porn/NC-17 items in places like Walmart, Target, Costco, etc? No, those stores do not sell Adult material. Video games would be Porn/NC-17 items.

Videogames already are 17+ items for M rated games.

I think the basic debate we have here is that you think this will change things, while I see no logical reason for why it would. Maybe you could give a source or some solid reason for why you think it would matter? Not trying to sound pretentious, and there is no reason you need to win me over. It just sounds pretty crazy/childish to compare videogames to porn but not alcohol.

Personally I think it will be more like R rates movies, which again are sold in Walmart.

 

[frehls]

hue