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

[Moriarty]

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.

Why is this different?

The big deal about this is Americas screwed up justice system. This isn't about protecting children, this is about wether or not video games are protected by their free speech laws. If selling violent video games to children becomes illegal, that takes away every protection video games have in regards of free speech. They're going to get banned more easily and general stores propably will be carying less videogames out of fear of getting sued.

It would even influence the entire industry as the american market may shrink considerably, making video games a less profitable business.

 

[Cridhe]

How does a little kid acquire a video game without parental supervision? Oh right, because parents aren't parenting anymore (poor excuse for ADHD). No discipline in school, no discipline at home, so now we're enacting ridiculous laws. This has been going on long prior to simple video game sales.

That aside, I had Mortal Kombat when I was a young lad. My parents also raised me themselves, and taught me discipline and how to be a decent person. It had no ill effects on the person I am today, though occasionally I would like to Johnny Cage crotch punch a few people.

 

[Dream_Sequencer]

Bad kid no bad parenting. I think the whole issue is parents want to fix the blame not the problem. Sure the rating system is a symptom, but not the cause. Parents need to teach their childrens the differences between reality and fiction. Parents need omg what's the word parent. It isn't just up to the companies. And it isn't just the companies fault. You cannot blame the companies when the parents themselves are doing nothing.

No offense, but today for the N64 or even the PC Quake would have been a M rated game. Guess what I was 9 years old, watching my dad play it. My dad would talk to me, supervise while I played it. And always told me I didn't have to play a game I didn't want to play.

I'm tired of people thinking kids are some kind of wallflower we need to protect. Kids know or at least those parented right know what they can and can't handle. When I was about 10 I remember trying to play Nightmare Creatures on the N64. I couldn't play it. I turned it off. I knew personally I couldn't handle it. To scary for me. Remember I was 10.

If this bill passes, Mature rated games become a forbidden fruit. And we'll have the very same issue we have right now with teen sex and drug abuse. A forbidden fruit doesn't stop people from not wanting it. It makes them want it more because its something they don't have.

Kids need the knowledge and the experience. And they need to be parented. The parents cannot just blame or fault the companies. The parents cannot just put the blame on the game companies. Some of it falls onto actual parenting.

Btw, funnily enough at around 11 or 10 I was playing Mortal Kombat myself. And I have no ill effects as a child. I knew that wasn't reality.

 

[aba1]

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

EDIT: Explanation of which case in particular is linked three posts down. HINT: Its important to gaming in the United States and the rest of the world.

na I'm pritty sure its only important to the states dont let that american ego get to big there

and believe it or not there is a huge market for games outside the states and there is infact many game companys outside the states aswell

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

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.

Or we could be realistic and recognize that bad parents will always exist. I don't really see the difference between this and alcohol or firearms - not with respect to this argument. I mean we could legalize those things for minors, too, and put the onus squarely on the parents to "be responsible for their own damned spawn", but how realistic is that?

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?

Crazy hot naked ladies sexing each other can be "art" as well, but we don't let minors see that shit, right?

Why is everyone in such a goddamn hurry to grow up these days? Whether you're a 10 year old kid jones'ing for that sweet FPS slaughter or a 12 year old girl trying to up your sex appeal with slutty clothes, it's just obnoxious. And it shouldn't be allowed by any reasonably responsible society. Simply WAIT a few years and BAM - you've got the whole rest of your life to do whatever the hell you want.

 

[Sunder845]

So... yes. You should care about this one, if any SCOTUS case.

If you live in the United States you should probably care about all of the SCOTUS cases tbh.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Well lucky me I'm in Canada. And thought American law may have influence in my countries law making. Something like this would get shot down like when they tried to put in caps on our internet. Well this was Ontario but yeh still.

It's kinda like. I'm gona bring this up. A lady was going door to door in whatever town. With a petition to get street hockey banned in their neighborhood. (this is from a comedian btw). To which the comedian replied to her "Lady have you looked at a map of where you live. Your in Canada".

Kinda the same situation here that California wants to ban violent video game sales for children. I mean for gods sake the politicians wanting this grew up playing the game every child has played WAR. Your national anthem is violent. Americas involved in like 10 wars. Face it Americas violent and your kids are gona be exposed to it. So don't take it away, they're just gona want it all the more than. Instead educate them on this. Have them understand it and it's implications. Don't go shouting its for the sake of the children, thats Helen's job from the Simpsons.

I'm gona stop going on about this now. I need a drink.

As a fellow Canadian, I must say that I'm sorry to pee in your maple flavoured cornflakes.

This law, if passed, will have a major impact not only on Canada but also every country in the world as it relates to the enjoyment of mature videogames.

The US is both one of the biggest sources of game purchases but also one of the biggest sources of game development. If this law passes for the California case, given that it will be a ruling under the generally unassailable Supreme Court, other similar leaning states will move to enact their own similar laws. If a game developer can't sell it's games in it's own country because stores refuse to carry them, then they won't make those games at all. Sorry, but as much as I love Canada game developers aren't going to develop special versions of their games just to sell here.

But what about the games not developed in the US, you may ask? Even Canadian (or other non-US) located game developers will stop or massively reduce their development of M rated titles because if they can't sell them in the biggest game buying country in the world, they aren't going to be worth making. Videogame development is a very expensive field to be in these days and games won't even get off the designer's notepad if some sort of monetary return isn't guaranteed.

Bear in mind that this also isn't just about games that receive their M ratings due to extreme violence. This isn't just about stopping kids from buying Postal 3. With the wording of the California law, any game featuring any level of "realistic" violence could receive a game killing M rating. Street Fighter, for instance, is in no way the example of pointless gore that Mortal Kombat is, but it does feature "realistic" looking characters hitting each other and knocking each other out. Street Fighter could very conceivably get an M rating under California judgement. Also, an adoption of this law would open the doors to expanding what is considered inappropriate beyond violence into anything that California's decision makers deem harmful for children.

 

[Treblaine]

about what... ya dunce

*points at post 4*

honestly guys there is only one supreme court decision that is open right now that would be postable in gaming discussion.

That kind of attitude will get you nowhere.

Realise many of your users do not follow the day-to-day drawn out legal tedium of a count hearing and especially not so if they aren't even citizens of the Unite States.

EDIT: ignore that thing I said about Xbox ahoy

 

[LetalisK]

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.

I could kiss you right now. I get so tired of the sky falling bullshit that goes on about this case. This is a symbolic case more than anything.

 

[Korzack]

I'm not too hot on how the laws work in the US, but... isn't it already an offence to sell mature content (based on the ESRB rating) to minors? The only bit that might cause harm is the Miller Test thing, which is odd - I mean, why should a test designed to show if something's "obscene" or not be of use here, unless it's a clear political motivation... Ah. Cynical Spidey alert tingling...
I think why the Supreme Court's hearing the case is to try and deter every state from enacting similar laws, and just going "Right, you know this shit ain't gonna fly, stop trying it!" Which would make good sense to me.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

I'm sorry but I think you're the one being 'touchingly naive'.

Please don't assume that the US is the benchmark for the rest of the world, your political and judicial system is quite different from mine.

I have done an A-level in UK politics; I understand my political system much better than yours, but I know that they are different.

Oh, they're different alright. However, in the UK vague laws are still passed with the same shady intentions as in other nations. You have watched Yes, Minister, I take it? I think that was a lot closer to the truth than Parliament would rather you believed.

Incidentally, my political system is the Australian one, I'm an Aussie, not a Seppo. I did, however, assume you were probably American as at least half the people here are, so I pitched my comment at that level. Also, I apologise for that "naive" bit - I didn't intend to cause offence with it.

Oh ok sorry, I did the same thing

 

[rekabdarb]

about what... ya dunce

*points at post 4*

honestly guys there is only one supreme court decision that is open right now that would be postable in gaming discussion.

#1: because of the captcha my #1 post was suddenly pushed down to #5.

#2: because of finals i really didn't care about a stupid supreme court thing.

#3: Please specify WHAT exactly your talking about in the opening, remember not everyone lives in the USA. I do... but that's not the point.

 

[Canid117]

Shit I live in Australia, where games you guys have as M rated are fucking banned by wankers anyway.

Think of it this way. Most of those games wont even be made anymore and so not only will we not be able to purchase them legally but you wont be able to smuggle them in anymore.

 

[radioactive lemur]

When did Schwartzeneger turn into such a pussy? Back in the day he WAS violent movies. If video games were around back then, his games would have been violent as fuck as well. He shouldn't be protesting violent video games, he should be ripping a lion's head off with his bare hands or something.

 

[Dorian6]

I kinda feel like video games should be subject to the same restrictions as any other form of violent media. You wouldn't let a twelve year-old buy a ticket to see "Cannibal Holocaust," why should he be allowed to buy "Dead Space?" It forces the parents to be aware of what their idiot spawn are doing.

Violent media can exacerbate pre-existing mental conditions and do serious harm to impressionable idiots. The depressing part is that California has to create a new law to force parents to f*cking act like parents

 

[Raijha]

Look at every movie franchise ever harmed by going for that Magic PG13 instead of R rating, now apply the principle to video games, and you'll get a very basic glance at what will happen to gaming if this law passes

 

[boringanarchy]

indeed, god help us if we actaully lose this case.
we always talk about how we're wiser these days, our society doesn't jump at shadows anymore. but if we lose this case, it will just show that we are no more evolved than book burners or witch hunters.

...Really? Your overreaction is quite amusing. You all act as if uber-violent games like Splatter house are even worth keeping. Personally, I wouldn't miss this game or any of the others that have gore purely for shock value, which are probably going to be the ones to go if indeed any are banned.

 

[Ostman]

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?

I see what you're getting at, but parents know their children best. Obviously not every parent is ideal, or even good, but most should know their children well enough to know if they can handle an "M" game or not.

I think this is one of those cases where the parent should be given priority over government interference. And the government should keep it's nose out of most peoples' business just because 5% of parents are incompetant.

/not American, so just my 2 cents.