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

[Innegativeion]

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.

My point exactly. The government should not take responsibility of protecting children from what media their parents may or may not allow them to be exposed to. Parents should have the final say on what media is appropriate.

And unlike things like drugs, porn, or whatever... it is exceedingly easy to stop your 10 year old from buying an M rated game. Don't bring them to a store, or let them hang out alone with people over 17 years. You'd think it would be simple.

 

[meepop]

Ok, now I understand this is off-topic from the main idea, but why not just do what Yahtzee does? Import games? Maybe I'm not thinking straight and I apologize if I am, but L4D2 and Mortal Kombat were banned in AU and he got both those games.

And while we're on the subject of loopholes to this bill, what about retailers who have already SOLD violent video games? Are they fined too? No? Damn right. Why? It's too hard to enforce. For God's sake stop worrying! Yes, I understand this could seriously hurt the video games industry if the biggest video game consumer can't sell or even make games beyond a certain rating. How exactly is the government going to monitor the sales of any of the 'bad games' to minors? Have parents come in and say "OMG 'little shit' here bought 'Bloody Gorefest 7: The Bloodening'! Why would you sell this to him!?" Yes, that will happen. But how much? If parents really don't care, then why would they be disgruntled? If the issue is that the kids will imitate what they see, come now! Cartoons have imitate-able violence. Ban them too, why dontcha?

TL;DR The government is probably going to tip the scales in our favor, but if not, and the game developers DO continue to make games because they see the success of the UK and England, how exactly are they going to enforce it?

 

[zehydra]

The Justices, in general, agreed that upholding California's law would require a "novel extension of First Amendment principles to expressions concerning violence".[28]

From wikipedia.

Indeed.

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

Ahh yes, the "Parents are so shitty that they can't tell their child they aren't allowed to play a mature game act of 2011".

 

[Azaraxzealot]

dear GOD i can't believe how many people forgot this!


while they were busy squabbling over why Dragon Age 2 got a 5/5 and Witcher 2 got 3.5/5 and which console has the bigger penis (or why PC gaming TECHNICALLY has the biggest because you can build the biggest penis on it) there was THIS going on!

seriously disappointed right now...

 

[Azaraxzealot]

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.

obviously you're new to the escapist and haven't seen this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech]

it's not JUST a way to impose fines, it's a way to cripple the videogame industry (since its influence is strongest in america)

and anyways, because the wording is so vague, the government could basically deem ANYTHING it wants to be offensive to suit its own purposes.

you don't see how that's a problem?

 

[guchifaN7]

My opinion on video games?

A great man once said "All the world is a stage, and people are merely the players" (recited from memory, so expect there to be a few errors). I view games as merely putting me in the shoes of a character the way an actor would get a feel for his character. Other games, JRPGs in particular, put you in the role of director. Now, obviously you wouldn't trust a kid to direct a movie, but that's because they'd make every scene "awesome", making the movie unprofitable (and they would never be allowed to make porn because of, you know, THE SEX).

My opinion on the bill?

Utterly rediculous. You wouldn't ban high school age students from playing "Macbeth" just because some characters are killed by some other characters, would you? Same principle, really.

P.S. I would be really suprised if anyone here tried using the "But 'Macbeth' is Shakespeare, and video games aren't art" arguement, but suppose you see it that way, remember, the government devision who's acronysm I forget disagrees.

 

[Canid117]

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.

That is pretty arrogant of you to think that a case as minor as this will have any effect what so ever on the rest of the world.

Maybe you should educate yourself on the possible ramifications of a case before calling it minor.

 

[InsanityRequiem]

This sticker below, the AO(Adult Only) rating? This is to say that a video game is for 18 year old and older people.

Now what's this law do? It makes games that are E, T, M, and anything else with 'harmful levels of violence' automatically Adult Only. Other than Gamestop, I have not seen a single AO(18+) in any of the major retailer stores.

Why does Gamestop hold 1, maybe 2, AO games in store? Because they sell exclusively video games and video game related products.

Heck, I challenge people to go to the Gamestop website and see how many AO games are there. Last time I checked, there are none. The AO rated games are not sold by Gamestop's website. Now go to ANY retailer store and see if they sell AO rated games.

 

[icame]

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.

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.

Why is this different?

It isn't a law that you are not able to sell a 17+ game to a minor. It is self regulation of the industry.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

That is pretty arrogant of you to think that a case as minor as this will have any effect what so ever on the rest of the world.

Maybe you should educate yourself on the possible ramifications of a case before calling it minor.

I know the possible ramifications. The exact thing that is being proposed in the US is already a law in many many other countries around the world. This has not stopped games from being made or sold in those countries. You know what it will change, absolutely nothing at all. I actually hope that this law DOES get passed just so people will realise that.

You apparently don't know the ramifications; you do realize that in other countries, games can be banned outright, don't you? That's not legal in the US, but if the supreme court rules in favor of California, it would be. I'm going to refer you to this guy's post:

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.

As you can see, this isn't a gaming issue, it's a first amendment issue. If California gets it's way, videogames will be a legally unprotected medium. This sets a bad precedent for other media as well -- if videogames can be violent enough that they can be censored legally, then why not movies, TV, or paintings? And don't try to tell me it's a slippery slope argument; the US legal system is one big slippery slope, in which previous rulings on similar issues are considered. This will set a precedent that every judge making a censorship ruling will have to look at, regardless of which way the Supreme Court decides.

 

[SageRuffin]

Some higher powers seem to forget that some parents fail to heed the warnings by the ESRB or store clerk and buy the game for their kids anyway (think about it... that whole "14-year-old Halo/CoD playing fuckwad" stereotype had to originate somehow), which is a pretty jacked up loophole.

I think kids are smart enough to know that the average parent doesn't have a lot of patience when it comes to temper tantrums. When it happens, one of three things usually happens as a direct result: a) the parent ignores the child, and lets him/her make a spectacle of him/herself; b) the parent says "fuck this" or some variation thereof, and leaves the store; or c) the parent caves, if only to get the child to stop crying. To my understanding, more often than not the last option occurs, so then you have the parent - who I'd like to think is 17+ (I say wait until 21 minimum to have a child) - who bought the game, but it's the underage child who plays it the most. Technically, the store isn't at fault there.

Or maybe I'm just talking gibberish from playing too much Prototype...

 

[CCountZero]

My view; I'm 18 in 2 months so I don't really care anymore

Thing is, it'd be so nice if it wouldn't affect you, but it will.
Yes, the law itself isn't a problem for you, and isn't for me either, however; and this is the real kicker; it could easily influence the developers to change their games to reach the market they would lose, and that would hurt us all, regardless of us being old enough for this law not to concern us.

See the problem now?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

You apparently don't know the ramifications; you do realize that in other countries, games can be banned outright, don't you? That's not legal in the US, but if the supreme court rules in favor of California, it would be. I'm going to refer you to this guy's post:

As I said before I do know what the alleged ramifications are. I see it all as your standard stereotypical US paranoia. Im not trying to be insulting here but honestly look around at the countries that have had video games banned in, look at the number of games banned and then look at what they were.

Let me put it this way: It is quite literally un-American for the government to censor or ban anything. It violates the First Amendment, which is the most dearly held American principle. I honestly can't think of an equivalent in any other country; you're talking about things you don't understand.

 

[Merkavar]

i dont really get the point of this. i thought it was already illegal to sell m17+ games to a 14 year old?

also why does there need to be more labels? the ESRB labeling is good enough.