I've been (trying to) carefully follow all news about this Supreme Court case, and whenever I read the comments on articles about this, I see a lot of people claiming things that just aren't true. I also get a sense that too many of you don't actually realize just how important this case really is. Or could be. It won't mean all too much if the Court upholds the circuit court's ruling except a nice shiny piece of precedent in favor of the industry.
For easy reading, my explanations are in spoilers.
Misconceptions:
1. MPAA (movie) ratings are enforced by law.
2. The law won't effect people who live in other countries.
3. Stores won't stock the restricted games.
For more info:
http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/707834/Video-Games-On-Trial-Part-One----The-Bill-That-Started-It-All.html#comments
http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/707915/Video-Games-On-Trial-Part-Two----Californias-Arguments.html
http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/707945/video-games-on-trial-part-three----the-ema-and-esas-arguments-.html
For easy reading, my explanations are in spoilers.
Misconceptions:
1. MPAA (movie) ratings are enforced by law.
Some people think that this law would make the games industry no different from movies. We've all be raised knowing that you can't get in to an R-rated film unless you're 17. Except you can. Theaters aren't punished for selling a ticket to minors, except perhaps by their union. It's not a rule enforced by the government, and there aren't legal penalties. In fact, studies have shown (and are cited by the EMA/ESA -- if you want the reference, it's in one of those links at the top of this article) that it's harder for a minor to get a rated-M game than it is for them to get into or purchase a rated-R movie. Cigarettes and alcohol restrictions are enforced by law.
2. The law won't effect people who live in other countries.
Sorry, that's not necessarily true. There are other states waiting to see how this case plays out before attempting their own versions on California's law, and it could spread over the whole country. If the Court decides to include "offensive video game violence" under "obscenity", it could even lead to a federal law. Anyone that doesn't pass it will be allowing children to access obscene entertainment, and that would look really bad. The US is the biggest market (and producer, once you exclude Japan, who makes something fairly different) for video games. AAA titles are expensive, and if sales actually decrease, you would find more high-budget games being watered-down for the T rating. And, given the definition California is looking at for "offensively violent", you might see more watering-down than you'd expect. It's not hard to imagine EA (or other publisher) telling a studio that in order to get the game made, it needs to have less violence.
3. Stores won't stock the restricted games.
I've seen claims from "experts" that this could happen. It won't. Gas stations still stock cigarettes even though they face possible fines for selling them to gamers, and restaurants that don't sell alcohol mostly do it because of the expense of a liquor license, not fear of the potential fine. At worst, you'd see less games that would be restricted getting made.
I just compared games to cigarettes and alcohol. Pornography would also have been an appropriate analogy to make -- in many ways a more appropriate analogy. The California law treats violent video games in the same way we treat these other substances, and even makes references to regulations on pornography. Because you're reading this, I assume you enjoy games. It is likely even a hobby you have. Do you really want your hobby to be in the same category as tobacco, alcohol, and porn? Especially just when gaming is really becoming socially-accepted? I didn't think so.
I just compared games to cigarettes and alcohol. Pornography would also have been an appropriate analogy to make -- in many ways a more appropriate analogy. The California law treats violent video games in the same way we treat these other substances, and even makes references to regulations on pornography. Because you're reading this, I assume you enjoy games. It is likely even a hobby you have. Do you really want your hobby to be in the same category as tobacco, alcohol, and porn? Especially just when gaming is really becoming socially-accepted? I didn't think so.
For more info:
http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/707834/Video-Games-On-Trial-Part-One----The-Bill-That-Started-It-All.html#comments
http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/707915/Video-Games-On-Trial-Part-Two----Californias-Arguments.html
http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/707945/video-games-on-trial-part-three----the-ema-and-esas-arguments-.html