Poll: Not allowed to buy an M-rated game

[Blanks]

They can get fined if someone higher up found out that they sold an M rated game to a younger person

 

[Jamieson 90]

I chose "No", because I don't believe in enforced ratings systems designed to keep kids with sheeple for parents from enjoying their favorite games. In short, the rating system sucks.

Yes but that's an attack against the rating system and not the clerk himself. The question isn't do we or don't we agree with the system, but was a clerk in the right to not sell a 17+ rated game to a person under the age of 17.

Yes, but the clerk is using the system, which makes him part of the system, which makes it logical to attack the system.

The clerk's just doing his job, I used to do the same thing when I worked in a games store. You can get into huge amount of trouble with the law if you let an underage person purchase a game, Trading standards send in kids to test it now and then.

Ratings are put in place for a reason. To stop kids playing games that are not appropriate for them. Gamers are always complaining that they hate the anti gamers movement yet don't mind kids getting their hands on them. You can't have it both ways.

If your underage then you can wait like the rest of us did.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Go somewhere else. The ESRB rating system is not legally binding in the United States. Gamestop store policy is to follow it strictly, as is the policy of Wal-Mart and Target I believe. There are places that will sell them to you though.

 

[The Unskilled78]

I'm gonna go with the majority of people here and say that it's completely fair.

 

[Georgie_Leech]

I got away with buying Oblivion while still 16, because I showed that I was infact mature and honest and told the sales people at Staples exactly why each thing on the M-rating was there (i.e. Blood = red stuff on sword after hitting someone; alcohol refferences were potions with a different label, etc.)

 

[ObsessiveSketch]

Same thing as R-rated movies. They did their job, get your folks to buy it for you.

 

[Sovvolf]

I chose "No", because I don't believe in enforced ratings systems designed to keep kids with sheeple for parents from enjoying their favorite games. In short, the rating system sucks.

Yes but that's an attack against the rating system and not the clerk himself. The question isn't do we or don't we agree with the system, but was a clerk in the right to not sell a 17+ rated game to a person under the age of 17.

Yes, but the clerk is using the system, which makes him part of the system, which makes it logical to attack the system.

The clerk is forced to use the system as part of his job, he more then likely doesn't agree with the system... probably hates the system as much as you and I (along with the rest of the gaming community) do, however he's obligated to uphold it in order to keep his job so he can pay his bills and put food on the table. Saying he's not in the right simply because what his job forces him to do is not an attack against the system, now saying that the system it self is in the wrong and they have no right in forcing this age rating upon that is an attack against the system. The clerks just the messenger.

 

[Eggsnham]

I chose "No", because I don't believe in enforced ratings systems designed to keep kids with sheeple for parents from enjoying their favorite games. In short, the rating system sucks.

Yes but that's an attack against the rating system and not the clerk himself. The question isn't do we or don't we agree with the system, but was a clerk in the right to not sell a 17+ rated game to a person under the age of 17.

Yes, but the clerk is using the system, which makes him part of the system, which makes it logical to attack the system.

The clerk's just doing his job, I used to do the same thing when I worked in a games store. You can get into huge amount of trouble with the law if you let an underage person purchase a game, Trading standards send in kids to test it now and then.

Ratings are put in place for a reason. To stop kids playing games that are not appropriate for them. Gamers are always complaining that they hate the anti gamers movement yet don't mind kids getting their hands on them. You can't have it both ways.

If your underage then you can wait like the rest of us did.

My parents let me play and own M games, but I still like to represent those not as fortunate as myself, that I got rational parents.

 

[Slayer_2]

My friend and I did a test. When I was a day away from turning 17, I went into an EB Games to buy Stranglehold (an M17+ game). I was wearing a backpack with a high-quality hidden microphone, and the whole conversation was put up on Youtube.

You can watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCvjolR4nzQ

For anyone who is wondering what happened, but doesn't want to watch the video, click the spoiler tag.

Spoiler

The guy wasn't going to give me the game but said "Screw it, it's one more day". I think he might have known that he was being recorded...

I think the clerk was just doing his job, but it's still ridiculous, IMO.

 

[Snotnarok]

Yes because they're legally responsible and there have been people sent in to buy games to see if they could, guess what happens to the guy who made that sale?

 

[muckinscavitch]

Why have rules if they are not enforced? Rules are rules and they did the right thing. Besides, if they did sell it to you and get caught, they would get a ***Crap*** storm from the authorities.


***Censored for Youthful Eyes***

 

[PrayerofRefugee]

I chose "No", because I don't believe in enforced ratings systems designed to keep kids with sheeple for parents from enjoying their favorite games. In short, the rating system sucks.

Yes but that's an attack against the rating system and not the clerk himself. The question isn't do we or don't we agree with the system, but was a clerk in the right to not sell a 17+ rated game to a person under the age of 17.

Yes, but the clerk is using the system, which makes him part of the system, which makes it logical to attack the system.

The clerk's just doing his job, I used to do the same thing when I worked in a games store. You can get into huge amount of trouble with the law if you let an underage person purchase a game, Trading standards send in kids to test it now and then.

Ratings are put in place for a reason. To stop kids playing games that are not appropriate for them. Gamers are always complaining that they hate the anti gamers movement yet don't mind kids getting their hands on them. You can't have it both ways.

If your underage then you can wait like the rest of us did.

My parents let me play and own M games, but I still like to represent those not as fortunate as myself, that I got rational parents.

I wouldn't say we should attack the clerk. He has a job (which is good considering the US economy) at an awesome place. He has to do some things to make sure he keeps the job. I like the other way of putting it :

"I went in to buy booze, because I saw it was on sale, the guy at the counter asked for my ID, and wouldn't let me buy it.

I turn 21 in 1 month (1 friggin' month)."

This is all a hypothetical, I've been 21 for a while.

Same idea, different laws.

It makes sense that they won't let people buy it. But this is mainly there to keep the people that would not be able to not be effected negatively by the game (like with alcohol).

We should be happy that there are restrictions in society (imagine 12 year olds drinking while drinking).

I will wait for the game like everyone else has to.

But again, do not attack the middleman.

 

[Eggsnham]

I chose "No", because I don't believe in enforced ratings systems designed to keep kids with sheeple for parents from enjoying their favorite games. In short, the rating system sucks.

Yes but that's an attack against the rating system and not the clerk himself. The question isn't do we or don't we agree with the system, but was a clerk in the right to not sell a 17+ rated game to a person under the age of 17.

Yes, but the clerk is using the system, which makes him part of the system, which makes it logical to attack the system.

The clerk is forced to use the system as part of his job, he more then likely doesn't agree with the system... probably hates the system as much as you and I (along with the rest of the gaming community) do, however he's obligated to uphold it in order to keep his job so he can pay his bills and put food on the table. Saying he's not in the right simply because what his job forces him to do is not an attack against the system, now saying that the system it self is in the wrong and they have no right in forcing this age rating upon that is an attack against the system. The clerks just the messenger.

Fair enough. I'm too tired to reply. I have got to stop debating late at night!

 

[Jamieson 90]

Yes because they're legally responsible and there have been people sent in to buy games to see if they could, guess what happens to the guy who made that sale?

Like I previously said, When you recieve training at a store you are warned about this sort of thing, When I was there it was a criminal record and a £1000 fine. The fine is pritty bad but a criminal record pritty much means your life is over.

 

[DeleteThisPlease]

I hate to say it, but the rules are spelled out here:

You have to be 17 years or older to buy M rated video games. It doesn't matter that you were a month off or a day off, if you're not 17 or older, you can't buy M rated games without adult supervision.

Same goes for R rated movies.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Contun]

They were right.

You're not 17, so you can't buy "Mature" games. If they did let you buy it, they could lose their jobs. Rules are Rules...

 

[XT inc]

In a month you can buy it free and clear it may be unfair to a 16 year old but what ever GS has to do to keep people younger than that away from games I usually play the better. / more hatred of the little childrens. I got carded at 20 buying saints row 2