Poll: Not allowed to buy an M-rated game

[Arcticflame]

Yes they were right.

The funny thing is, I bought diablo 2 LOD when I was 11. They asked me if I was 15 and I said yes, the guy didnt believe me at all, but obviously thought that an 11 year old playing diablo 2 was worth him just giving it to me.

 

[PrayerofRefugee]

I went to Gamestop to buy BioShock because of their sale and I was asked for id. I showed him my driver's license and he said he was not allowed to sell the game to me.

I turn 17 in less than one month! (M-rated games say 17+)

Also, the majority of my game collection are rated M to begin with.

So do you think they were right to say no to me buying the game?

Sorry to say, but I think Gamestop was in the right on this...

At least you don't have a younger sibling, my parents wouldn't let me buy "M" games until I was 17 and 9 months because they wanted to wait until my brother turned 13. Just wait out the one month and go buy it then (might actually be cheaper by then).

Although I will say you are not alone, one of my friends wanted to trade in some games two days before his 18th birthday. Needless to say you have to be 18 to trade in games (since it's technically a pawn transaction) and I had to return the games in his place.

That is slightly strange... The main reason being that the same employee let me trade in two games two years ago for store credit. But after seeing the responses to this thread, I have learned that I was wrong to be annoyed at them following rules.

 

[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.

 

[Divine Miss Bee]

I went to Gamestop to buy BioShock because of their sale and I was asked for id. I showed him my driver's license and he said he was not allowed to sell the game to me.

I turn 17 in less than one month! (M-rated games say 17+)

Also, the majority of my game collection are rated M to begin with.

So do you think they were right to say no to me buying the game?

it's a national corporation-they're not allowed to break their rules. besides, if it's SUCH a short time, you can just come back when you ARE 17. no big deal.

 

[ghostrider409895]

I figure the person was just doing his or her job. He or she was just following the rules about selling games of a certain rating to minors. I guess it would be better to do that than bend the rules, because then they could put their job at risk. You never know who could be supervising, and even if that weren?t true making on exception would mean he would have to make many exceptions.

Cheer up though, for you will be old enough to buy those M rated games on your own in a month any way. Even if you cannot wait that long, just ask a parent to come with you next time so they can say you are allowed to play the game. The rating system is only saying you cannot buy it alone because it has content deemed inappropriate. A parent just has to say you can view that stuff, and you are mature enough. That is what I do if I see an M rated game that I really want.

 

[irishstormtrooper]

Technically, I'm not allowed to buy M games, but I have a friend who has more lenient parent get them for me.

 

[ninja51]

Gamestop was right, the rule wasnt. Freedom!!!!!!

 

[Sakurazaki1023]

I went to Gamestop to buy BioShock because of their sale and I was asked for id. I showed him my driver's license and he said he was not allowed to sell the game to me.

I turn 17 in less than one month! (M-rated games say 17+)

Also, the majority of my game collection are rated M to begin with.

So do you think they were right to say no to me buying the game?

Sorry to say, but I think Gamestop was in the right on this...

At least you don't have a younger sibling, my parents wouldn't let me buy "M" games until I was 17 and 9 months because they wanted to wait until my brother turned 13. Just wait out the one month and go buy it then (might actually be cheaper by then).

Although I will say you are not alone, one of my friends wanted to trade in some games two days before his 18th birthday. Needless to say you have to be 18 to trade in games (since it's technically a pawn transaction) and I had to return the games in his place.

That is slightly strange... The main reason being that the same employee let me trade in two games two years ago for store credit. But after seeing the responses to this thread, I have learned that I was wrong to be annoyed at them following rules.

The only issue I have with the ESRB system is that there is no Older Teen rating (OT 15+). There are many games that get labeled as M because they are too mature for T, but are nowhere close to other M games.

Case in point, Drakengard for the PS2 has a M rating due to a small amount of blood in some cinematics. The amount is pitiful and the actual gameplay is blood-free, but according to ESRB if it has blood its "M".

That being said, Bioshock is very mature and deserves it's M rating if only for the mature and disturbing imagery and themes. While one month is a bit harsh, it's better than a twelve year-old getting his hands on it.

(Pro-tip for avoiding carding...Just grow a beard. I've got the "Gorden Freedman" beard right now and I haven't been carded since I've had it)

 

[StBishop]

if you only a couple months off 17 then they should fair...

You're right, they should be fair.... and do exactly what they did. Why is it "fair" to give someone something to which they are not entitled.

If you were selling the game for $100.00 (for example) and some one came to you with $90.00 would you be "fair" and give them the game because they've got almost $100.00 dollars. What's stopping the guy with $89.00 saying "Why is it fair that he can get it for less? I've got almost $90.00" by that logic the "fair" price would continually drop.

Not only is it a matter of "fair", this is a legal argument and the law doesn't give half a toss about what's "fair" it cares about what's legal.

Selling a 17+ game to a 16 year old is illegal. That's all there is to it.

There has to be a line drawn, and it has been drawn.

 

[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.

 

[James Hueick]

Thats bull man. Playing an M-rated game isn't going to turn you into a murderer/rapist/whatever if you one month away from being 17.

 

[DustyDrB]

Gamestop doesn't make the rules. They can be liable if they break the rules, though. You always hear about some crazy mom suing over some trivial issue. Gamestop is just trying to avoid those crazy moms.

 

[mrfusspot]

The law states that the buyer must be at least 17 years of age, not at least nearly 17 years of age. If the Gamestop employee were to sell the game to you, he would have been liable and could have gotten fired if his boss/superior had found out.

He was looking out for himself. Perfectly understandable.

 

[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.

 

[Quadtrix]

Yes. It's an annoying rule, but it help keeps retarded politicians quiet. It's better than outright banning M-rated games.

 

[ethan22122]

if you only a couple months off 17 then they should fair...

You're right, they should be fair.... and do exactly what they did. Why is it "fair" to give someone something to which they are not entitled.

If you were selling the game for $100.00 (for example) and some one came to you with $90.00 would you be "fair" and give them the game because they've got almost $100.00 dollars. What's stopping the guy with $89.00 saying "Why is it fair that he can get it for less? I've got almost $90.00" by that logic the "fair" price would continually drop.

Not only is it a matter of "fair", this is a legal argument and the law doesn't give half a toss about what's "fair" it cares about what's legal.

Selling a 17+ game to a 16 year old is illegal. That's all there is to it.

There has to be a line drawn, and it has been drawn.

guess your right, the laws the law.

 

[Anticitizen_Two]

Of course they were. If you're not over 17, you can't buy an over-17 game. They were right to identify that you were breaking the rules and stop you.

 

[cheese_wizington]

Get a parent or more likely in your case an older friend to do it for a month.

 

[drisky]

I'm 21 and I don't have a drivers license, so I used my permit and it wasn't good enough, but I still think it was in there right, its the law.

 

[Fr331anc3r]

"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.