What would happen if the california video game law is passed? What does it mean if video games can b
- Thread starter NCLWC
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm sure M rated games won't go away. However, if the law passes, retailers who don't want to be on the wrong side of the law may not want to carry such games if it meant risking selling it to a child and getting a $1000 fine. So we may not see as many of them.
I doubt this will happen though, as we already have a rating system that tells what content a game has, and it's the decision of the parent to buy an M-rated game for their child. People who work at Gamestop are even supposed to warn the parent ahead of time what kind of content the game has. So logically, having a law like the one we're discussing would be unnecessary and redundant.
I doubt this will happen though, as we already have a rating system that tells what content a game has, and it's the decision of the parent to buy an M-rated game for their child. People who work at Gamestop are even supposed to warn the parent ahead of time what kind of content the game has. So logically, having a law like the one we're discussing would be unnecessary and redundant.
How many people who do not live in the UK know that this is basically the law in the UK and has been for I don?t know how many years?scorptatious said:
Total amount of games that have been banned? I have only heard of two games (but would not be suprised if there were more) which were either A: overturned on appeal or B: the blood was changed from red to green or something like that.
sidenot, this only stops someone under the age from buying the game, if a parent wants to buy an 18 rated game for their 6 year old then so be it.
Probably a lot more; on the face of it it doesn't seem like a bad idea considering it's what many other countries have, so it's hard for us to see the problem (chillax, I've had it explained to me).oplinger said:
The difference for them would be that games then aren't treated the same as other media, whereas over here all media is treated like that. America also has a pretty big suing culture.FMAylward said:
We don't have the whole first amendment thing; it works fine over here because games are treated the same still. Games are ratings are legally enforced by a ratings-body (it used to be the BBFC who rate films, but now it's going to PEGI, who rate games for a number of European countries).scorptatious said:
Then fair enough though I do have one question.
Why has no one come up with a law to enforce the age ratings? Surely even the games industry can approve that since they are the people who rate the games. It would save a hell of a lot of money on both sides.
Why has no one come up with a law to enforce the age ratings? Surely even the games industry can approve that since they are the people who rate the games. It would save a hell of a lot of money on both sides.
No need to be sorry. I don't see the end of playing games in the UK or its gaming industry anytime soon (well with the industry at least not because of age ratings)
Because the film industry doesn't have a law enforcing it's ratings and such, so games followed suit. Also if there was a law, it would need to be run by a government institution, so the ESRB would be out, and we'd get something new. Something horrible.FMAylward said:
sure it doesn't -have- to be like that, but you know it will. >>
This is an unusual question for us UK gamers. We have legal controls on all forms of media, including games and even extending to books (yes, I have seen the big red 18 badge on a book [a graphic novel I believe, but let's not be picky] before!)
I think this is in no way a bad thing, as some games are unsuitable for children, but the label is used in arbitrary situations such as 'violence' when in a film such a scene would attract no more than a 12A (children under 12 must be accompanied by an adult) rating.
Anyway, should all other American media be subject these rules then I would have no objection to these laws. But since in the land of the free, home of the etc., etc., etc., this is not the case, I am heavily against this proposition.
It means that a pressure group with little understanding and fewer 'facts' to back up their case can influence the lives of millions of people. It means that a portion of your constitution (which we do not have) can be amended by a small panel of judges rather than a full legal intervention from your elected house of representatives (as we do not have a constitution, this is very frequently the case in the UK but that is a discussion for another day). In the UK our government recently passed a law which, when utilised by those with the legal knowhow, could spy on and potentially prosecute any internet user, and watching the ill-informed debate in the disgracefully underpopulated House of Commons was shameful to my country.
Singling Video Games out is irrational, irresponsible and may well lead to the targeting of future targets. If this pressure groups gets what it demands, who knows what may be next in the firing line? Metal music? Modern art? Miniskirts? Decisions of this calibre must not be made by rich individuals with vested interests. It must be made by a substantial panel of experts, who have no political allegiance. I hope the motion is laughed out of the courtroom, anything less will be a disaster for American democracy and your ideal of a constitution favouring all over 'those we think deserve it'.
I think this is in no way a bad thing, as some games are unsuitable for children, but the label is used in arbitrary situations such as 'violence' when in a film such a scene would attract no more than a 12A (children under 12 must be accompanied by an adult) rating.
Anyway, should all other American media be subject these rules then I would have no objection to these laws. But since in the land of the free, home of the etc., etc., etc., this is not the case, I am heavily against this proposition.
It means that a pressure group with little understanding and fewer 'facts' to back up their case can influence the lives of millions of people. It means that a portion of your constitution (which we do not have) can be amended by a small panel of judges rather than a full legal intervention from your elected house of representatives (as we do not have a constitution, this is very frequently the case in the UK but that is a discussion for another day). In the UK our government recently passed a law which, when utilised by those with the legal knowhow, could spy on and potentially prosecute any internet user, and watching the ill-informed debate in the disgracefully underpopulated House of Commons was shameful to my country.
Singling Video Games out is irrational, irresponsible and may well lead to the targeting of future targets. If this pressure groups gets what it demands, who knows what may be next in the firing line? Metal music? Modern art? Miniskirts? Decisions of this calibre must not be made by rich individuals with vested interests. It must be made by a substantial panel of experts, who have no political allegiance. I hope the motion is laughed out of the courtroom, anything less will be a disaster for American democracy and your ideal of a constitution favouring all over 'those we think deserve it'.
Here's a more "very soon" effect that I posted on another topic. I'll just copy-paste it... As stated at the end, feel free to correct any problems.
"Also, for those saying this will only affect California, I'll just say this: Do you think California is the ONLY state to try shit like this? Lots of states, if not EVERY state, tried this, and the law got nowhere. The problem is none of them ever got to the Supreme Court, the highest authority in the entire country.
If this law passes, it sets a powerful legal precedent. All the other states now have all the ammunition they ever need to make the same law, because the whole "it violates free speech" arguement, the big thing stopping laws like that from being passed, will have effectively been made useless, because it wasn't enough to stop the California law.
If the California law passes, expect laws like this to pop up in all sorts of states. My legal knowledge is limited, so feel free to correct me."
"Also, for those saying this will only affect California, I'll just say this: Do you think California is the ONLY state to try shit like this? Lots of states, if not EVERY state, tried this, and the law got nowhere. The problem is none of them ever got to the Supreme Court, the highest authority in the entire country.
If this law passes, it sets a powerful legal precedent. All the other states now have all the ammunition they ever need to make the same law, because the whole "it violates free speech" arguement, the big thing stopping laws like that from being passed, will have effectively been made useless, because it wasn't enough to stop the California law.
If the California law passes, expect laws like this to pop up in all sorts of states. My legal knowledge is limited, so feel free to correct me."
I posted this on another thread and will try to repeat it as a shorter post.FMAylward said:
This is a Law for California only, at the moment. California would decide was is "acceptable" as a video game for minors. There are 11-ish other states that support the new law. What this means is that if the law passes there will be a potential of 11 other states with their own individual views of what is "acceptable" as a video game.
The UK video game laws are for EVERYONE not just a single county/state of the UK. Now imagine if every country in the UK had their own views of what is acceptable? Scotland doesn't want the demeaning of the government, England doesn't like women being abused in video games and Ireland doesn't like the use of drugs in video games.
So now game developers have to worry about making a different version for each country of the UK. So you can only imagine how ugly that would be which is what the California law has the potential of becoming.
California would have their own view, Texas would have their own view, Hawaii would have it's own view, etc. etc.
It probably won't mean too much. The principle is a bad one, that game no longer have the art protection that is enjoyed by books and movies, but the practical result is likely to be near nil.
Most stores already enforce the ESRB system and parents already buy the hardcore stuff for their little darlings. The real "problem" here always has been and will be the parents who are the enablers that allow the games to get into the hands of kids.
Most stores already enforce the ESRB system and parents already buy the hardcore stuff for their little darlings. The real "problem" here always has been and will be the parents who are the enablers that allow the games to get into the hands of kids.
Fyi, walmart is building special cabinets to go behind registers like cigerettes fr mature games just in case his law passes... Estimates are something like a 40% loss in sales. All your games are going to look like australia's games if this passes as Games are big buisness now, mature games will be niche products like turn based stratagy and adventure games
We get exactly the same games as you do, videogame regulation is really not an issue in the UK like it is in Germany or Australia.tthor said:
The alarmist view: Developers stop making violent games because stores won't sell them.
The realist view: Almost nothing would noticeably change.
The realist view: Almost nothing would noticeably change.