i just don't understand why people are so against video game regulation helps make people take things more serious people get really angry at news shows saying their favorite matured rated game is childish and for five year olds. I think if america has a regulation system like the UK games can be taken seriously and treated more like a medium.
Why are people so against games in the US being regulated
- Thread starter books of war 13
- Start date
Recommended Videos
...
If games are an art form (which they are), then it is illegal and morally unjustifiable to regulate, because of the first amendment's freedom of expression. You may not agree with Mein Kampf (I don't agree with it), but to prevent its publication is both illegal and wrong. That's exactly what would happen, is that any game someone objected to, on any grounds, could be banned
Also, if this is a serious post, you may want to edit for clarity. It's a bit disjointed.
If games are an art form (which they are), then it is illegal and morally unjustifiable to regulate, because of the first amendment's freedom of expression. You may not agree with Mein Kampf (I don't agree with it), but to prevent its publication is both illegal and wrong. That's exactly what would happen, is that any game someone objected to, on any grounds, could be banned
Also, if this is a serious post, you may want to edit for clarity. It's a bit disjointed.
Ninja'd, and ninja'd. Thank you.
I think you're missing some critical info on this, particularly the recent developments in California.
I think you're missing some critical info on this, particularly the recent developments in California.
...What?books of war 13 said:
The US has the ESRB, which rates games, but it is ultimately up to consumers to decide what games they are going to purchase.
If you are trying to imply that government regulations would help video games be treated as an artistic medium, you are Dead Wrong.
The fact that government "regulation" is inherently censorship should be an obvious enough argument against it.
This would insist that video games are an inherently caustic form of media that bear threat to individuals and society. This false notion would affix itself to the interpretation of video games. Not to mention, this would further inhibit developers from enacting their artistic vision- retailers already often refuse to carry AO-rated titles. If M-rated games became a liability to retailers, they would have much less incentive to carry them.
America is a huge portion of the Western video game market; based on the sort of legislation involved in regulating video games, many developers could drastically change the sort of titles they produce in order to follow the money.
As an artistic medium, freedom and creativity in video games already suffer greatly at the hands of being extremely expensive to produce.
And I haven't even gotten into the implications government regulation like this would have on the medium's potential in the contemporary art scene.
*pulls the "grad student in fine art" card*
I think there does actually need to be regulations but I don?t think any of them should alter the creative vision of the creators.
What needs to be regulated is the quality of the product. Most games now require extensive patching and I think it?s unreasonable when a publisher releases a game that is obviously broken and not ready for mass market but ends up charging $60 for it anyway. Some of these publishers should be paying us for beta testing their crap.
They also need to be regulated if they?re going to continue to come up with online pass schemes and the like which are annoying to new game purchasers and just plain insulting to used game purchasers.
I see their concern for pirating and used game sales but they?re really taking it too far.
I wouldn?t have said it 5 years ago but the game industry does need some regulations, just not when it comes to their creative process.
What needs to be regulated is the quality of the product. Most games now require extensive patching and I think it?s unreasonable when a publisher releases a game that is obviously broken and not ready for mass market but ends up charging $60 for it anyway. Some of these publishers should be paying us for beta testing their crap.
They also need to be regulated if they?re going to continue to come up with online pass schemes and the like which are annoying to new game purchasers and just plain insulting to used game purchasers.
I see their concern for pirating and used game sales but they?re really taking it too far.
I wouldn?t have said it 5 years ago but the game industry does need some regulations, just not when it comes to their creative process.
I assume this is talking about regulating the sales of games based on the age rating? If so, then I agree, I don't really see why it would be so terrible. In the UK it's illegal to sell games and films to anyone under the age specified on the box, and I'm not aware of any huge negative consequences of this.
I also don't see how that would lead to censorship of any of the content. Surely all the content would remain the same, as would the ratings, the only thing that would change would be that less games would be sold to people below the age that should be playing it anyway. Surely that's a good thing?
I also don't see how that would lead to censorship of any of the content. Surely all the content would remain the same, as would the ratings, the only thing that would change would be that less games would be sold to people below the age that should be playing it anyway. Surely that's a good thing?
In an age where developers complain about not being able to sell enough new copies, not at all.b3nn3tt said:
Also that whole constitution thing, it kind of gets in the way of regulation.
Games are regulated. And absolutely no one is against that. What we're against is government regulation. Movies are not government regulated. Music is not government regulated. Books are not government regulated. All of these are self regulating industries that have done just fine so far. Television and Radio are only government regulated because they are literally broadcast into the homes of the entire public, and as such, are subject to a degree of censorship.
Movies, music, books, and games are all garnered through a conscious decision to buy X product for Y reason and thusly the consumer has to shoulder a certain amount of responsibility. The industries themselves have provided them with a general idea of what to expect from that product. Although, it could be argued that they should offer more information.
Movies, music, books, and games are all garnered through a conscious decision to buy X product for Y reason and thusly the consumer has to shoulder a certain amount of responsibility. The industries themselves have provided them with a general idea of what to expect from that product. Although, it could be argued that they should offer more information.
But technically the underage kids shouldn't be part of the group buying the game anyway, so the developers shouldn't be factoring them in, since the game is not designed to be sold to them.Easton Dark said:
I don't know all that much about the constitution, but surely it doesn't say anything about people being able to buy material that isn't age-appropriate? If that was the case, then why aren't children allowed to buy alcohol?
Duh, no more innovation when the filter is so strong. Have you ever seen an NC17 movie? Probably not due to them never getting thru the movie filter. There are great documentaries on it. The boards that make these big decisions are supposed to be a varied group with children. Some of the people on the boards have been in power for so long that their children have children. It's a completely skewed vision, when the board is made up of 60-somethings with right-wing agendas. Oh and religiously affiliated board members are also in there ... from only TWO religions.
My point is, if video games go from the way they are to being filtered as poorly as the movie industry is, we won't see shit for innovation as it's too dangerous. No one can make a profit unless you release the same cookie-cutter bs over and over again ...
My point is, if video games go from the way they are to being filtered as poorly as the movie industry is, we won't see shit for innovation as it's too dangerous. No one can make a profit unless you release the same cookie-cutter bs over and over again ...
We're a self-regulating industry and plenty of us are interested in delving into more mature, complex themes going forward. Applying a hardline regulatory body that doesn't properly understand what we're doing is tantamount to creative suicide. Who in the Hell would willingly subject themselves to something that is of absolutely no benefit to their work like that?
I certainly won't. I'm not satisfied with having all of my development be whitewashed for under-agers. I'm much, much more interested in deeper and darker themes. I'll be pushing all the way to the day where a hypothetical game about being Hitler's right-hand in Nazi Germany is just as accepted in the form of a game as it would be in the form of a movie or novel.
I certainly won't. I'm not satisfied with having all of my development be whitewashed for under-agers. I'm much, much more interested in deeper and darker themes. I'll be pushing all the way to the day where a hypothetical game about being Hitler's right-hand in Nazi Germany is just as accepted in the form of a game as it would be in the form of a movie or novel.
The ESRB is just a suggestion. If the kids can handle it, I see no reason to keep them from purchasing a game. Parents can take that responsibility.b3nn3tt said:
1st amendment's freedom of speech and expression applies to art. Video games are art, so the government can't interfere with it, and neither can the states. So no, nothing about 'age appropriateness', alcohol isn't art so much
That's up to the parents though. In the UK it's not illegal for a parent to buy a game/film for their child, only to sell the game to the child. I imagne it's similar at the moment anyway in the US, as the ESRB ratings are fairly well-enforced. The only difference would be that that enforcement was law.Easton Dark said:The ESRB is just a suggestion. If the kids can handle it, I see no reason to keep them from purchasing a game. Parents can take that responsibility.b3nn3tt said:
1st amendment's freedom of speech and expression applies to art. Video games are art, so the government can't interfere with it, and neither can the states. So no, nothing about 'age appropriateness', alcohol isn't art so much
If that was the case then why can't children go and watch an R-rated film? Enforcements aren't there to interfere with the art itself, only with who views it.
Don't know about Britain. I have not seen the ESRB be well-enforced, anywhere.b3nn3tt said:
And films? Movie theaters aren't government controlled, they're private businesses. Private businesses can do what they want with their materials. I assume they do that so more restrictive parents will feel better about taking their children there.
Could have sworn that someone on here posted something a while ago that showed that the ESRB ratings were fairly well-enforced. Oh well. If they're not, then I'd say that's a case for making it the law that they should be.Easton Dark said:
Fair enough, I thought it was actually the law that kids couldn't go by themselves. Thanks for clearing that one up for me.
I myself, a 24 yr old male with plenty of facial hair, was carded when buying Gears of War 3 @ the midnight release of it.Easton Dark said:
Most retailers I've seen enforce the ESRB. But I'm sure it varies by location.
Apart from being pressured into self-imposed ratings systems, the U.S. government hasn't regulated any art form. And video games have had a self-imposed rating system since the 90s.books of war 13 said:
Right now, time is the only hurdle to games being taken seriously. I'm in my early 40s and I was among the first generation raised on video games. In 20 years, just about everyone in a position of power will have been raised on video games. Our attitudes toward video games will change dramatically in the near future just because of this fact.
Take a look at television. Up until the 80s, TV was considered pretty much junk culture. Movie stars stayed far away from television and it was tough for television stars to make the leap to movies. Why, because the people in charge of making movies didn't grow up watching television. Same thing happened with movies decades before when they were the unruly red-head step-child to the much more regarded stage. Comics had a much harder struggle, but the drive toward more adult-oriented material in the 80s has made them the darling of the cinema as movie directors who grew up on Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen brought that love to the Big Screen.
The government has absolutely nothing to do with anything.