Of course you've never seen anybody carded for buying a game. There's no law requiring it. That's the point of the bill.

The Half Elf is quite right that a law making it ILLEGAL to SELL violent or sexual games to children serves the vast majority of gamers WHO ARE NOT CHILDREN. We can now point at the legal rating and say, I agree it is a crime this game is being played by children. Let us link arms and dance a merry dance of hate towards the sorry parents who allowed this. And yes I will loan you five bucks for a taxi, Mr Lawyer, since you will no longer be making money off game companies.

I'm sorry if you're reading this and twelve and won't get to play the next GTA (which I've heard will be the best one with total-virtua-body suit titty wank and suckmedown technology. Shame that. There's also going to be a new gun.

EDIT: and strict parents = tearaways kids, and vice versa. Your examples are lies. These things SKIP generations. Baldness, responsibility, heart disease. Live and learn.

-----------------------------
Northern Ireland 1 England 0
This comment was edited on Sep 15, 18:49.

I've never seen anybody carded for buying a game. I've seen at Wal-Mart where if you buy a movie that is more than pg-13 the register askes the cashier if the customer is over 18, but I've never seen them card anyone for that either.

I doubt it will solve anything in any case. The solution starts with good parenting, sometimes a little tough love. There is a difference between discipline and abuse. Some parents I guess are either too scared to discipline their kids, are just too damn lazy to be bothered with it, or their just complacent and are afraid that their kids will grow up and hate them.

Most people I talk to that had strict parents as a child have a better relationship with their parents and greater respect for them now, and the ones who had "cool" parents are running around robbing stores, getting drugged up at rave parties, and making babies that they can't afford or raise properly.

Edit: Opps sorry, I lied about Wal-Mart selling unrated stuff, it is rated just not an American rating.

Ah okay.

Creston

Edit : Nor is there a massive epidemic of kids playing San Andreas

That's actually not true. My wife teaches middle school, and absolutely every single ONE of the kids in her classes has played it. For a whole month it was all they talked about. And those are kids ages 9-14.

Now, we can endlessly debate whether or not that has any effect (I personally don't THINK it does, but I can see how it COULD) on kids, and about that that's the parents' responsibility (which it is), but it doesn't negate the fact that kids play these games, and that retailers SELL them to them. Not every retailer does that, and not every underage kid who plays GTA bought it himself, but it's definitely happening.

And is it hypocritical of the government to put up a law for videogames, whereas they do NOTHING about movies allowing underage kids to go see R rated films? Ofcourse it is, but this is the GOVERNMENT we're talking about. Have you ever seen them NOT be hypocrits?

Creston

This comment was edited on Sep 15, 13:18.

But videogame retailers really have this to blame on themselves, because they HAVEN'T been restricting their sales to minors.

Exactly.

Wow, really? Where are you from? (Not saying you're wrong btw, just curious). Here in OK they don't.

Colorado Springs, CO

Edit: Opps sorry, I lied about Wal-Mart selling unrated stuff, it is rated just not an American rating.

This comment was edited on Sep 15, 12:38.

It's completely inane, and utterly useless. The vast majority of video games played by kids are purchased by adults anyway, so even if there were a massive epidemic of 10 year olds playing San Andreas, this would do nothing to stop that.

Nor is there a massive epidemic of kids playing San Andreas, nor is there any casuality to show that even if there were a massive epidemic that it would seriously be a problem.

So in recap, this is legislation designed to stop something which isn't happening in an attempt to prevent something that probably wouldn't happen anyway.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that video games aren't the best thing in a kid's life. I'm willing to believe that for some kids, they're probably downright detrimental. But they aren't a health risk. Parents who ignore their kids are a health risk.

All retailers where I'm from sell unrated movies and such, even Wal-Mart does

Wow, really? Where are you from? (Not saying you're wrong btw, just curious). Here in OK they don't.

You cannot make a law to prohibit the sale of non-illicit merchandise. An unrated game is just that unrated, it isn’t the most restrictive rating, because it hasn’t been submitted for one.

No, but the retailers will consider it as such, and thus won't carry it, at least here.

Most retailers in my town won't sell spray paint to kids, huffing and graffiti problems, you want to paint your bike, get mom or dad to buy you a can. It is easy, it works, and no laws had to be drafted.

Because those retailers actually comply with such measures. Similarly for drugstores no longer selling huge amounts of cold medicine.
But videogame retailers really have this to blame on themselves, because they HAVEN'T been restricting their sales to minors.
Again, at least here they haven't. I'm sure there are a few stores here and there who will do so, but around here, if you have the 50 bucks, have fun playing that "Teenage Rapist" game kid!

And then government does what government always does, it creates more rules. I think this sums it up best

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php?date=2001-02-14&res=l

Creston

Not through stores they won't. Retailers will not carry products that are unrated. So then the only way to sell it would be over the Internet, and this bill doesn't do anything about Internet sales, only retail sales, so there's absolutely no point in NOT having your game rated.

All retailers where I'm from sell unrated movies and such, even Wal-Mart does. Now I realize that if Rockstar won't submit their games, very few retailers would sell them, however, if all developers decide they have had enough, then we have a different story.

"Well, maybe draft a law making it illegal to sell unrated games to minors"

This bill pretty much already does that. An unrated game is considered to be the most restrictive rating, which would make it AO.

You cannot make a law to prohibit the sale of non-illicit merchandise. An unrated game is just that unrated, it isn’t the most restrictive rating, because it hasn’t been submitted for one.

Moving the video game industry underground is absurd, but using the government to regulate and administer fines isn't the answer either. Most retailers in my town won't sell spray paint to kids, huffing and graffiti problems, you want to paint your bike, get mom or dad to buy you a can. It is easy, it works, and no laws had to be drafted.

What if the developers and publishers decide not to submit certain “questionable” games to the ESRB, which is voluntary, now we have unrated games that still reach their target audience and kids can buy them to boot.

Not through stores they won't. Retailers will not carry products that are unrated. So then the only way to sell it would be over the Internet, and this bill doesn't do anything about Internet sales, only retail sales, so there's absolutely no point in NOT having your game rated.

Well, maybe draft a law making it illegal to sell unrated games to minors

This bill pretty much already does that. An unrated game is considered to be the most restrictive rating, which would make it AO.

O, I know, make a law that says in order to participate in this free economy, you have to obtain a rating, brilliant.

Retailers simply won't carry products without a rating, it's not really the law's fault.

Is it unfortunate that it's coming down to legislation, yes it is, but sadly, whenever something is failing badly (as in this case, keeping R rated games out of the hands of minors), people always feel the need to legislate.

I agree that this is the responsibility of PARENTS, but parents in general seem to be the laziest fucking creatures on the planet.
(Btw, no offense intended to those of you who have kids, and DO care about what they watch and what they play, and who DO take an interest in them. I realise that my statement is terribly general.

Creston

This whole thing is getting crazy-stupid way too fast. What if the developers and publishers decide not to submit certain “questionable” games to the ESRB, which is voluntary, now we have unrated games that still reach their target audience and kids can buy them to boot.

Well, maybe draft a law making it illegal to sell unrated games to minors, but since it is voluntary to submit your game for a rating, lawyers would have a field day. O, I know, make a law that says in order to participate in this free economy, you have to obtain a rating, brilliant.

This is insane, we need a smarter checks and balances system for retailers, and we have to put our faith in parents (shudder).

Counselors are just tools of The Man!



Creston

You are a cynical bunch, aren't you?


Just realistic

Why is realistic always synomynous with hopelessly morbid? You guys assume the worst in everything. Are any of you even happy in life? You know, they have counselors for that!

To be perfectly honest, I think that retailers SHOULD be punished for selling 'M' rated games to children. I agree with the arguments Creston intelligently laid out 100%. To say that you are limiting free speech by not letting children play GTA is idiotic.

The problem I have is with government regulation of ANYTHING. The ESRB or the IDSA should be the ones to levy fines by contractual agreement, and all of the collected moneys donated to charities. Why not pass a law demanding that if a retailer is to sell interactive digital entertainment, then it must first agree to such a contractual agreement? That might not be the only way, but the point is that government intrusion needs to be minimized, as this is really none of their affair.

Letting retailers off the hook for acting irresponsibly is not the answer.

I have to say that there's very little I agree with in the IEMA's letter (or at least the section that's shown in the post).


The IEMA believes that A.B. 1179 is unnecessary, as retailers are firmly committed to voluntarily enforcing and promoting the video game rating system

Bullshit. A retailer sells to whomever wants a game. I've seen fucking DOZENS of kids walk out of the EB in the mall with copies of any of the last three GTA games. I've also yet to see a single sale of that game be denied by Best Buy, including to some kids who could have been younger than 17 (in which case a retailer is allowed to ask for ID, right?).


Second, legislation cannot and will not replace the ultimate role and responsibility of parents in their duty to raise their children, and this bill usurps the rights of parents by restricting minors' access to certain games, even if parents have approved them for their child

Bullshit again. This bill does NOT stop a kid from PLAYING an M rated game, it just stops the retailer from SELLING it to a kid. If a parent approves a game for their child, then they have to go buy it for their child. Which I actually approve. It MIGHT force parents to take a slightly more active role, rather than just forking over the 50 bucks to their kid so they'll get out of their hair.


Further, federal courts have consistently recognized that video games are constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the restrictions in this bill impermissibly run afoul of that protection

I'm not a lawyer, so I may be wrong, but how does this run afoul? It would run afoul if the bill said "Any game rated M may NO LONGER BE SOLD."
But restricting a certain age group of buying a product, how is that running afoul of the constitution? We do the same thing with tons of products, why are videogames any different? (just curious here btw, like I said I'm not sure. If someone can explain that, I'd appreciate it.)

Finally, the bill provides no meaningful standards to assist in determining whether games would fall within the legislation's purview.

That sentence doesn't even mean anything. The bill wasn't DESIGNED to do that, it's designed to stop the sale of M rated materials to children that are younger than 17. Nothing more.

Now, do I agree with the bill, not really. I still think that parents in the US are fucking lazy, and should be held responsible for their kids. But in the end, this bill really isn't all that bad, in my opinion, and it might add some oomph to the rating system.

Will it affect sales of certain games? Possibly, but then again, those sales would have been sales to audiences that the game was not intended for anyways, so any publisher that complains about that is being hypocritical. Ie, Rockstar bitching about lost sales if this bill was to go into effect means they know FULL WELL that the rating is spurious, and they fully expect young kids to play their game.
That's fine, but then we should stop allowing them to hide behind the rating system and say "Hey, we know we make terribly violent and bloody games, but we don't intend for young kids to play them! Look at our M rating!"
It'd be very funny to then hear them whine "Hey, your bill stopped our game from being sold to kids!"

Actually, I can't wait for the first dev / publisher to whine about this.

Creston

You are a cynical bunch, aren't you?

Just realistic.

Parallax Abstraction
Ottawa, Canada
www.pxa.ca

It was specifically "impermissibly run afoul of" I was refering to. Running afoul of legislation is impermissible by nature, it's like saying illegally breaking the law.

Not really, the legalese really makes the appear as an oxymoron, on the one hand it recognises that some sort of enforcement should be in place to protect minors but then states that video games are protected speech and as such free to all...?

"the restrictions in this bill impermissibly run afoul of that protection"

I don't think thats lawyer speak just badly written, it's a tautology isn't it?

If the IEMA, and more importantly retailers take the sale/rental of "M" rated games to minors seriously then they have nothing to fear from fines?

This system is in place in the UK and it is the responsibility of the person at the "point of sale" to exercise their judgement and by law refuse the sale of BBFC rated games to those who are or appear under age or are obviously purchasing the game on a minors behalf.

They have to represent the retailers but there is no need to become involved in the parental responsibility debate. When an "M" rated (or any other) game is being purchased and the vendor has satisfied himself that he has met the voluntary or legal requirements for that purchase to the best of his ability the the transaction is complete.

Is there a current debate of "where does the buck stop" in the video game chain, or who blames who?

Exposed-Player-Purchaser-Retailer-Regulator-Publisher-Developer

Kid#1> I really want that new Resident Evil game

Cool Kid> I can hook you up for only 10% over cost, want some meth with that order too?