Forums / Discussion / General

168,548 total conversations in 5,398 threads

+ New Thread


Locked Locked
New law would make ESRB ratings legally binding.

Last posted Jan 22, 2013 at 12:15AM EST. Added Jan 19, 2013 at 09:58AM EST
104 posts from 32 users

量子 Meme wrote:

The fact that you have posted every few posts from others in this thread shows that you are really rustled.

Plus, Natsuru, here in Britain, the BBFC and PEGI ratings limit younger players to people who are old enough to buy them. It’s illegal (I think) to buy a game that is rated higher than your age, but not illegal to play them.

If this bill was passed, I’m assuming it will make it illegal, for example, for a 12 year old to play Black Ops II.

Censorship is something that DOES rustle my jimmies. I won’t go into my thoughts about the Derpy situation.

Jan 19, 2013 at 03:13PM EST
Quote

Ashki wrote:

I still think its a horrible idea, but then of course politicians usually are full of them, and yes, I can agree with the arggession thing, but the thing is, people, most of the time politicians seem to think they cause straight out violence.

>Let me say this, I don’t like them either, but this is a horrible idea, but then of course the politicians are always full of them
> I’d rather politicians keep their noses out of my business and not only that
>parents are not dictating, but the government sure has been trying to.
>And no, I don’t believe all that BS about studies.
>though that doesn’t stop the government from trying to pass them…continuously.

You are aware that “Politicians” and “The Government” is a collective of Thousands of individuals with different ideas that are forced to conglomerate and apply a code that settles the majority’s opinions.

Saying “Politicians are bad” and “The Government is evil” isn’t lending to your argument, and to me at least, makes you seem like a spoiled child, and I mean that with no bitterness.

Jan 19, 2013 at 03:17PM EST
Quote

@Quantum Meme

"Under the terms of the bill, it would be unlawful for any person to sell or rent--or attempt to sell or rent--any Adults Only (AO) rated game to any person under the age of 18. In addition, the bill seeks to make it illegal for any M-for-Mature game to be sold to any person under 17.

Further, the bill would make it unlawful for any entity to sell or rent a game that does not contain an ESRB rating label in a “clear and conspicuous location” on its packaging. Should the bill become law, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would have 180 days to create rules mandating that retail establishments display such a rating."

It’s only sales. Minors can play the games, but they can’t be bought by them.


@Cale

As for actually causing violence, the German study I linked to was longitudinal, and playing violent video games actually predicted violence in the future.

Now that is a bit suspect, because the people who would grow up to commit violent acts are probably more inclined to play violent video games than the regular population. Also, I don’t know of many other studies that link violent video games to violence. But there are some studies that have found a link beyond mere aggression.

Jan 19, 2013 at 03:19PM EST
Quote

Cale wrote:

>Let me say this, I don’t like them either, but this is a horrible idea, but then of course the politicians are always full of them
> I’d rather politicians keep their noses out of my business and not only that
>parents are not dictating, but the government sure has been trying to.
>And no, I don’t believe all that BS about studies.
>though that doesn’t stop the government from trying to pass them…continuously.

You are aware that “Politicians” and “The Government” is a collective of Thousands of individuals with different ideas that are forced to conglomerate and apply a code that settles the majority’s opinions.

Saying “Politicians are bad” and “The Government is evil” isn’t lending to your argument, and to me at least, makes you seem like a spoiled child, and I mean that with no bitterness.

Okay, yes, not all of them, but when I continuously see something like this trying to get passed it irritates me.

These kinda things have been tried and tried over and over and the violent video game dead horse has been beaten to death, past death, but they just keep trying, and it gets rather infuriating, especially when my tax money pays for these kinda things.

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 03:31PM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 03:22PM EST
Quote

Ashki wrote:

Censorship is something that DOES rustle my jimmies. I won’t go into my thoughts about the Derpy situation.

This is not censorship. No games are being edited to make them child friendly. This law is only making it so that a child can not buy mature games by themselves, but a parent can buy the games and let the child play them later. In other words: It only matters who the store is selling their games to. In the eyes of the law, it does not matter if a 17 year old bought GTA and then let his 7 year old brother play it, it only matters that a clerk does not sell the game to a 7 year old.

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 03:33PM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 03:32PM EST
Quote

Crimson Locks wrote:

This is not censorship. No games are being edited to make them child friendly. This law is only making it so that a child can not buy mature games by themselves, but a parent can buy the games and let the child play them later. In other words: It only matters who the store is selling their games to. In the eyes of the law, it does not matter if a 17 year old bought GTA and then let his 7 year old brother play it, it only matters that a clerk does not sell the game to a 7 year old.

As I said in my PM, give them an inch and they’ll take a mile, and again, you want to punish someone? Punish the parents for their lax parenting.

Don’t punish the retailers who do their job, don’t punish people who are mentally stable and can handle these games, that’s just not fair.

Jan 19, 2013 at 03:37PM EST
Quote

Over here in Britain I don’t think anyone really cares as with Quantum and Verbose said were allowed to play them not purchase them if we under the age. I think this is mostly for parent/guardian permission as usually they buy the games for me. But I could ask a random stranger to buy it for me and it can be sold.

Also out of curiosity what’s the ratings in the U.S. Here it is PEGI 3, 7, 12, 16, 18. but there are games rated 15 not by PEGI.

Jan 19, 2013 at 03:37PM EST
Quote

Spider-byte wrote:

Over here in Britain I don’t think anyone really cares as with Quantum and Verbose said were allowed to play them not purchase them if we under the age. I think this is mostly for parent/guardian permission as usually they buy the games for me. But I could ask a random stranger to buy it for me and it can be sold.

Also out of curiosity what’s the ratings in the U.S. Here it is PEGI 3, 7, 12, 16, 18. but there are games rated 15 not by PEGI.

That could happen here as welll. the thing is, if a parent does by an M rated game and then freaks out about it, they’ll go to the retailer and complain, even if the retailer warned the and showed them the rating and why it was rated like that, and if they didn’t sell the game, I’m sure the clerks boss would get called in.

Anyways, I think our rating goes E, T, M AO.

Hell, no idea why we have an AO rating when those don’t get sold in stores.

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 03:44PM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 03:44PM EST
Quote

The rateings in America are;
eC: Early Childhood (Mostly for Sesame Street and educational stuff)
E: Everyone
E+10: Everyone 10 and up.
T: Teen, 12 and up.
M: Mature, everyone 17 and up.
Ao: Adult Only, everyone 18 and up. These can’t be legally sold in game stores I think.

I personally think the E+10 rating is useless. But comparing it to the Pegi system, it’s far more general and less specific.

Jan 19, 2013 at 04:17PM EST
Quote
you want to punish someone? Punish the parents for their lax parenting.

You’re contradicting yourself. You said earlier in this thread that you think the law should stay out of your business (which I think is reasonable) but now you’re saying the law should be punishing parents for letting their kids play mature games?

Retailers are just as responsible for what they sell to their customers as the customers are. If a bartender sold alcohol to a minor he would have his bartenders license taken away and possibly go to jail. You wouldn’t be saying “we should blame that minor’s lax parents for letting their child go out and get drunk!”

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 04:19PM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 04:19PM EST
Quote

Natsuru Springfield wrote:

The rateings in America are;
eC: Early Childhood (Mostly for Sesame Street and educational stuff)
E: Everyone
E+10: Everyone 10 and up.
T: Teen, 12 and up.
M: Mature, everyone 17 and up.
Ao: Adult Only, everyone 18 and up. These can’t be legally sold in game stores I think.

I personally think the E+10 rating is useless. But comparing it to the Pegi system, it’s far more general and less specific.

I also don’t get the M and AO thing, what’s one year going to do? Weird.

Also, yes, I tend to get a bit confused, and yes, I still think the government should keep their noses out of people’s business, including what people play and watch, but, if they must insist on trying to do something like this, they should put the focus on the real trouble, lax parenting.

It is moot though, this is more then likely going to get ruled as unconstitutional as it should.

Jan 19, 2013 at 04:23PM EST
Quote

Ashki wrote:

That could happen here as welll. the thing is, if a parent does by an M rated game and then freaks out about it, they’ll go to the retailer and complain, even if the retailer warned the and showed them the rating and why it was rated like that, and if they didn’t sell the game, I’m sure the clerks boss would get called in.

Anyways, I think our rating goes E, T, M AO.

Hell, no idea why we have an AO rating when those don’t get sold in stores.

The Big 3 won’t allow AO games to be licensed for their game consoles.

There are only 21 games that are AO. If you notice, they’re pretty much all PC games.

All Nude Cyber (Mac, PC) – Strong Sexual Content
All Nude Glamour (Mac, PC) – Strong Sexual Content
All Nude Nikki (Mac, PC) – Strong Sexual Content
Body Language (DVD) – Strong Sexual Content
Crystal Fantasy (Mac, PC) – Strong Sexual
Cyber Photographer (Mac, PC) – Strong Sexual Content
Indigo Prophecy Director’s Cut (PC) – Blood, Nudity, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs and Alcohol, Violence
The Joy of Sex (CD-i) – Strong Sexual Content
Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude Uncut and Uncensored! (PC) – Mature Humor, Nudity, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Alcohol
Lula 3D (PC) – Blood, Nudity, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Violence
Peak Entertainment Casinos (PC) – Real Gambling
Manhunt 2 (PC) – Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs
Playboy Screensaver: The Women of Playboy (Mac) – Mature Sexual Themes
Riana Rouge (Mac, PC) – Realistic Blood and Gore, Strong Sexual Themes
Seduce Me (PC) – Strong Sexual Content, Nudity, Strong Language, and Use of Drugs
Singles: Flirt Up Your Life (PC) – Nudity, Strong Sexual Content (also released in an M-rated version)
Snow Drop (PC) – Strong Sexual Content
Tokimeki Check in! (PC) – Strong Sexual Content
Water Closet: The Forbidden Chamber (PC) – Strong Sexual Content
Lula: The Sexy Empire (PC) – Strong Sexual Content
X-Change (PC) – Strong Sexual Content

Jan 19, 2013 at 04:24PM EST
Quote

Yep, and I see what all of those have in common as well, just like when they freaked out over that GTA: San Andreas deal and got it’s rating changed temporarily to AO.

Jan 19, 2013 at 04:26PM EST
Quote

Like I said before, a different method that COULD be implemented is that retailers should ask people who they are buying it for. Why would a parent lie about this sort of thing? So if they say that they are buying it for their underage child, that not only makes them irresponsible parents, but it allows for the retailers to deny the selling of a game to a minor THROUGH the parent.

When my mother got me a new PS2 (since the old one had shit itself) I got GTA: San Andreas as a game to go with it. But i was 12-13 at the time. My mother knew this. She was reluctant to get it for me. But, she looked me in the eye and said “Do NOT repeat ANYTHING you see on the game”. Is that an alternative route parents could take? Yes, but sadly many parents buy these mature games for their children without looking at the label or knowing what the game is about.

To parents, their knowledge of video games rests on things like Mario or Sonic, which are well know, kid friendly games. This is what parents see when video games are mentioned. So when violent video games come up for discussion, they think that they are the worst thing ever since Hitler. Yet because of what they KNOW about video games from things like Mario and Sonic, they still buy these games thinking that its going to be all happy colourful mushroom time.

Jan 19, 2013 at 04:34PM EST
Quote

I don’t see any glaring problem with the bill. Most retailers already won’t sell M games to minors unless with an adult, and AO games are non-existent outside of PC games. This really wouldn’t effect anything, and people are overreacting because all they read was “new restrictions to buying games” and declined to actually read what these restrictions are.

This bill doesn’t actually change anything.

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 04:46PM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 04:44PM EST
Quote

Calkarot wrote:

Like I said before, a different method that COULD be implemented is that retailers should ask people who they are buying it for. Why would a parent lie about this sort of thing? So if they say that they are buying it for their underage child, that not only makes them irresponsible parents, but it allows for the retailers to deny the selling of a game to a minor THROUGH the parent.

When my mother got me a new PS2 (since the old one had shit itself) I got GTA: San Andreas as a game to go with it. But i was 12-13 at the time. My mother knew this. She was reluctant to get it for me. But, she looked me in the eye and said “Do NOT repeat ANYTHING you see on the game”. Is that an alternative route parents could take? Yes, but sadly many parents buy these mature games for their children without looking at the label or knowing what the game is about.

To parents, their knowledge of video games rests on things like Mario or Sonic, which are well know, kid friendly games. This is what parents see when video games are mentioned. So when violent video games come up for discussion, they think that they are the worst thing ever since Hitler. Yet because of what they KNOW about video games from things like Mario and Sonic, they still buy these games thinking that its going to be all happy colourful mushroom time.

If only more people thought like this.

It’s actually pretty funny, I’ve been playing the Midway Arcade Origins, more specifically Rampage, and that is pretty violent. Yes, there’s no bloodshed or anything, but your character is destroying buildings and killing people, and I don’t see any complaints about that.

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 05:01PM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 05:00PM EST
Quote

­ wrote:

Just because you don’t like Military FPS games doesn’t mean other people don’t like them.
Plus, it’s still people losing their jobs, and that’s what matters most. Getting rid of Military FPS games could really damage the industry.

I’m suspecting you to be within the age of 12-16, and are mad that with this you’ll lose your right to play games above your age. It’s hardcore, it makes you feel like a rebel, everyone does it, yet there are no real risks involved because your parents are cool like that.

Yeah. Maybe the parents should sign something that says they’re ok with it.

This kinda confirms my above statement.


Verbose wrote:

But as it stands, don’t you already have to provide an ID to purchase and rent games above a certain rating? This just holds people to it. So it’s nothing new, really.

I don’t remember the last time I had to do that when I purchased a game online, because it was never. Of course you have to tell them your date of birth, but you can easily lie and they’ll never do a background check anyway.

So yeah, asking IDs is flawed. Parents buy the games or you just order them online. But that doesn’t make the rating pointless, it just shows that parents are irresponsible.


Fudgegruck wrote:

The PARENT should be responsible for what type of media a minor consumes, not the distributor. Besides, a minor would still be able to get his mitts on the game anyway. When has a movie being rated R stopped children from watching it? Never. A child could easily buy the game online.

That doesn’t justify that they did something they shouldn’t do in the first place. You are trying to justify irresponsible behavior here through the holes in the system.


Coily wrote:

There are (other ways to blow off steam), but I’d rather use the video games to do it, and I’d rather politicians keep their noses out of my business and not only that, I’d rather them quit trying to dictate what I can and cannot play when it comes to video games.

Then that is an issue with you as an individual, not in general. The fact that you refuse to anything else than virtual violence doesn’t mean others can take that responsibility when offered.

That whole politician thing is just overreacting. But Verbose already replied to that, so I won’t.

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 05:43PM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 05:14PM EST
Quote

Not really, not when they keep trying to stick their noses in where it’s not wanted, not when they keep trying to do things that have time and time again been called unconstitutional.

Jan 19, 2013 at 05:18PM EST
Quote

Ashki wrote:

Not really, not when they keep trying to stick their noses in where it’s not wanted, not when they keep trying to do things that have time and time again been called unconstitutional.

Getting real tired of your paranoia with the goverment shit.

Jan 19, 2013 at 05:21PM EST
Quote

RandomMan wrote:

Getting real tired of your paranoia with the goverment shit.

Sorry, but until they realize that the main focus should be on lax parenting, the trouble won’t stop.

Jan 19, 2013 at 05:22PM EST
Quote

Yeah, but what the hell can they do about lax parenting? Create a PSA that nobody will listen to? I find this to be a bit more effective.

Jan 19, 2013 at 05:26PM EST
Quote

Crimson Locks wrote:

Yeah, but what the hell can they do about lax parenting? Create a PSA that nobody will listen to? I find this to be a bit more effective.

All this would do is hurt the retailers, as I mentioned, I’d much rather the government not stick it’s nose in where it’s wanted, but things like this are not going to help.

We’ve got ratings, we’ve got parental controls on the consoles, anything more is not going to help and IMO, would only make things worse.

I’ll point this out on GamePolitics – As Andrew Eisen has helpfully pointed out the flaws here, and E. Zachary Knight has already pointed out why this is going not going to go anywhere anyways.

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 05:36PM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 05:28PM EST
Quote

I grew up on Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and I turned out (mostly) fine. My younger cousins like to play Call of Duty, Halo, and Gears of War and their parents don’t mind at all. They don’t let them go online, but they still let them play the games. Besides, most of those games give you the option to turn off the blood and swearing, which my cousins always do.

Jan 19, 2013 at 05:32PM EST
Quote

This is, quite possibly, the dumbest bill that will ever be conceived by the 113th Congress.
• Like Teh Brawler said on the first page, several tests have been done to see if there was a connection between violent video games and physical violence, and they were all inconclusive.
• If a game is really THAT bad, it should just be rated NC-17, which is already legally binding.
• It is the parent’s choice as to how their child is raised, not the government.
• Chances are, they’re gonna have a pretty difficult time getting anyone to follow this law.
I don’t see this passing both houses anyway, so I’m not too worried.

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 09:16PM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 09:13PM EST
Quote

I play Team Fortress 2 regularly, and while I have my moments with bouts of rage (“How the F*CK was that a backstab!?”), I’m still known as one of the “quiet ones” in my high school. Maybe it’s just a social disorder.

I think the biggest issue is with mental ability. You always see those warnings for those who suffer from epilepsy on the case, so why not state that it is the client’s responsibility to be healthy enough in both physical and intellectual state of mind.

I also think the parents need to get involved. I know it sounds odd, but when I’m old enough for my own kids I’ll probably be checking in on them from time to time as they spend their gaming days playing who-knows-what. My dad sometimes sat on the couch with me while I was playing Starfox 64 at the age of six. While that particular game was rated E, I still think his prescence there let him know that the game wasnt too violent for my age.

Plus he helped me figure out how to beat that godforsaken skeleton on Titania. >:(

Jan 19, 2013 at 09:56PM EST
Quote

Looking at this from a glance, I’m find myself with Verbose on this. I don’t really see the problem either.

What this bill basically means is that underage kids cannot buy games above their age limit and/or enforces retailers to respect those age limits.

I’m pretty sure most of us here are old enough to buy any mature rated game, so this hardly affects us at all. But it may cut down on little kids playing games that weren’t intended for them

Anything that can cut down on the amount of annoying little kids screaming insults into the microphone and chat logs gets my full support.

No it isn’t true that video games make you killers, we all know that. But yes, violent video games can increase aggression levels in little kids. That has been evidenced. Adults are immune, but young impressionable children that cannot separate virtual from reality really do get a hyper-aggressive boost from shooting people online. Their angry high pitched squeaky voices that howl every time you pull a headshot on them is enough proof of that as it is

Wouldn’t you like to have less CoD players like that? Then support this bill.

On the other hand, I will also agree than the decision to buy games for kids, at whatever restriction should come down to parents, even though it would be best if parents understood and heeded those restrictions.

I would also mandate more advertising and awareness of ERSB ratings so more parents know what they are and how important they are. I feel like most parents don’t understand the ratings at all.

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 10:29PM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 10:27PM EST
Quote

Sigh, why do I even bother.

Even if this kinda thing did go into effect (which it won’t), they’d still get the games as they’d get their parents to get them for them.

Some of the posters in this GamePolitics article shows all the tools that the entertainment industry has put out, and honestly, I think anything more would be overkill.

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 10:40PM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 10:35PM EST
Quote

Guys, guys. Oh my gosh, there is so much assumption going around here that it smells like a bathroom.

• It is not unconstitutional to regulate content. If it were, pornographic content would have the opportunity to be broadcast at any time on any channel. What it is unconstitutional to do to is to prevent content from being created. There is no basis for the argument that legally binding MSRB ratings are unconstitutional, because those games are still accessible, they’re just harder to obtain in the wrong context. I mean, seriously, there’s a reason you can’t say “fuck” on most radios or television stations.

•Censorship in a legal sense is NOT the removal of distasteful content. Censorship in a legal sense is the removal of a message. And, when it comes down to it, the argument that removal of distasteful content in a public or publicly accessible environment is unfair can’t hold water, even in a business sense, because it isolates part of the audience. I don’t want to see explicit sex in a Mario game, but because someone else who will still play the game does, that means I should just not play it? That’s unfair to me, since the other person would play it in either context. There are venues for these things for a reason, so that those who want it can get it, and those who don’t can avoid it. It’s not the removal of a message, it’s the restriction of content for the sake of mass audience, which isn’t illegal, and is certainly not anything I’m going to argue against.

• The reason that video games being a potential cause of aggressive or violent behavior is a legitimate problem is because video games create an active roll for a player to fill, which can indeed have profound psychological impacts on still developing minds. Heck, it’s been proven to do so even in a passive sense: in the ’60s, an experiment called Bobo the Clown has shown that children learn to imitate behavior, even negative behavior, on a reward system, which can be seen in television, and especially in video games. The point of contention is what the true effects are and how deep they are, but no one can make the argument that games do nothing to the people who play them, especially children, who are the target of this bill.

I may be a bit late to bring all this up, but it’s important to understand what arguments hold water and what arguments don’t.

Jan 19, 2013 at 10:43PM EST
Quote

And that’s why children shouldn’t be playing these games, but as I pointed out, parents would still get them anyways. Hell, I think it’s been pointed out in the first page as a matter of fact.

“isnt something like or identical to already in place? Once again, it’s down the parent to watch the games their kids play. Some people in that comment section on that article said that they’ve witnessed scenarios where kid tries to buy game, retailer denies, kid leaves and comes back with parent, parent is pissed that they had to come in, and despite warnings from the clerk, parent still buys game for kid. That’s the sort of shit we need to stop. I think a bill should be passed allowing retailers to deny selling a game to a minor whether a parent is there or not, and that retailers are to be required to ask whether the customer is buying the game for their kid or for themself, allowing the clerk to deny selling of a game through a parent/guardian.”

I don’t know how to quote here, but yeah, and as I myself pointed out with that GP deal, the gaming and entertainment industry has giving those kinda tools needed out, but the parents just won’t use them.

Jan 19, 2013 at 10:47PM EST
Quote

Ashki wrote:

And that’s why children shouldn’t be playing these games, but as I pointed out, parents would still get them anyways. Hell, I think it’s been pointed out in the first page as a matter of fact.

“isnt something like or identical to already in place? Once again, it’s down the parent to watch the games their kids play. Some people in that comment section on that article said that they’ve witnessed scenarios where kid tries to buy game, retailer denies, kid leaves and comes back with parent, parent is pissed that they had to come in, and despite warnings from the clerk, parent still buys game for kid. That’s the sort of shit we need to stop. I think a bill should be passed allowing retailers to deny selling a game to a minor whether a parent is there or not, and that retailers are to be required to ask whether the customer is buying the game for their kid or for themself, allowing the clerk to deny selling of a game through a parent/guardian.”

I don’t know how to quote here, but yeah, and as I myself pointed out with that GP deal, the gaming and entertainment industry has giving those kinda tools needed out, but the parents just won’t use them.

Then maybe it’s worth pointing out that the ESRB system is based on the honor code. Seriously, the best the ESRB can do, and are indeed expected to do, is fine individual stores (Not the company itself, mind you, individual stores) for being caught selling mature video games to minors, which they can only do by sending a representative to catch them in the act, which can’t be done consistently. The system is incredibly broken, which means it’s taken advantage of considerably. A bill like this changes that, because police involvement is much more consistent than ESRB involvement.

Also, as Verbose has said, anecdotal evidence is the weakest of all forms of evidence. Yes, some people have seen examples of the system being followed; so have I. But the problem is obviously still rampant, or we wouldn’t be dealing with it; for every one person who follows the system, there could be ten who don’t. And you specifically said that the problem is lax parenting, which can’t ever be solved by government regulation. So either we just leave things like they are and let what could be very intense consequences happen, or we could use this bill to have a better grasp on the sense.

Jan 19, 2013 at 10:57PM EST
Quote

And hurting the retailer is not going to help, nor is trying to force bills that have time and time again been stamped out as unconstitutional.

And that’s not even going into what could lead to a domino effect. Sorry, but at the moment things are better left as is until parents start doing their jobs and people quit blaming video games.

Jan 19, 2013 at 11:00PM EST
Quote

Ashki wrote:

And hurting the retailer is not going to help, nor is trying to force bills that have time and time again been stamped out as unconstitutional.

And that’s not even going into what could lead to a domino effect. Sorry, but at the moment things are better left as is until parents start doing their jobs and people quit blaming video games.

You can’t keep making that argument and expect it to work. There is a basis for blaming video games, because even if the results are unconclusive, they aren’t negative. And the bills that have been stamped out as unconstitutional are the ones that try to remove portions of video games completely from the market. This is totally different. And you can’t expect the solution to be better parenting, because you can never control every parent in the country. This isn’t going to hurt retailers because video games will still make buckets of money, this isn’t going to create a domino effect because there will still be a demand for the product, which is basic economics, and this isn’t going to ruin video games as a whole.

Jan 19, 2013 at 11:08PM EST
Quote

Oh, this will not work, and again I’ll have to use my own crappy quoting system.

“The ban on sales to minors already puts this bill in opposition to the US Supreme Court ruling in Brown vs EMA. So it is dead in the water. No intelligent legislator will touch it with a ten foot pole.

E. Zachary Knight"

So yes, this is not going to pass either way, and things will not get better until parents use the tools that the industry has given them as pointed out by another quote.

“These tools fail because of lax parenting. Creating more “tools” doesn’t create better parents. The ESRB was founded in 1994, how many shootings have happened since then, and how many still are blamed on video games? Having the rating solves nothing if the parent is unwilling to enforce it."

These kinda things are doomed to failure for a reason.

Jan 19, 2013 at 11:17PM EST
Quote

Ashki wrote:

Oh, this will not work, and again I’ll have to use my own crappy quoting system.

“The ban on sales to minors already puts this bill in opposition to the US Supreme Court ruling in Brown vs EMA. So it is dead in the water. No intelligent legislator will touch it with a ten foot pole.

E. Zachary Knight"

So yes, this is not going to pass either way, and things will not get better until parents use the tools that the industry has given them as pointed out by another quote.

“These tools fail because of lax parenting. Creating more “tools” doesn’t create better parents. The ESRB was founded in 1994, how many shootings have happened since then, and how many still are blamed on video games? Having the rating solves nothing if the parent is unwilling to enforce it."

These kinda things are doomed to failure for a reason.

From the Wikipedia article:

Though the ruling was seen as a victory for the video game industry to classify their products as protected works as with films, books, and television, both concurring and dissenting opinions from the Court suggested that the issue may need to be re-examined in future case law, considering the disparate community standards treatment of violence compared to pornography, and the changing nature of video games with continually improving technology. Some video game analysts have seen the Court’s decision as a wake-up call for the industry to mature in light of the Court’s opinions.

And second, this isn’t a tool. This is a restriction. You keep saying that this is meaningless if the parents don’t use it, but this isn’t something parents can use to their benefit, this is a bill to combat that. Seriously, the argument that nothing will change until parenting changes is a scapegoat argument, because you’re putting the responsibility on a group of people that are part of the problem. Any consistent negative parenting isn’t going to change at the drop of a dime, which means the government has to put regulations forward to combat that lax attitude, instead of expecting it to change.

Also, if you want to quote, use these tags:

<blockquote> </blockquote>

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 11:29PM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 11:28PM EST
Quote

It’s still something that’s going to hurt retailers, and yes, I still bet anything that this will fail for the very reason I quoted.

And if it doesn’t hurt the retailers, it might hurt a few clerks when they refuse to sale M rated games to minors and they get fired for doing that, so either way, even if this does go into effect, which I doubt it will, it will cause damage one way or another.

Jan 19, 2013 at 11:31PM EST
Quote

Ashki wrote:

It’s still something that’s going to hurt retailers, and yes, I still bet anything that this will fail for the very reason I quoted.

And if it doesn’t hurt the retailers, it might hurt a few clerks when they refuse to sale M rated games to minors and they get fired for doing that, so either way, even if this does go into effect, which I doubt it will, it will cause damage one way or another.

I don’t understand, you’re saying that not allowing children to purchase a video game not intended for their age group will hurt retailers?

This is like saying that the law that children must have adult supervision (whom must have a photo ID) to watch R-rated content in a cinema hurts movie theaters. It doesn’t.

Jan 20, 2013 at 12:20AM EST
Quote

Ashki wrote:

It’s still something that’s going to hurt retailers, and yes, I still bet anything that this will fail for the very reason I quoted.

And if it doesn’t hurt the retailers, it might hurt a few clerks when they refuse to sale M rated games to minors and they get fired for doing that, so either way, even if this does go into effect, which I doubt it will, it will cause damage one way or another.

That’s like saying the alcohol business is being hurt by refusing to sell alcohol to minors.

You seem to be circling back to the same points in an attempt to justify your claims. A is so because of B and B is so because of A. I’m sorry, but there comes a point where it really needs to stop.

Edit: Ninja’d by Taryn, sorta. Damn you, Taryn.

Last edited Jan 20, 2013 at 12:27AM EST
Jan 20, 2013 at 12:27AM EST
Quote

HolyCrapItsBob wrote:

That’s like saying the alcohol business is being hurt by refusing to sell alcohol to minors.

You seem to be circling back to the same points in an attempt to justify your claims. A is so because of B and B is so because of A. I’m sorry, but there comes a point where it really needs to stop.

Edit: Ninja’d by Taryn, sorta. Damn you, Taryn.

Not like it matters, as that bill is going to die.

I’ll say this though, I’ve been a gamer for my whole life, and I’ve followed GamePolitics much much longer then I’ve followed this site, and guess what? I’ve seen bills just like this appear before, quite a few of them actually, and guess what’s happened to them. All of them struck down due to being unconstitutional.

Shame that it won’t stop happening. Quite the waste of taxpayer money, and honestly, it’s a shame that due to lax parenting that the game retailers and companies have to suffer due to it.

Jan 20, 2013 at 12:37AM EST
Quote

HolyCrapItsBob wrote:

That’s like saying the alcohol business is being hurt by refusing to sell alcohol to minors.

You seem to be circling back to the same points in an attempt to justify your claims. A is so because of B and B is so because of A. I’m sorry, but there comes a point where it really needs to stop.

Edit: Ninja’d by Taryn, sorta. Damn you, Taryn.

Still, a good example. The only major retailer I know of that doesn’t require photo ID to buy M-rated games is Best Buy. The only places this bill would possibly “hurt” is off-brand markets such as Game Xchange.

As children usually require a parent’s money to purchase these games anyway, I fail to see how this could harm the revenue of the industry or retailers.

@Coily Snake

I’ve seen bills just like this appear before, quite a few of them actually, and guess what’s happened to them. All of them struck down due to being unconstitutional.

As previously explained, this isn’t unconstitutional, just like restricting access to liquor and weapons to minors isn’t unconstitutional. This bill has a high possibility to pass.

Last edited Jan 20, 2013 at 12:40AM EST
Jan 20, 2013 at 12:37AM EST
Quote

Taryn wrote:

Still, a good example. The only major retailer I know of that doesn’t require photo ID to buy M-rated games is Best Buy. The only places this bill would possibly “hurt” is off-brand markets such as Game Xchange.

As children usually require a parent’s money to purchase these games anyway, I fail to see how this could harm the revenue of the industry or retailers.

@Coily Snake

I’ve seen bills just like this appear before, quite a few of them actually, and guess what’s happened to them. All of them struck down due to being unconstitutional.

As previously explained, this isn’t unconstitutional, just like restricting access to liquor and weapons to minors isn’t unconstitutional. This bill has a high possibility to pass.

It’ll get smacked down, and rightfully so. Shane that only a few posters here seem to know what to do about the parenting thing. Shame the government and polticians will keep trying though.

Frankly though, I’m done. This blaming shootings on video games and violent media as given me a headache and I’m going to sleep it off.

Jan 20, 2013 at 12:47AM EST
Quote

You all dont seem to understand. A child cannot get their parents to buy them alcohol because parents KNOW that alcohol is bad. They KNOW it’s illegal for minors to drink it. Its not the same with video games. Parents dont know what it is. They dont know that its illegal for their child to be playing a game with a high restriction. If the child knows, and most of them do, that a retailer won’t sell them a mature game, they will get their parents to get it for them. THATS what needs to be stopped. It’s a combination of lax parenting and misinformation. My retailer denies sale theory still stands. It could work. But for now, we should focus on informing the public about the ESRB or whatever you have in your country. They should be informed that there IS a rating system, and that it IS illegal for minors to be sold, let alone play, these games.

Jan 20, 2013 at 02:24AM EST
Quote
They dont know that its illegal for their child to be playing a game with a high restriction.

That’s because it isn’t illegal. It wouldn’t be illegal after this bill, either.

Last edited Jan 20, 2013 at 05:30AM EST
Jan 20, 2013 at 02:48AM EST
Quote

In Britain, you are limited when it comes to buying it.

That has stopped no one. When I was at primary school, quite a few (but not me, of course) people couldn’t wait for the next GTA to come out, and that’s an 18+. Calm down.

Actually, I think before, BBFC ratings (U, PG, 12, 15, 18) were legally binding, while the PEGI system was an indication. It’s changed, now…

Last edited Jan 20, 2013 at 06:38AM EST
Jan 20, 2013 at 06:29AM EST
Quote

Ashki wrote:

It’ll get smacked down, and rightfully so. Shane that only a few posters here seem to know what to do about the parenting thing. Shame the government and polticians will keep trying though.

Frankly though, I’m done. This blaming shootings on video games and violent media as given me a headache and I’m going to sleep it off.

Shame that those few posters have no variety in their arguments.

You are running in circles with your arguments. And keep going back and forth between point A and B with some random blurs on how the goverment sucks dick and parents are irresponsible. Those are opinion based arguments, yet you are using them as facts, which they’re not. Just because your opinion states something, doesn’t make it a fact. You sound like some conspiracist that blames every bad thing on the goverment and automatically assumes it’s a fact because you say so.

Plenty here have countered your arguments, pointed out the lack of logic in them. Yet zero times have you admitted you were wrong in your posts. I’m sorry, but when you’re wrong, you’re wrong, and you need to face this. We’re going in circles because you continue to bring up the same points that we have proven incorrect or lacking. If you are unable to handle that fact, that’s not our fault. But if you’re honestly trying to blame us for it because we refuse to agree with you, then go.

Last edited Jan 20, 2013 at 11:22AM EST
Jan 20, 2013 at 11:21AM EST
Quote

And I’m running in circles for a good reason, but as I said, it’ll get smacked down, and as I also said, I’ve been a gamer and GamePolitics follower much longer then I’ve been a KYM user, and I’ve seen these kinda things come and go, and this one is no different.

Oh, by the way I’ll also point this out

This basically says what Teh Brawler said on the first page.

Last edited Jan 20, 2013 at 11:36AM EST
Jan 20, 2013 at 11:34AM EST
Quote

To be honest, Coily’s ability to use logic that doesn’t follow his beliefs is minimal.

I’m not trying to pick on you, but I started to see that in your posts several months ago on KYM Pony General. It’s not really a matter of him having his jimmies rustled. Coily lacks the ability to reason like most people here. I think we could see that, but it’s just awkward to come out and say it. But when you’re threatening what could be a decent conversation on the matter, then I feel the need to drop a bit of tact in order to preserve good discussion.

For the sake of the thread (and actually figuring out what the most reasonable stance is here, which is likely somewhere in between complete control from the government in the US and complete apathy from the US feds,) I’d suggest not responding to Coily on this matter. I think we sorta see he’s no longer contributing anything novel to the debate, even if he’s continuing to post.

Jan 20, 2013 at 01:13PM EST
Quote

Ashki wrote:

And I’m running in circles for a good reason, but as I said, it’ll get smacked down, and as I also said, I’ve been a gamer and GamePolitics follower much longer then I’ve been a KYM user, and I’ve seen these kinda things come and go, and this one is no different.

Oh, by the way I’ll also point this out

This basically says what Teh Brawler said on the first page.

Okay now you’re just trying to fuck with us aren’t you.

Jan 20, 2013 at 01:28PM EST
Quote
Coily lacks the ability to reason like most people here. I think we could see that, but it’s just awkward to come out and say it.

Did Verbose just call Coily a retard?

Last edited Jan 21, 2013 at 04:03AM EST
Jan 21, 2013 at 04:03AM EST
Quote

You’re right, Taryn. I’m glad you called me out on it, actually. I dislike it when moderators do things that would normally be chastised if done by someone else.

I basically did, and I shouldn’t have. I thought about what I feel (something stronger than what I said) and what I wanted to say for the sake of the thread. But my annoyance with Coily got the better of me.

Coily, I shouldn’t have said that. It was rude. I’m sorry for that.


And if you think that could have been said in fewer sentences, Taryn, too bad. Totally not changing. Wouldn’t be very verbose if I did.
 
:3

Jan 21, 2013 at 08:52AM EST
Quote

in the UK, retailers are not allowed to sell games and DVDs to anyone under the rated age and will ask for proof of identity if they look too young. retailers can face a prison sentence and a fine if they are found selling to a minor

does this greatly affect the retailers sales? no.
does this stop little kids from buying something they shouldn’t? yes
does this stop parents from buying games for their kids even if they shouldn’t? no
does the system work? kind of, i guess…

since the parents of the kids are purchasing the games, it is still allowed as the transaction is done by an adult. it is then the decision of the parent to let their child play the game

going further by ‘educating’ parents on what they should and shouldn’t do can potentially ruin the system by turning it into a nanny state

this is the LAAAWH

Last edited Jan 21, 2013 at 09:37AM EST
Jan 21, 2013 at 09:36AM EST
Quote
Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

This thread was locked by an administrator.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Hello! You must login or signup first!