Forums / Discussion / General

168,608 total conversations in 5,401 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

What do you think about this bill?

Personally, I hate it. Most people that get M games are kids, so the game industry could get ruined by this. And that wouldn’t help the fact that America is losing so many jobs.

Second, VIDEO GAMES DO NOT CAUSE VIOLENCE.
Seriously, they dont. My parents are both psychiatrists, and heres what I think: Video games would only make already aggressive people more aggressive. If video games cause somebody to do horrible things, chances are they were mentally unstable in the first place.

Jan 19, 2013 at 09:58AM EST
Quote

…It’d reduce the sales of M-rated games?

I’m tempted to support this just because there’d be less of a market for Generic Military FPS games….

Jan 19, 2013 at 10:02AM EST
Quote

Tahrdan Ismeh Wu-Temporis wrote:

…It’d reduce the sales of M-rated games?

I’m tempted to support this just because there’d be less of a market for Generic Military FPS games….

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.

Jan 19, 2013 at 10:18AM EST
Quote

It’s debatable whether or not video games cause violence. All the studies on the subject have turned up inconclusive results.

I really don’t care whether this gets passed, either way.

Jan 19, 2013 at 10:30AM EST
Quote

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.

Jan 19, 2013 at 10:31AM EST
Quote

Calkarot wrote:

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 think the parents should be the ones to ultimately decide if a game is OK for their kids, not the government.

Jan 19, 2013 at 10:41AM EST
Quote

I can agree with TARDISES, if only because I’d like to see how much of a blow the FPS market would take. It would show how effective the ratings were beforehand. Say an FPS is one of the most successful game series of all time. If that game’s sales drop considerably afterwards, and stay continuously unsuccessful, then it would have a rough idea on how much people listen to ratings anyway, as the evidence would point that a large chunk of the sales go to under it’s intended age group. The point of the rating system is to say what games are suitable for what audiences. If you’re not going to enforce it, what’s the point of having it in the first place? If it’s okay to give a 10 year old an 18+ game, why would you bring in the rating system?

Jan 19, 2013 at 10:41AM EST
Quote

Tahrdan Ismeh Wu-Temporis wrote:

…It’d reduce the sales of M-rated games?

I’m tempted to support this just because there’d be less of a market for Generic Military FPS games….

Oh yeah, let’s trample over the First Amendment because you don’t like those.

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 when it comes to video games.

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 10:43AM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 10:42AM EST
Quote

Random 21 wrote:

I can agree with TARDISES, if only because I’d like to see how much of a blow the FPS market would take. It would show how effective the ratings were beforehand. Say an FPS is one of the most successful game series of all time. If that game’s sales drop considerably afterwards, and stay continuously unsuccessful, then it would have a rough idea on how much people listen to ratings anyway, as the evidence would point that a large chunk of the sales go to under it’s intended age group. The point of the rating system is to say what games are suitable for what audiences. If you’re not going to enforce it, what’s the point of having it in the first place? If it’s okay to give a 10 year old an 18+ game, why would you bring in the rating system?

I think the rating system is mostly a warning. A warning that this game may be bad for kids.

Also, you shouldn’t just wish that somebody would lose their job because you don’t like the things they work for. I hate anime, but do I think the people who make them deserve to lose their jobs? Of course not.

Jan 19, 2013 at 10:45AM EST
Quote

Random 21 wrote:

I can agree with TARDISES, if only because I’d like to see how much of a blow the FPS market would take. It would show how effective the ratings were beforehand. Say an FPS is one of the most successful game series of all time. If that game’s sales drop considerably afterwards, and stay continuously unsuccessful, then it would have a rough idea on how much people listen to ratings anyway, as the evidence would point that a large chunk of the sales go to under it’s intended age group. The point of the rating system is to say what games are suitable for what audiences. If you’re not going to enforce it, what’s the point of having it in the first place? If it’s okay to give a 10 year old an 18+ game, why would you bring in the rating system?

Thing is, this could effect games other than M-rated ones.
All the “LEGO” games are E10+, so children under 10 couldn’t play it.
T rated games like Smash Bros and Zelda wouldn’t be playable by children under 13.

Jan 19, 2013 at 10:47AM EST
Quote

­ wrote:

I think the rating system is mostly a warning. A warning that this game may be bad for kids.

Also, you shouldn’t just wish that somebody would lose their job because you don’t like the things they work for. I hate anime, but do I think the people who make them deserve to lose their jobs? Of course not.

The ratings indicate what games kids should be playing, but it’s to bad that most parents still ignore them.

Jan 19, 2013 at 10:48AM EST
Quote

Ashki wrote:

The ratings indicate what games kids should be playing, but it’s to bad that most parents still ignore them.

Yeah. Maybe the parents should sign something that says they’re ok with it. Also, maybe the ESRB ratings can go in more detail on just how bad it is. Just how gory, just how much sexual content, etc.

Jan 19, 2013 at 10:52AM EST
Quote

But how would this work online…TBH, M-rated games shouldn’t be in the hands of 13 year old kids. But is there any way to track these sales online though?

Jan 19, 2013 at 10:54AM EST
Quote

I’m OK with it. (I’ve only glanced at the article.)
 
It’s easy for me to say. I’m in my mid-twenties, and I don’t play many games at all that have ratings above T (none that are Adult Only/AO and I don’t think any that are Mature/M.)

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.

As for jobs, like I said, I was always under the impression that your parents would have to buy it for you anyway. And it’s not quite like cigarettes, because buying cigarettes and alcohol for a minor is an offense. So the sales wouldn’t decrease. And unless people only buy bloody/violent video games, then people who work in developing AO/M games would simply find work in other games. Instead of having a game that drops the f-bomb or makes a person’s head explode, then you’d have people working in other genres or using “frick” instead.

Also, your parents are psychiatrists. What do they say on the matter? My father’s a woodworker. I don’t know anything about working wood (no homo.) I don’t necessarily trust your by-proxy expertise.

However, I do have experience in social science research, and a quick search of Google yields these sorts of abstract excerpts:

An updated meta-analysis reveals that exposure to violent video games is significantly linked to increases in aggressive behaviour, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, and cardiovascular arousal, and to decreases in helping behaviour. Experimental studies reveal this linkage to be causal. Correlational studies reveal a linkage to serious, real-world types of aggression. Methodologically weaker studies yielded smaller effect sizes than methodologically stronger studies, suggesting that previous meta-analytic studies of violent video games underestimate the true magnitude of observed deleterious effects on behaviour, cognition, and affect.

-This from the Journal of Adolescence, Craig Anderson, “An update on the effects of playing violent video games”

Research shows that violent video games increase aggressive behavior and decrease prosocial behavior, but could relaxing video games have the opposite effects?

-This from a Whitaker/Bushman article in 2009. This is in the background for their article on prosocial behavior from video games.

Longitudinal analyses using path analysis showed that violence exposure at T1 predicted physical (but not indirect/relational) aggression 30 months later,

-This from a German study published in 2008 (within about five years is “current” for this field).
 
In any case, the results are mixed, at best. And there’s certainly peer-reviewed evidence saying that violent video games increased not only aggression but violent behavior as well.
 
 
My question is: why are people so attached to kill people in such brutal ways for fun?

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 11:00AM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 10:57AM EST
Quote

@Verbose: Have you ever thought that some of those things are outlets for blowing off steam and such?

I know when I’m frustrated I’d rather take it out on the video games, now, would you have me take it on on something in the real world?

Jan 19, 2013 at 11:00AM EST
Quote

Ashki wrote:

@Verbose: Have you ever thought that some of those things are outlets for blowing off steam and such?

I know when I’m frustrated I’d rather take it out on the video games, now, would you have me take it on on something in the real world?

It’s not a dichotomous situation, Stantz.

You don’t have to go and take out your aggression on other people just because you don’t have violent video games to play.

Talk to your friends and family.
Go play some sports, lift weights, go running, etc.
Talk to your psychiatrist.
Play music.
Listen to music.

There are other things to do.

Jan 19, 2013 at 11:03AM EST
Quote

Verbose wrote:

It’s not a dichotomous situation, Stantz.

You don’t have to go and take out your aggression on other people just because you don’t have violent video games to play.

Talk to your friends and family.
Go play some sports, lift weights, go running, etc.
Talk to your psychiatrist.
Play music.
Listen to music.

There are other things to do.

There are, 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.

Jan 19, 2013 at 11:05AM EST
Quote

­ wrote:

I think the rating system is mostly a warning. A warning that this game may be bad for kids.

Also, you shouldn’t just wish that somebody would lose their job because you don’t like the things they work for. I hate anime, but do I think the people who make them deserve to lose their jobs? Of course not.

At what point did I say anything along the lines of “I hate FPSs, and I hope they all lose their jobs”. I may not like Call of Duty and war games, but I agree that they shouldn’t lose their jobs do to my personal taste in games. Sorry if it came across that way. Plus, some of my favorite games are shooters.

Jan 19, 2013 at 11:34AM EST
Quote

Random 21 wrote:

At what point did I say anything along the lines of “I hate FPSs, and I hope they all lose their jobs”. I may not like Call of Duty and war games, but I agree that they shouldn’t lose their jobs do to my personal taste in games. Sorry if it came across that way. Plus, some of my favorite games are shooters.

Oh.
Did you mean it when you said you wanted to see the market fall, then?

Jan 19, 2013 at 11:38AM EST
Quote

Honestly, this wouldn’t affect me in any way. When I buy games, I buy T Rated games or below simply because I don’t like having a parent give their consent for me to buy a game. Just kinda awkward. However, I think that the bill is pretty dumb. 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.

Jan 19, 2013 at 11:39AM EST
Quote

Also to add onto my point, since I can’t edit my post, there are enough tools out there that we shouldn’t need unconstitutional laws when it comes to games.

First and foremost the ratings on the covers and the short explanations why they’re rated what they are.

And another big tool is that most consoles do have parental controls for this sort of thing in order to prevent kids from playing games that they shouldn’t.

No, we don’t need more laws or tools where video games are concerned, what we need is for the lax parenting to stop.

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 11:41AM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 11:40AM EST
Quote

Ashki wrote:

There are, 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.

First off, you’re overreacting.

If your parents get you the game, then you can play it. That’s not dictating.

Second, there are studies that show that violent behavior is bred from video games. Argue it all you want, but I cited academic, peer-reviewed studies. Even if you found other studies to the contrary, then the evidence would be mixed.

Considering that you can still buy the games, I don’t see what the problem is here. If you’re of age, then buy the game.

If you’re not, then you should get your parents permission anyway…like you had to before this bill.

Jan 19, 2013 at 11:42AM EST
Quote

FudgeGruck wrote:

Honestly, this wouldn’t affect me in any way. When I buy games, I buy T Rated games or below simply because I don’t like having a parent give their consent for me to buy a game. Just kinda awkward. However, I think that the bill is pretty dumb. 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.

Seriously, GIVE THIS MAN A MEDAL.

Jan 19, 2013 at 11:43AM EST
Quote

Verbose wrote:

First off, you’re overreacting.

If your parents get you the game, then you can play it. That’s not dictating.

Second, there are studies that show that violent behavior is bred from video games. Argue it all you want, but I cited academic, peer-reviewed studies. Even if you found other studies to the contrary, then the evidence would be mixed.

Considering that you can still buy the games, I don’t see what the problem is here. If you’re of age, then buy the game.

If you’re not, then you should get your parents permission anyway…like you had to before this bill.

I am old enough to buy my own games, and no, parents are not dictating, but the government sure has been trying to.

And no, I don’t believe all that BS about studies. If violent media causes you to be violent and do something like murder someone, then you shouldn’t be watching/playing it in the first place, cause honestly, that’s a sign that something is wrong already.

Jan 19, 2013 at 11:47AM EST
Quote

­ wrote:

Oh.
Did you mean it when you said you wanted to see the market fall, then?

What I meant was, that I’d be interested in finding out how much of a blow it would take, not that I want to see the market crumble and die. All I was trying to say is that it would be interesting to see how much of the buyers are below the age rating assigned to said game.

Jan 19, 2013 at 12:02PM EST
Quote

My main probelm with Generic Miltiary FPS games is tied to how the market works.

They’re successful, right?

That means the companies that produce them have little reason to produce anything else.

This stifles innovation. If sales plummeted, they’d have to start being creative in order to make a profit, and gaming in general would be improved.

Also, I’m in the UK – and this wouldn’t affect me anyway, as I’m 19.

Jan 19, 2013 at 12:06PM EST
Quote

Random 21 wrote:

What I meant was, that I’d be interested in finding out how much of a blow it would take, not that I want to see the market crumble and die. All I was trying to say is that it would be interesting to see how much of the buyers are below the age rating assigned to said game.

Ah, Ok.
Yeah, that would actually be pretty interesting. Though I think we already know how many, and what age…

Jan 19, 2013 at 12:12PM EST
Quote
And no, I don’t believe all that BS about studies.

I’m pretty sure that you’ve rendered any argument you hold void.

If you don’t believe in academically reviewed journals, then you don’t believe in the highest grade of evidence on an issue.

In which case, you’re merely stating your opinion. It cannot be swayed by fact. More or less, even if you had a point, you’re making it on an irrational basis.


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.
  • What about the laws on cigarettes? Alcohol? Guns? Should the parents be solely responsible for those too?
    • The point of the proposed law is to make it more difficult
      • And people seem to be forgetting that teens can’t buy M or AO games anyway at stores without a parent. I don’t see why people think this is anything new.
  • As for getting it online, a child needs a credit card or a PayPal account for all of that. Unless your parents are really irresponsible, then you’d still have to go through them to get the game.
    • Furthermore, your argument here is that there’s no way to prevent it, so we shouldn’t try.

Again, this is nothing new.

And it doesn’t prevent children from playing violent video games. It just makes it more difficult for minors to do so without their parents permission.

I think that’s a good thing. Parents are busy. They can do various things to prevent their children from consuming media, but they don’t know (and can’t know) everything about games or how they’re distributed.

Jan 19, 2013 at 12:13PM EST
Quote

Not really, cause as I pointed out, if violent media causes you to murder, then there was something wrong with you beforehand.

And all this would do is hurt the distrubtor, not the parents, who in my mind should be the one punished when they buy their kids M rated games.

Jan 19, 2013 at 12:15PM EST
Quote

Personally, I’m quite OK with this. I agree that parents should be the ones to decide what children their games can or can’t play, but the way I see it the bill does exactly that. It keeps children from buying games behind their parent’s back.

However, this is pretty much is in effect already. A study by the FTC showed that most retailers already don’t sell M-rated games to people without proof their 17 or older. And I can say that from experience too.


@Video game market suffering

I sincerely doubt there will be serious repercussions, even for the FPS market. Contrary to popular belief, about 50% of gamers are 18 or above, while only about 25% are under 18. And of that, I’m willing to bet 75% are in the 15-17 range. And the average age for a gamer is 35 years old.

Also contrary to popular belief, M rated games only make up for 17% of sales, while E-rated games make up 48%.

I’m pulling most of this from here, but I could probably back all this up with something else if need be.

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 12:51PM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 12:31PM EST
Quote

Pardon me if I am mistaken, but I’m pretty sure this sort of thing has already been happening for a while in the US. At least it has in Massachusetts. I have a friend who was 17 a couple years ago, but had to have her dad buy an M rated game for her because she didn’t have a license or state ID to prove she was 17. Another time one of my brother’s friends couldn’t buy a game even though he was 17 because he was with a kid who was obviously younger and the cashier suspected that he would let the younger kid play the game. I don’t think this happened because any law was in place, but there were still store rules that basically did the same thing.

I read the article, and from what I can grasp it said that a parent would have to buy a game if the child was too young to buy the game himself and the store can no longer legally sell the game to a child who is too young for the rating. This seems rather reasonable to me. Not because I think violent video games leads to violent crime, but because I think 1.) parents should know and be paying attention to what their kids are playing and 2.) I think in most if not all cases, a 12 year old kid should not be getting an M rated game. Especially one with copious amounts of sexual content and violence.
Movie theaters don’t allow kids under 17 into an R rated movie, and yet we don’t see the R rated movie industry collapsing on itself so I don’t think we should be worrying that much about the M rated gaming industry. If a product no longer sells, game developers will start making something new.

Jan 19, 2013 at 12:36PM EST
Quote

Verbose wrote:

And no, I don’t believe all that BS about studies.

I’m pretty sure that you’ve rendered any argument you hold void.

If you don’t believe in academically reviewed journals, then you don’t believe in the highest grade of evidence on an issue.

In which case, you’re merely stating your opinion. It cannot be swayed by fact. More or less, even if you had a point, you’re making it on an irrational basis.


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.
  • What about the laws on cigarettes? Alcohol? Guns? Should the parents be solely responsible for those too?
    • The point of the proposed law is to make it more difficult
      • And people seem to be forgetting that teens can’t buy M or AO games anyway at stores without a parent. I don’t see why people think this is anything new.
  • As for getting it online, a child needs a credit card or a PayPal account for all of that. Unless your parents are really irresponsible, then you’d still have to go through them to get the game.
    • Furthermore, your argument here is that there’s no way to prevent it, so we shouldn’t try.

Again, this is nothing new.

And it doesn’t prevent children from playing violent video games. It just makes it more difficult for minors to do so without their parents permission.

I think that’s a good thing. Parents are busy. They can do various things to prevent their children from consuming media, but they don’t know (and can’t know) everything about games or how they’re distributed.

I think that your argument is fair and unbiased, but it has one fault:
A child doesn’t need a credit card OR a Pay-Pal account to buy an M-Rated game online. A minor can easily buy a PSN or XBLA Card at a Gamestop, bring it home, and buy an M-Rated game online. with the growing anonymity of the internet, your identity and (subsequently) age are shrouded in mystery. Yes, you could set up a parent account and restrict your child from buying a game that is rated MA, but if a minor bought the game, would Sony or Microsoft be responsible or the parents?

Jan 19, 2013 at 12:38PM EST
Quote

FudgeGruck wrote:

I think that your argument is fair and unbiased, but it has one fault:
A child doesn’t need a credit card OR a Pay-Pal account to buy an M-Rated game online. A minor can easily buy a PSN or XBLA Card at a Gamestop, bring it home, and buy an M-Rated game online. with the growing anonymity of the internet, your identity and (subsequently) age are shrouded in mystery. Yes, you could set up a parent account and restrict your child from buying a game that is rated MA, but if a minor bought the game, would Sony or Microsoft be responsible or the parents?

As you mentioned, both the Xbox and PS3 have parental controls in place to prevent that sort of thing. However, I’d say it’s up to Microsoft and Sony to make sure those controls are easily found and implemented. Beyond that, it’s the parents decision as to whether or not it’s used.

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 12:51PM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 12:48PM EST
Quote

Muffins wrote:

As you mentioned, both the Xbox and PS3 have parental controls in place to prevent that sort of thing. However, I’d say it’s up to Microsoft and Sony to make sure those controls are easily found and implemented. Beyond that, it’s the parents decision as to whether or not it’s used.

And they are, but parents still ignore them.

Jan 19, 2013 at 12:54PM EST
Quote

I always find it funny when people say video games make kids violent, but nothing is ever said about TV, which frequently shows war and murder (not that I believe there is any association between RW violence and video games).

If the bill really wants to stop the sale of M rated games to anyone 16 and younger, they need to make the fines big enough ($50,000+) that the retailer can’t ignore them. Anything small (relatively speaking) will just be written off.

Jan 19, 2013 at 01:07PM EST
Quote

@Emi

I think that’s a good point about other violent media. The slight difference is that television, music, and movies are passive forms of entertainment. You play a role in actually killing the enemy in video games. It’s the difference between watching someone be killed brutally and brutally killing them.

Jan 19, 2013 at 01:11PM EST
Quote

Verbose wrote:

@Emi

I think that’s a good point about other violent media. The slight difference is that television, music, and movies are passive forms of entertainment. You play a role in actually killing the enemy in video games. It’s the difference between watching someone be killed brutally and brutally killing them.

It’s still hypocritical to say that though since they are just as violent.

And you want to fine someone, fine the parents for getting their kids M rated games in the first place.

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 01:13PM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 01:12PM EST
Quote

So let’s see. If the ESRB ratings are legally binding,
>Pokemon is rated E
>E for everyone
>Everyone will be legally bound to play Pokemon

Jan 19, 2013 at 01:18PM EST
Quote

If this was applied to Britain, then yes, the game industry over here would suddenly halt.

These bills are bad ideas…

Jan 19, 2013 at 01:18PM EST
Quote
I always find it funny when people say video games make kids violent, but nothing is ever said about TV, which frequently shows war and murder (not that I believe there is any association between RW violence and video games).

I’ll admit that a lot of this is just a sort of paranoia. People had similar reactions when rock music first came out, and there was a time when people believed listening to metal backwards caused suicide.

However, as Verbose pointed out, you play an active role in games. And TV has been around since 1928, so we already know a good bit about it. However, video games have only really been around since the late 70’s (technically there have been video games since 1951), so I do think more research should be done on its effects on the brain.

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 01:23PM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 01:20PM EST
Quote

量子 Meme wrote:

If this was applied to Britain, then yes, the game industry over here would suddenly halt.

These bills are bad ideas…

And they’re usually unconstitutional as well, though that doesn’t stop the government from trying to pass them…continuously.

Jan 19, 2013 at 01:21PM EST
Quote

Ann Hiro wrote:

M-Rated Games have the best Soundtracks.

Way to the contribute to the conversation by posting something completely unrelated.

Jan 19, 2013 at 01:34PM EST
Quote

I am okay with this.

Of course, this will only make the kids themselves can’t purchase mature and adult only rated games, and won’t stop them from actually playing them. However, it will give control back to the parents. (Something Kids HATE, lawl)

Only downside is, I have never actually seen an Ao Game for sale at any game store. Ever. Why enforce a law on something that is never there? n_n;;

Jan 19, 2013 at 02:27PM EST
Quote

@Verbose/Coily:

I think you both could agree that Violent Games cause Aggression, rather than straight violence.

Jan 19, 2013 at 02:41PM EST
Quote

Natsuru Springfield wrote:

I am okay with this.

Of course, this will only make the kids themselves can’t purchase mature and adult only rated games, and won’t stop them from actually playing them. However, it will give control back to the parents. (Something Kids HATE, lawl)

Only downside is, I have never actually seen an Ao Game for sale at any game store. Ever. Why enforce a law on something that is never there? n_n;;

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.

Last edited Jan 19, 2013 at 02:50PM EST
Jan 19, 2013 at 02:48PM 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.

Regardless of whether or not violent video games create violent people, I don’t see how not letting minors purchase games that have mature content is a bad idea. It definitely won’t hurt them, and it pushes parents to pay more attention to what their kids are playing.

Jan 19, 2013 at 02:59PM EST
Quote

Crimson Locks wrote:

Regardless of whether or not violent video games create violent people, I don’t see how not letting minors purchase games that have mature content is a bad idea. It definitely won’t hurt them, and it pushes parents to pay more attention to what their kids are playing.

The thing is though, this punishes the retailer, and even when retailers do mention the ratings parents have a nasty tendency to ignore them, which would punish retailers under this bill.

Jan 19, 2013 at 03:06PM EST
Quote

Ashki wrote:

And they’re usually unconstitutional as well, though that doesn’t stop the government from trying to pass them…continuously.

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.

Jan 19, 2013 at 03:11PM 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?

Hi! You must login or signup first!