Supreme Court to decide hte future of Video Games

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by kapol

I don't really think comparing a form of media to a drug is really the best way to look at it.

I think you're missing my point. My point was that the game industry's arguments about how it would hurt their business are nonsense. Their claims about having to change their business model, change their sales policies or have to do restrictive or difficult geocoding are lies. The law specifies that violent titles must have a sticker identifying them as violent. For Wal-Mart, the difference between carding for an M-rated game and carding for an "18" game is functionally identical. Complete red herring. (vagueness is another issue entirely and the quote did not touch on it)

Originally Posted by kapol

The drinking age nationwide is 21, and that's for anything that's considered an alcholoic beverage.

That's not a national law, believe it or not. Those are state laws. The federal government forced state legislatures to pass the 21-year minimum drinking limit by not giving them transportation funds if they did not. In any case, manufacturers have to deal with this sort of thing all the time. California's auto emissions standards have been tougher than the national standard's for a long time. Again, a red herring.

Your other points are fair, and I'm not arguing them. My problem was the idiotic paragraph by the Escapist I quoted.

I'm not defending the California law. As I said in my last response, I'd prefer the industry keeps control over its own monitoring activities rather than have a regulatory entity that will be controlled by people like Leland Yee.

[Clickme]

Yes but YOU miss the point that Walmart is less likely to stock a game when there's a $1,000 fine on the line. They don't get fined for selling an M-game to a minor, but with this law, they WILL get fined if they are accused of sellign a V-game to a minor. IT becomes a liability at that point. Good and Logical business sense is to simply not stock said game type and therefore AVOID the issue altogether.

That's where the snowball effect starts. Less places selling that game means less money, less money means making different games to keep making money.

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by Clickme

Yes but YOU miss the point that Walmart is less likely to stock a game when there's a $1,000 fine on the line. They don't get fined for selling an M-game to a minor, but with this law, they WILL get fined if they are accused of sellign a V-game to a minor. IT becomes a liability at that point. Good and Logical business sense is to simply not stock said game type and therefore AVOID the issue altogether.

That's where the snowball effect starts. Less places selling that game means less money, less money means making different games to keep making money.

If that's true, why do grocery stores (in jurisdictions where that's legal) stock beer? Why do convenience stores sell cigarettes? Because the profit outweighs the potential cost in fines and loss of license. This would be no different. Offending games would under this legislation require a special package sticker. With the sticker in place, I don't see why Wal-Mart would have a problem selling the games.

The funnier part of this argument is that most large retailers have already instituted policies mimicking just this sort of trade-off where they trade the profits of game sales to people under 17 with good PR with parents.

If you want to attack the legislation, attack it due to its vagueness, poor wording and lack of any labeling authority. It really is badly written and deserves all the criticism it gets.

[FullMetalX]

Originally Posted by Drachen

With the sticker in place, I don't see why Wal-Mart would have a problem selling the games.

Again miss one crucial point. It's still socially acceptable to smoke and drink, at least for the most part. Porn and things deemed obscene are not, hence why most stores won't stock pornography. The legislation would, as I said before, mark certain games as on the same level as pornography. So tell me, if stores like Wal-Mart don't sell porn, why would they sell games that are considered just as bad?

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by kapol

You honestly cannot say that it wouldn't hurt the industry's sales at all.

I didn't mention a word about sales volume. I'm very specific in the claims I'm responding to in the third sentence of the post you quoted.

Originally Posted by FullMetalX

Again miss one crucial point. It's still socially acceptable to smoke and drink, at least for the most part. Porn and things deemed obscene are not, hence why most stores won't stock pornography. The legislation would, as I said before, mark certain games as on the same level as pornography. So tell me, if stores like Wal-Mart don't sell porn, why would they sell games that are considered just as bad?

How does this law turn suddenly games into porn? What the hell are you talking about?

[Clickme]

and I have no doubt it would be covered by this act for having 'sex' in it).

Actually I have to correct you on that Kap. The law only makes a case fro Violence, not sexual material. THe LAw want's to treat violence in games like porn, but doesn't seem to mention anything about ACTUAL porn from a gaming standpoint.

[Clickme]

and it's that type of would it or wouldn't it confusion that will keep companies from taking ANY chances nad therefore not making those games, or neutering them beyond reason.

[FullMetalX]

Originally Posted by kapol

This is a similar idea. Pornography is the only media (at least that I know of) that is regulated in this fashion. So basically the law is saying that video games are similar to porn in that they need to be regulated in some way to be kept out of the hands of children. FullMetal's point seems to be 'if they don't carry one form of media regulated by the government in this way (porn), then why wouldn't they keep every other form of media?' I could be wrong on that though, as that's just the way I interpreted it, or at least that's how I think of it. Sorry if I seem to be putting words in FullMetal's mouth.

No...that's exactly the point I was making. I never said anything about the games being porn. I said that the law would basically deem them just as bad as porn. And that's one of the arguments that keeps being brought up. The fact that we keep porn out of the hands of children and that we should do the same with violent video games.

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by kapol

Well, one of my main points was still there. Comparing keeping video games to drugs like booze and cigeretes is not a very accurate one, at least in my opinion. Stores aren't going to pull drugs out because there will always be plenty of people drinking and smoking. They likely won't think the same of games, and are more likely to not stock them. My point about sales was also meant to point out that games aren't as important to stores as those drugs are. Though I will admit I did go off course there for a moment.

Why would any store pull the games? All they have to do is put an "18" sticker on the games and check IDs. That's basically what they do with M games right now.

Originally Posted by kapol

This is a similar idea. Pornography is the only media (at least that I know of) that is regulated in this fashion. So basically the law is saying that video games are similar to porn in that they need to be regulated in some way to be kept out of the hands of children. FullMetal's point seems to be 'if they don't carry one form of media regulated by the government in this way (porn), then why wouldn't they keep every other form of media?' I could be wrong on that though, as that's just the way I interpreted it, or at least that's how I think of it. Sorry if I seem to be putting words in FullMetal's mouth.

You have a very strange definition of the word "porn". I think what you want is "obscene", which is a legal term meaning that a work isn't protected by the first amendment because it is offensive. Not all obscene things are porn. Not all regulated things are obscene. I understand that you're uncomfortable with it being regulated. I am too. Just because it's regulated doesn't mean that it's going to suddenly be socially unacceptable to play or buy video games or that people will be whispering behind your back how awful it is that you play COD:MW2.

Originally Posted by Clickme

and it's that type of would it or wouldn't it confusion that will keep companies from taking ANY chances nad therefore not making those games, or neutering them beyond reason.

The way the law is worded, it would likely spell the demise of the more violent T-rated games. The law basically divides games into two categories, violent "18" games and not as violent games. T games on the edge of being M would probably be nerfed so as to clearly not get the sticker and M games would end up with the sticker pretty much automatically. They might lose the 17-year olds, but the target market for M-rated games would basically be the same. The law doesn't actually ban anything.

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by kapol

I said porn because that's the only real type of media that I can think of that's restricted like this because it is obscene to the government. The point is: if the same companies that won't carry porn due to it's obscenity and the fact that they would be heavily fined if they were sold to a minor, then why would they carry games that have the same risks? They might not pull the games that are out now, as those aren't covered by the law unless they retroactively apply it to those games (which would be even more pointless then the entire law is). But they would likely not accept new games that have this new label as it's considered obscene which is a similar reason to why you don't see porn in stores like Wal-Mart.

"Obscene" material can also be overly violent, sacrilegious or otherwise offensive. Wal-Mart's internal policies are not dictated by the government. The recent Medal of Honor game was banned on military bases. Wal-Mart still carries it. I really don't see Wal-Mart, Best Buy or Gamestop passing up MOH or COD game sales just because the government slaps a new sticker and an age limit on it.

[Clickme]

Look, Walmart adn Target and other stores that sell games as a side offering to their main stock of everything else are;t going to loose THAT much money by NOT stocking games. Whereas the fines could cost ...well a lot at $1,000 per offense. So what make more sense for them? A) Try to slap a sticker and hope they don't end up getting fined? or B) say "fuck it we've got TONS of products to sell and this games don't mean shit" and jsut not carry the games? And seriously, think it over this time before you simply respond with an argument.

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by kapol

Because they aren't going to be fined for selling a game that isn't sold on military base, even to a minor by 'mistake.' They aren't worried about getting people angry as much as they are having to suffer a fine everytime a stupid employee sells a game to a minor. Just because they sell some things that are obscene doesn't mean they'll keep selling them once their money is at risk for it, which is why they do not sell pornography. Because selling pornography isn't really worth the risks once you get down to the numbers of it all.

You're pretty naive. Anyone in business is taking risks being fined for some infraction or other. Lawsuits, regulations, taxes and fines are just the cost of doing business. The $1000 fine isn't really that much in the grand scheme of things. It's certainly less than what most lawsuits would be just in legal fees. It's nowhere near what the loss of a liquor license to a bodega or grocery store would be. If the number of probable fines is less than the profit the M-rated games bring in, it's economically worth it to keep those games on the shelves. It's not the issue you think it is.

Porn isn't that high risk these days and it's definitely not unprofitable. It's considered unseemly. Even in the olden days before the Internet, book and magazine stores had an adult section. Wal-Mart doesn't sell porn because the owners have a policy against it, not because it isn't profitable. Violent video games are not porn.