Supreme Court to decide hte future of Video Games

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Clickme]

You DO realize that they'd have to sell 17 new games or up to 51 older games for every single offense JUST to make up for the fine right? That's a full $1,000 in LOST profit each time.

[FullMetalX]

Actually, the California fine IS $1000. So you're right.

[Clickme]

Lol yeah. You likely read it and had it in the back of your mind ^_^

But you're right. I was only taking the prices into account.

So at that cost, is there really any way to say that it's not jsut simpler to not carry the games? It's the simplest solution, but the worst case scenario.

[DanTails]

Originally Posted by Clickme

Lol yeah. You likely read it and had it in the back of your mind ^_^

But you're right. I was only taking the prices into account.

So at that cost, is there really any way to say that it's not jsut simpler to not carry the games? It's the simplest solution, but the worst case scenario.

I'm not entirely sure myself yet. The employee who lets one go would probably be fired pretty quickly. It's obviously a heavy point of emphasis for them.

But, we can't say what it would do, only predict. I'd predict that they'd still sell them, just boss their clerks more. (Or say, hide the new discs behind the counter, to make sure that they have to do some sorta extra activity already)

But really, anything said here is pointless speculation. =/ Heck, we're not even sure how much violence would get this rating.

(But if it kills the FPS genre, I'm all for it passing. <_<)

[Lock]

In my opinion, this law needs to be struck down...It's just plan uncostituitonal(I know I misspelled that). From what I've read, the Supreme Court is divided on this one.

[Clickme]

Well it was a struck down in 12 consecutive lower courts on First Amendment grounds, sighting that the regulation of content was something all other forms of media are protected from. IF this law passes, then what's next? Certain R-rated movies? If it's to violent for a game, why can't it be too violent for the 35ft screen with surround sound? We don't want violence like this in our home! They does that mean some DVDs will be illegal to sell too? Once you start regulating media it's a slippery slope of people crying out "Well you regulated THIS, why can't you regulate THAT! I want my kids safe from this and I want the government to do it so I don't HAVE to!"

Lazy fucking parents...

[DanTails]

Originally Posted by Clickme

If it's to violent for a game, why can't it be too violent for the 35ft screen with surround sound?

Because video games have a more direct influence then the other medias, by making the player a direct cause of the violence, instead of a casual observer of them.

And well, Parents should be responsible, but there's only so much they can do. What, stop your kid from going to a friend's house because they have GTA? Are you supposed to find out everything your child is doing and all their friends are doing? If you let the kid get, say, a paper route or some sort of small job, or let them save up money to get something, and they go with a friend's parents to buy said M rated game to play while you're not at home or something.

The parent's going to have to rule with an iron fist in order to keep their kids clean, earning the ire of friends and family in the process, forcing their kid to live a sheltered life that might not be good for them.

Obviously, Parents need to pay attention and actually work at it. But they probably need some sort of help from the schools and the law, they can't do literally everything.