Supreme Court to decide hte future of Video Games

[FullMetalX]

Sorry, but I don't buy any of that. First off, the whole "Interactive Medium" argument is weak. It's the same type of argument that was made with movies, being that they were visual rather than just text in a book.

Also, what's wrong with a parent not letting their kid be friends with someone. I've had situations where my parents thought certain kids were bad influences and didn't let me hang out with them. Yeah, I didn't like it, but it totally within a parent's authority to do that. Also, what's wrong with a parent talking to the parent of their child's friends and asking that they not allow their kid to play or watch certain things? And lastly, if a child gets a friend's parents to help him/her buy an M-Rated game, guess what? That type of thing is not covered by the new law. If an adult buys it, the law can't do anything, so that point is moot. Also, at some point, that kid is gonna bring the game home and is gonna get caught.

Parents have the power to do things about what their child watches or plays and doesn't have to force their kids to live a sheltered life. You know, they can actually talk to their kids about the violence they see on TV or in games if they know their kids will just play these games somewhere else. The law doesn't have to get involved. It shouldn't get involved.

[Clickme]

Yeah. If a parent "needs" help from a law jsut cus they don't wanna BE A PARENT and ACTUALLY check what their child is doing, that's called Lazy. A Parent is supposed to know what their child is doing, know who their friends are ,adn know what kinds of stuff they do. IT's called Parenting, which involves more than just feeding and transporting a kid around. It means knowing who they hang out with, what their interests are ,and beign a real part of their lives in both the authoritative ways and in actually taking the time and effort to learn their interests.

It's the lazy parents that want the government to swoop in and take all that responsibility away from them.

[tjlemke]

Originally Posted by Clickme

Yeah. If a parent "needs" help from a law jsut cus they don't wanna BE A PARENT and ACTUALLY check what their child is doing, that's called Lazy. A Parent is supposed to know what their child is doing, know who their friends are ,adn know what kinds of stuff they do. IT's called Parenting, which involves more than just feeding and transporting a kid around. It means knowing who they hang out with, what their interests are ,and beign a real part of their lives in both the authoritative ways and in actually taking the time and effort to learn their interests.

It's the lazy parents that want the government to swoop in and take all that responsibility away from them.

Yea but there is a point in which I think that line should be drawn. There's parenting and there's smothering. Might as well suffocate the kid with a pillow. Kids should be taught life lessons and watched out for but I've seen kids where their parents are involved in EVERYTHING and trust me, their fucked up. Probably couldn't tell the difference between a spoon and a fork cause their parents do it for them.

For the record I completely agree with you, just wanted to throw some BS out their for people to gnaw on.

[DanTails]

Originally Posted by Clickme

Yeah. If a parent "needs" help from a law jsut cus they don't wanna BE A PARENT and ACTUALLY check what their child is doing, that's called Lazy. A Parent is supposed to know what their child is doing, know who their friends are ,adn know what kinds of stuff they do. IT's called Parenting, which involves more than just feeding and transporting a kid around. It means knowing who they hang out with, what their interests are ,and beign a real part of their lives in both the authoritative ways and in actually taking the time and effort to learn their interests.

It's the lazy parents that want the government to swoop in and take all that responsibility away from them.

Do you think a good parent is one who is on 100% high alert with their kids, monitoring everything they do until they're 21?

I mean, can't go to public school, cause you can't watch them. Can't let them go to a friend's place, not without a full weekly inspection of everything inside the friend's house, including an interview with the parents on a regular basis. All while not driving your kid insane.

Although, I don't think the government needs to do ALL the parenting for them. (Definitely need to help out in school, obviously) But to think you can be the all knowing, all powerful parent over your child is a little bit ridiculous.

[Drachen]

Wow, what a freaky breakdown. The majority opinion was by Scalia joined by Kennedy, Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan with a concurring opinion by Alito joined by Roberts. Thomas and Breyer dissented.

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by kapol

I'm just going to post this here as I feel it accurately sums up how I feel the trial went as well: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/arti...Games-on-Trial

Originally Posted by The Escapist

If California wins the case, similar laws are certain to spring up in other states, and the chilling effect on the development of videogames for adults could be profound. In order to avoid huge liability, major game retailers, such as GameStop and Walmart, would have to restructure their entire business model to ensure minors are not sold games. These businesses may decide that it is more cost effective to not stock or sell these games all together! In addition, businesses with an online distribution model are even less able to ensure the purchaser of the game is not a minor. They might be required to geo-target any state with such a law to forbid any mature games being sold there as the only way to avoid liability under this bill.

What utter, unmitigated bullshit. Gamestop and Wal-Mart ALREADY check IDs for M rated titles. Online businesses need to determine where a purchaser is because they need to deal with taxation. An online store must collect local sales tax on any purchase made within a state where they have a physical presence. Even if credit cards weren't the obvious method for age verification, there's too much money on the table to just give up the sales. Other solutions will be presented. When the Communications Decency Act was passed, companies like Adult Check took up the verification slack. Then that law was (thankfully) overturned.

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by kapol

Yes, but at the moment Wal-Mart isn't facing a huge fine or any real legal issues if they sell the game to a minor, which is what they'd be facing with any game covered by this act.

Right, and no convenience store sells beer because no convenience store could face the legal issues of selling beer to someone underage. If the local bodega can do it, Wal-Mart can do it.

Originally Posted by kapol

imagine a game like Bioshock had all blood removed, all human characters replaced with something non-human, and the entire 'little sister' concept taken out (after all, it gives the player the option to kill little girls). They'd have to think very strongly about each of those items before making a decision...[/URL]

This is already being done right this moment. Games and edgy concepts (particularly sexual ones) are being censored right now by game designers who are targeting T or M and don't want to have the ESRB give them too high a rating or by the ESRB giving the game too high a rating and telling them to cut X, Y and Z to get the rating down to a T or M rating.

This trial is important, but the reasons the game industry and the retail industry give are complete bullshit. They simply don't want to give up control. I'd prefer them to have control as well, but not for any of the above nonsense.

[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.

[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?

[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.