Supreme Court to decide hte future of Video Games

[TF-Viewer]

Originally Posted by sodacat

You must be lax, because the ESRB, which has existed since the mid 90s, is the exact same as the CCA. For that matter, it's the same as the Hayes Code too. There's never been a government controlled office to control media (well, I guess the FBI kind of does when it randomly screens pornography for obscenity, but anyways).

There is absolutely no way that such an office would be set up today, in the modern political climate. Who is going to vote in favor of it? Scalia won't. The reason they were "harsh" in their questioning is so that they can be sure of any constitutional issues. They're not supposed to be voting based on their preconceived notions, so of course they'll be asking questions.

I think you might be giving the ESRB too much credit. Their rating system is more of a guideline people follow. I don't believe they have any sort of real power to enforce law and control what goes into games and what doesn't.

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by TF-Viewer

I think you might be giving the ESRB too much credit. Their rating system is more of a guideline people follow. I don't believe they have any sort of real power to enforce law and control what goes into games and what doesn't.

In theory you're right, but in practice, they do have real power. Large retail chains will not stock AO-rated games and many card young gamers for M-rated games. It determines what gets sold on a large scale and what does not as much as if it was an actual law.

[Jumba]

Supreme court means feck all in England. So I am rather fine

[TF-Viewer]

Originally Posted by Drachen

In theory you're right, but in practice, they do have real power. Large retail chains will not stock AO-rated games and many card young gamers for M-rated games. It determines what gets sold on a large scale and what does not as much as if it was an actual law.

I realize they do have an effect, but they're still not law makers of any sort. Hell if enough money reached the right people the ESRB rating system could be done away with entirely. Unfortunately they've convinced everyone that they're necessary and they'll continue to successfully pretend to be in charge.

[FullMetalX]

Correction: The ESRB is more analogous to the MPAA than it is to the Hayes Code or Comics Code. Both those codes explicitly told filmmakers and comic writers what they could or could not do in their mediums. The ESRB and MPAA, on the other hand, are voluntary systems that the industries have conformed to. The ESRB and MPAA don't go out and tell the video game and movie industry what they can and can't do. What they do instead is see which films and games are appropriate for different audiences. It's not perfect and they do have power over their respective markets, but they're a lot more lax than the Hayes Code or CCA.

[TF-Viewer]

Originally Posted by FullMetalX

Correction: The ESRB is more analogous to the MPAA than it is to the Hayes Code or Comics Code. Both those codes explicitly told filmmakers and comic writers what they could or could not do in their mediums. The ESRB and MPAA, on the other hand, are voluntary systems that the industries have conformed to. The ESRB and MPAA don't go out and tell the video game and movie industry what they can and can't do. What they do instead is see which films and games are appropriate for different audiences. It's not perfect and they do have power over their respective markets, but they're a lot more lax than the Hayes Code or CCA.

Yes, that.

[Clickme]

I think it really all should boil down to one very simple principle:

Parents, NOT the government, should be the ones to say what their children can and cannot play.

The ESRB rating system is the top of it's class when compared to the MMPA and similar systems. Not only is hte letter rating in 4 separate places, btu it also includes the age recommendation, the definition of hte letter (ie: "E": for EVERYONE), and on hte back the letter rating is LITERALLY SPELLED OUT FOR YOU (Violence, Language, Comic Mischief, drug/tobacco/alcohol reference/use, etc). There is NO reason for a parent to say "O didn't know what I was giving my child" unless they are also willing to say either "I didn't care" or "I was too lazy/ignorant".

Also to consider is that more than 80% of underage consumers were turned away from purchasing an M-game, compared to only 70% turned away from watching an R-rated movie in a theater, only 45% denied rental/purchase of R-rated movies, and only 35% barred from purchasing Parental Advisory music. Not only is the gaming industry trying to make the rating as clear as possible, the retailers are doing a far better job as enforcing the rating systems than any other industry.

This whole California Law situation is pure bullshit.

[FullMetalX]

Agreed.

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by TF-Viewer

I realize they do have an effect, but they're still not law makers of any sort. Hell if enough money reached the right people the ESRB rating system could be done away with entirely. Unfortunately they've convinced everyone that they're necessary and they'll continue to successfully pretend to be in charge.

Who's "the right people" and who are "they" that have convinced everyone that it's necessary? What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by FullMetalX

The ESRB and MPAA, on the other hand, are voluntary systems that the industries have conformed to. The ESRB and MPAA don't go out and tell the video game and movie industry what they can and can't do.

In theory, but everyone involved in the process, studios, ratings board and retailers/cinemas know what's at stake in a rating. Retailers and cinemas won't sell unrated product (no sales besides indie and "unrated cut" DVDs are a special case) and restrict R/M rated product from certain customers (severely reduced market). The ESRB and the MPAA have tremendous power over the money a film/game can make over trivial things. If the word "fuck" is heard twice in a movie, it will push it to an R which could cost millions of dollars in ticket sales. If you abstain from the rating, you lose most of your sales. If you miss your target rating, your sales will not match your projections.

Originally Posted by Clickme

Parents, NOT the government, should be the ones to say what their children can and cannot play.

The way it is now, it's executives at large companies, like EA, Gamestop and Wal-Mart, that decide what children - and adults - can and cannot play.

[Clickme]

The way it is now, it's executives at large companies, like EA, Gamestop and Wal-Mart, that decide what children - and adults - can and cannot play.

No, they provide recommendations, but ultimately parents choose what to buy a child, or what they let them play (via parental controls). If the government steps in with their legal penalties, retailers are more likely to simply NOT stock those games anymore, like AO-games.

And as started in the arguments, there is not clear-cut line to be drawn between what is acceptable violence and what is unacceptable violence as defined by this CA law. Unless you happen to be Vulcan and then you're fucked.

[FullMetalX]

Originally Posted by Drachen

Retailers and cinemas won't sell unrated product (no sales besides indie and "unrated cut" DVDs are a special case) and restrict R/M rated product from certain customers (severely reduced market).

Point of clarification...some of the highest selling games are actually M-Rated games so the reduced market point is actually moot when it comes to video games.

Aside from that, I was more just comparing the ESRB and MPAA with the Hayes Code and CCA of days past. Of course they have the power to affect sales. However, voluntary regulation is necessary...otherwise, you have government imposed regulation that, while some would argue means well, usually pins the blame for everything bad on a scapegoat.

Originally Posted by Clickme

Unless you happen to be Vulcan and then you're fucked.

Yeah...apparently, maiming and decapitating a Vulcan doesn't fall under the law because Vulcan's aren't human.

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by Clickme

No, they provide recommendations, but ultimately parents choose what to buy a child, or what they let them play (via parental controls).

If a parent does actually look at the recommendations, they are still depending on the ESRB to decide whether a game gets T, M or E. If a parent tells their child that they can't play any M games, that decision is based on what the ESRB determines is appropriate for an M rating, so the parent is still ceding the decision to the ratings board.

Originally Posted by Clickme

If the government steps in with their legal penalties, retailers are more likely to simply NOT stock those games anymore, like AO-games.

What retailers stock AO games? When a game gets retroactively re-rated as AO (like GTA:SA) it gets yanked from store shelves.

Originally Posted by Clickme

And as started in the arguments, there is not clear-cut line to be drawn between what is acceptable violence and what is unacceptable violence as defined by this CA law. Unless you happen to be Vulcan and then you're fucked.

It's a dumb law. I won't try to defend it. My point is that the system we have now is just as arbitrary and out of our control. I think we all prefer the executives to the government because it's easier to influence greedy businessmen with our money than it is moralizers with our votes for re-election (gamers don't vote as much as retirees).