Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Entertainment Games

CA Violent Games Bill Moves Forward 106

Posted by Zonk from the out-of-the-committee-into-the-stores dept.
Reuters is reporting that the California bill banning the sale of violent video games to minors has made it out of committee. The law passed review by a 6-4 vote, and now goes on to the full Assembly. If it succeeds there it still needs to pass in the State Senate. From the article: "Game developers and console makers say laws restricting game sales are unnecessary because their industry is doing a good job stopping minors from buying "Mature"-rated games. However, the $10 billion industry expects bills restricting game sales to pass this year in Illinois, Michigan and North Carolina."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CA Violent Games Bill Moves Forward More

CA Violent Games Bill Moves Forward

Comments Filter:

  • Aside from kneejerk reactions... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GreyWolf3000 ( 468618 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @08:35PM (#12447402) Journal

    Okay, so we're supposed to hate this kind of bill here. Fine. However, regardless of the merit of this bill itself, I like that states can decide this for themselves. It's better than Washington resolving the issue for everyone at once.

  • Go ahead, let me have it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FireFlie ( 850716 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @08:43PM (#12447446)
    Somehow I don't think that this is a bad thing. Stop me if I'm wrong, but it is not the government or the stores job to decide what our children are and are not allowed to watch or play, it is the parents. This will make sure that parents actually know what their children are buying (to a certain extent). That's what we want right?

    • Re:Go ahead, let me have it. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Crescens ( 650873 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @08:53PM (#12447509)
      Well, when I was working at Best Buy there were countless times that a person would come up to me with -insert M rated game here- and ask, "My kid asked me to pick this game up for them, do you think it's ok?"

      Now, I assume that the parents that ask are the minority (Perhaps incorrectly, perhaps not). For each one of them, how many parents are out there that are perfectly willing to pick up a new hot game for their kid without checking the ratings or reviews?

    • Yes, Thats right. If my minor child wants some beer and I agree, I'll get some for him/her. If my minor child wants a gun and I agree, I'll buy one for him/her. It's the parent's responsibility. This only restricts access by the minor directly.
    • I believe it is the parents job to try and raise their kids as best as possible.. but what if your child is say 13, considered old enough to stay on their own for short periods.

      They buy the game because they can, and play it when you're not home?
      • If he can manage to keep his ownership of a violent game a secret from you for longer than a couple of days, then either you're a terribly inattentive parent or he deserves praise for his cleverness.

        This is all irrelevant anyway; theaters voluntarily restrict R-rated movies from minors, so why can't retailers voluntarily restrict M-rated games from minors?

        Rob
      • Is 13 too young for stylized violence? They are budding teenagers after all, flowering into the pollen-haze of sexual spring. Lord knows I wasn't cool at that age, but someone restricted to PG fluffy-bubble games and motion pictures while picking out his first pubes strikes me as pitiable and consigned to naivete. Siddhartha Gautama he is not.

  • Doesn't matter (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ral315 ( 741081 )
    Quite honestly, in my experience, 80% of the parents will go out and buy the game for them, and the other 20% wouldn't want to play the game in the first place.

  • Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kryogen1x ( 838672 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @08:46PM (#12447472)
    It's been said many times before, but legislation != substitute for good parenting.

    • Re:Sigh... (Score:4, Informative)

      by EnronHaliburton2004 ( 815366 ) * on Thursday May 05, 2005 @08:58PM (#12447533) Homepage Journal
      But ratings can be a useful supplement to good parenting. Honestly-- are you a parent? Do you have any experience being a good parent?

      Movies & TV shows have ratings, why not video games? Why do video games deserve some special hands-off treatment?

      The movie ratings are set and policed by the industry and have been successful for the most part (I'm sure many of you disagree).

      Video game companies do a really half-hearted job at setting & policing ratings, as evidenced by the number of minors who purchase the mature games (I'm not even talking about minors who have parents who buy the games for them, I'm talking about the minors). The government gave the industry a chance, and the industry has failed miserably.
      • Movies & TV shows have ratings, why not video games? Why do video games deserve some special hands-off treatment?

        Last time I checked, most video games do have ratings: E for Everyone, T for Teen, M for Mature, AO for Adults Only.

        Video game companies do a really half-hearted job at setting & policing ratings, as evidenced by the number of minors who purchase the mature games (I'm not even talking about minors who have parents who buy the games for them, I'm talking about the minors). The governme

      • Video game companies do a really half-hearted job at setting & policing ratings, as evidenced by the number of minors who purchase the mature games (I'm not even talking about minors who have parents who buy the games for them, I'm talking about the minors). The government gave the industry a chance, and the industry has failed miserably.

        Yet the government themselves are also setting a bad example, especially with the war going on in Iraq.

        On the other hand, the government keeps on repealing these
    • Sigh... (Score:1, Redundant)
      It's been said many times before,

      Yes, MANY times.
      *ducks for redundant mod!*
    • t's been said many times before, but legislation != substitute for good parenting.

      This legislation is a tool for good parenting, it brings the parent into the equation. Currently they are excluded and not able to offer a parental judgement at the time of purchase.

      Your argument is misapplied. It might be valid if minors were prohibited from *playing* some games, but that's not the case.
      • This legislation is a tool for good parenting, it brings the parent into the equation. Currently they are excluded and not able to offer a parental judgement at the time of purchase.

        The logical conclusion to this rationale is that children shouldn't be able to buy anything.

        There's a difference between good parenting and pointless totalitarianism.

        Rob
        • "This legislation is a tool for good parenting, it brings the parent into the equation. Currently they are excluded and not able to offer a parental judgement at the time of purchase".

          The logical conclusion to this rationale is that children shouldn't be able to buy anything.

          No, that is an extreme misapplication of this rationale.

          There's a difference between good parenting and pointless totalitarianism.

          As there is a difference between a good rebuttal and a red herring.

  • Depends on the state (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mugnyte ( 203225 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @08:54PM (#12447515) Journal

    Hmmm. I'm wondering how each state will implement the "mature" rating.
    Violence?
    Violence with blood?
    boobies?
    children dying?
    santanic symbolism?
    guns?
    killing of living things?

    WHATEVER! People have to realize it's a COMPUTER. I mean, primetime TV has all of these things and it's depicted by live-action, but still acting.

    Then you just open the newspaper/newsite and there's plenty of violent/sex-laden/anti-christian/gun-toting news for everyone. Are we labelling news of the Iraq war unfit for children now?

  • What is the issue here? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Johnno74 ( 252399 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @08:55PM (#12447517)
    Here in NZ games are rated by the office of film and literature classification in exactly the same way as movies. This seems perfectly sensible to me.

    GTA: Vice City has an R18 rating here. Fair enough, its an adults game, not a kids game.

    Why are the publishers against this law? I would have thought it would have given them some protection: When some idiot kid shoots someone, and hoards of drooling ambulance-chasing lawyers start scream "GTA trained them to be killers! Rockstar are responsible!! they must PAY!!!" Then the publisher can turn around and say what were they doing playing the game in the first place?

    I played Vice City right though, and loved it, but I certainly wouldn't want my kids playing it, and I'm not too comfortable with someone elses kids playing it either.

    It seems perfectly straightfoward to me.
    • Why are the publishers against this law?

      I wonder about this too.
      "Voluntary" age limits are a good start, and something to help the parents. But I'll bet there's some stupid store clerk here and there that will sell anything to minors to be "cool", because (s)he thinks the age limits are stuid, or becuase it's more revenue. OMG, earn $$$$ fast!
      Perhaps a state law will make those people abide by the rules.

      Of course the kids will keep trying, though.. Just as they're after alcohol, tobacco, firearms, heroin

    • Re:What is the issue here? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Loitl ( 876962 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @09:39PM (#12447798) Homepage
      The issue is who decides what is good for kids; Sounds like NZ has a politcal committee doing it.

      And I believe that if things are designated the equivalent of 'M'/'X' then there are many places that will/can not sell the item in the first place.

      Three are three main problems with this.

      1) The parents should be deciding what is appropriate for their children, not a political process

      2) The political committee will be susceptible to creep of what is not allowed. If the industry is lucky, then the definitions will be clear what is allowed and what is not. If not, they'll have to 'guess' what to leave out to get a 'PG13' or whatever rating the developer/publisher desires.

      3) The developer having to censor the content of a game to 'make' a rating is not a good thing. It means that the play of the game will be determined by the lowest common (political) denominator and not by the market choice of the people buying and playing the game.

      The IGDA's Censorship advocacy group has a lot of good information on the censorship problems the industry is facing. http://www.igda.org/censorship/ [igda.org]

      • With response 2, you've proven my argument, that developers don't want sales channel restrictions due to the "pornography" label.

        And, 3 is a bogus argument. No one is talking about making developers do anything. They can still make 'M' rated games. But, they probably won't get the wide distribution they feast on now (with a great deal of the sales being minors who shouldn't have it in the first place). In fact, if they could make a 'E' rated gardening game that had $200,000,000 in sales, we probably wouldn

    • Re:What is the issue here? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sammaffei ( 565627 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @09:47PM (#12447842)

      Well, it's quite simple actually...

      Game publishers don't want laws like this because once some games are deemed to be pornagraphic (either by sex or excessive violence) then it makes it harder to sell. The "Target"s, "Wal-Mart"s and "Toy 'R' Us"s of the world won't sell that type of material. Thus, the game distribution channel shrinks drastically

      I'm in favor of the laws. It's illegal for a minor to purchase "Hustler" and illegal for an adult to give it to a minor. Freedom of speech is not restricted because it can still be sold to the audience that it is legally intended for. And, furthermore, it's content isn't edited.

      Game companies police themselves but not the sales channel. It's standard doublespeak. There's no interest in restricting the distribution on their part. They want the money. Period.

      • Gah. See now that's where shit goes ill. It's ok to say that kids need to get their parents to buy these games for them, but it hardly makes sense to say that parents should be in any way restricted by these classifications if they consider the material suitable for their children.

      • I'm in favor of the laws. It's illegal for a minor to purchase "Hustler" and illegal for an adult to give it to a minor.

        You lost me when you compared video games to hardcore pornography. Anyway, I'm not in favor of the laws, for any number of reasons.

        1) The "it's just a video game" argument, that's been done to death and I'm not going to waste the time.

        2) It makes yet another currently legal thing illegal. In general, I don't like when this happens, even for just a certain class of people.

        3) It establ

        • Meth cookers will just go and rob a warehouse instead of shoplifting from the corner store. Meanwhile, law-abiding people who get a cold are inconvenienced.

          I live around a lot of "junkies" in Philadelphia. They are forever stealing this stuff off of shelves to supply cookers for money. You have no idea what you are talking about.

      • It's illegal for a minor to purchase "Hustler" and illegal for an adult to give it to a minor. Freedom of speech is not restricted because it can still be sold to the audience that it is legally intended for.

        Of course freedom of speech - more accurately, of the press - is restricted by such laws. Saying "you can't sell your publication to X", for any given X, is by definition a abridgement of the freedom of the press.

        Please note I'm not saying you should give your kids Hustler. I'm saying it's not

        • And they're going to get ahold of it either way once they're old enough to care - making criminals out of them over that, or out of a 18-year-old who lets his 16-year-old brother have a peek, is just stupid.

          I'm not saying the recipient is the criminal. The seller is the criminal. Stop twisting the argument to make your view sound more correct. By your logic, it's ok to sell cigarettes or alcohol to a minor too.

          And on the brother giving a peek... It is still a criminal act. Your just futzing with the

          • Stop twisting the argument to make your view sound more correct.

            I'm not twisting anything - my arguement sounds correct because, well, it is correct. :-)

            By your logic, it's ok to sell cigarettes or alcohol to a minor too.

            Yes. Age limits on obtaining alcohol have served only to increase binge drinking amoung teens. Certainly it's insane that a 18-year-old can marry or join the military - even be convicted of capital murder - but can't legally have a beer. Many nations have lower, or no, minimu [potsdam.edu]

    • Re:What is the issue here? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @10:19PM (#12447990) Journal
      Once there's laws enforcing these restrictions, there'll be calls for tighter and tighter controls. People are just now doing this with the MPAA movie ratings, whining about how the PG-13 movies are so violent. (I bet the star wars "blood bath" will throw more ewoks on the fire).

      Eventually, movies and games will be rated "G" for "Good Christian Audiences" and "H" for "You are all going to Hell! HELL!", and most stores will only carry the G-rated titles to keep the fundies from raising a stink.

      Also, if you think fundies will stop once they have minors banned from buying the mature games, you're wrong. [cbldf.org] Even if its marked not for children, even if people are carded just to walk into the same room as it, SOME fundie is going to get their panties in a knot over its existance and start throwing a lawyer-tantrum.
      • Personally, I take offence at the "Good Christian Audience" label. A few facts about me: 1. I believe that Jesus died for my sins and was resurrected. 2. I play all sorts of computer games and watch all sorts of movies. 3. It is my personal choice to play the occassional 'questionable' game that contains possibly excessive violence and other themes. 4. I can distinguish the difference between a computer game / movie and the real world. It is this ability to understand the ??subtle?? differences between fact
    • I don't know how I feel about this.

      I mean, I was 8 when my dad would rent me R-rated horror movies, and I played any video game I wanted (granted they weren't realtistic).

      I was mature enough in that respect* to watch them... I didn't get nightmares, and I knew the blood/gore was only hollywood magic. My parents never minded if I saw the odd boob/bum either... altho I don' think they'd approve of pornography,

      While I agree 8 is a bit young. I think it just matters on your kid... I mean, maturity is not eq

  • $$$ & my thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Arngautr ( 745196 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @09:10PM (#12447603)
    If the kids are old enough to be earning the money to buy the game (~$50?) they are probably old enough to be playing it. And if the parents give them money and say go get something, the parents must trust their kids decisions enough. If the kids get the games, and the parents who don't want their kids getting these games exercise some responsibility then the kids won't be getting any games in the future!

    Mowing lawns, babysitting, and selling lemonade you could earn enough, but still parental authority, rules, and such should be enough The kid spends money without asking parents on something they might embargo, parents confiscate contraband video game then the kids are out 50 bucks and have learned their lesson, simple as that.

    Simple concept, I don't think I did a very good job of articulating it.

  • Yeah, they're stopping minors already. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hal2814 ( 725639 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @09:11PM (#12447612)
    "Game developers and console makers say laws restricting game sales are unnecessary because their industry is doing a good job stopping minors from buying "Mature"-rated games."

    That's why there's a ton of young teens (and sometimes younger) flocking to their nearest electronics store whenever a new GTA game comes out. The gaming industry is doing a pitiful job stopping minors from purchasing "Mature"-related games. Maybe these game developers and console makers should trot out some real arguments like "We're not in the business of parenting." instead of shelling out bold-faced lies like "We're already stopping kids from getting Mature games."
    • Yeah, $houldn't they be $topping and a$king the$e kid$ before they $ell to them?

      Seriously, it's not a problem. They are stopping minors. Toys R' Us ALWAYS asks you for ID when you buy an M-rated game (they did when I bought Resident Evil 4) and won't sell them to minors. I'm pretty sure Best Buy does as well. Since that's a big chunk of business right there, that leaves stealing mom's credit card and ordering online.
  • "For the same reason we don't allow kids to buy pornography, cigarettes, or alcohol, we shouldn't allow them to go to stores and buy video games that teach them to do the very things we put people in jail for -- abusing women, joining street gangs, killing police officers, or even assassinating President Kennedy," said Yee, a child psychologist, referring to scenarios in some video games.

    And we should burn the books that also teach kids these horrible things. Movies, music, in fact we should even allow t
    • At least while their playing video games they aren't shooting up or banging.

      Yeah, like anyone could get through Endorfun [mobygames.com] or Catechumen [mobygames.com] without being on SOMETHING.
    • If you really want the tackle what's teaching kids to "abuse women, join street gangs, kill police officers..." then get them out of the ghetto

      Finally someone who realizes that it's the status quo who forces poor people to become women abusers and join street gangs.

  • Not going to have an effect... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Grave ( 8234 ) <awalbert88@ho t m a i l .com> on Friday May 06, 2005 @01:15AM (#12448826)
    Most retailers won't sell M-rated games to minors anyway. There are of course some exceptions, just as there are with alcohol and tobacco sales. Whether or not it's a law, the ESRB has done a great job of policing the game ratings already.

    The problem of young kids playing games not suitable for them lies not with the retailers or publishers. The problem lies with parents not caring if their children play violent games. Most kids won't be terribly affected by playing a game like GTA: San Andreas when they're only 11 or 12. But some will. Those who would be affected by it are likely to have been raised in an environment that would encourage the sort of behavior shown in these games anyway.

    I am disgusted when parents buy M-rated games for their kids when they are plainly still in elementary school. I see it happen, and I always do my best to make sure that the parents understand how violent/bloody/sexual a game is. The most common response? "Oh, he's already played it with his brother/friend/etc."
  • That doesn't change anything, since kids these days don't buy games anyway. Modchips are easy to buy and get installed.
  • California cannot get a bill legalizing ferrets through the legislator that Schwarzenegger will sign, but they'll put this anti-constitutional crap on the front burner.

    When the revolution comes, it will consist of me breaking various people's noses for them.

  • so now the ratings actually mean something. kids cant (technicaly) go to R rated movies, therefore movie ratings actually mean something. now the video game ratings actually have an effect besides just being in the bottom corner of a box
  • Let's face it. This is a revenue grabbing law. If a minor wants porn or alcohol, they can get it. If a minor wants an M-rated game, they can. The law merely attempts to capitalize on this by charging the adult who supplies the game with a fine, and all in the "best interests of the child." The law is intended to take the voluntary ratings system, the voluntary store policies, and the parental responsibility away. I think thats a pretty good reason to oppose the law.

    I live in Maryland and I'm sure we'
  • Game developers and console makers say laws restricting game sales are unnecessary because their industry is doing a good job stopping minors from buying "Mature"-rated games.

    Yeah right... just let uncle Bob who's 18 buy them and let the kids play it.

  • Dawn of War vs. House of Wax (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ronfar ( 52216 ) on Friday May 06, 2005 @10:35AM (#12450904) Journal
    To me, the essense of this issue can be summed up by the fact that I have to tediously enter my age in order to enter the website of Relic's Dawn of War but I have to do no such tedious thing to enter the website of House of Wax. House of Wax is rated R which is supposed to be the equivalent of an M rated game, like Dawn of War.

    When a teenager goes to buy Saw, he doesn't have to worry that the 'Walmart' version is changed as the Walmart version of the computer game Sacrifice was so it would get a "Teen" rating. (Maybe they prevent him from buying Saw, I can't be 100% sure.) So, goofy RTS from Shiny with red pixels, required to be censored by Walmart, gruesome story about the depths of human depravity, sold unaltered.

    The truth is video games have been hammered ever since Nintendo decided to draw Senator Joseph Lieberman's attention to violent games produced by rival SEGA. They are not treated the same as any other media, and I have no doubt that "concerned parents" have inflated the ratings so people now see 'M' as equivalent of video 'X.'

    I can remember all sorts of depraved things happening on TV series The Sopranos including a stripper being beaten to death by one of Tony's crew. Apparently, cartoony, unrealistic violence in games like GTA is considered far more serious.

    If these laws pass, prediction, a new rating will eventually be created to cover 'M' rated games (maybe not for many years, but eventually). Either way the 'M' rating will be retired and Rockstar will put some boneheaded censorship in the next GTA so it gets a 'T' rating. The survival horror genre will disappear in the US except for imports (until society calms down enough that video games get treated like movies.).

Slashdot Top Deals

One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.

Close