Video games and the law

[Tale]

I thought there were no AO games simply because stores like Wal-Mart refused to sell them. The fact of the matter is that rating is 100% optional. A fine based on rating would have no teeth if it could be bystepped so easily.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The law isn't based on rating, but on specific definition of violence. It's not illegal to sell AO games to minors, it's illegal to sell obscene games to minors. Most AO games probably wouldn't meet that definition, since a game gets an AO for stuff that a movie only gets an R. Btw, I think Gamestop once said they were considering selling AO games.

[Calax]

I thought there were no AO games simply because stores like Wal-Mart refused to sell them.

This

 

Dagon, I know for a fact that gamestop will not sell Adult Only games because the hassle of having to deal with the rating is to much.

 

 

IF they did, they would still be accepting and selling the original print of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, which got re-rated AO after hot coffee.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I thought there were no AO games simply because stores like Wal-Mart refused to sell them.

This

 

Dagon, I know for a fact that gamestop will not sell Adult Only games because the hassle of having to deal with the rating is to much.

 

 

IF they did, they would still be accepting and selling the original print of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, which got re-rated AO after hot coffee.

What's the hassle? They have a policy of not selling M rated games to minors anyway, no?

 

The other thing to realize is that none of the consoles will allow AO rated games, at least in the US. And Gamestop isn't too interested in selling PC games anyway from what I hear.

[Calax]

I thought there were no AO games simply because stores like Wal-Mart refused to sell them.

This

 

Dagon, I know for a fact that gamestop will not sell Adult Only games because the hassle of having to deal with the rating is to much.

 

 

IF they did, they would still be accepting and selling the original print of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, which got re-rated AO after hot coffee.

What's the hassle? They have a policy of not selling M rated games to minors anyway, no?

 

The other thing to realize is that none of the consoles will allow AO rated games, at least in the US. And Gamestop isn't too interested in selling PC games anyway from what I hear.

The Hassle is PR, and the possibility of fines (which would quickly stack up I bet).

 

And either way, Gamestop isn't gonna deal with a possibly illegal sale so they play safety, and thus they don't let you turn in a copy of GTA:SA(1st edition) used, and have destroyed the copies currently in their system.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Calax

[Wrath of Dagon]

Bad PR has nothing to do with something being illegal, bad PR is exactly why most retailers don't carry porn, not because it's illegal to sell it to minors. So long as they carry R rated movies, they'll carry M rated games. Unless you believe people will stop watching R rated movies.

 

Edit: Bad PR is exactly why most small video rental shops would carry porn, but the big chains wouldn't. Had nothing to do with being afraid of the fines, they were simply trying to protect their image as a family-friendly place to rent.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Orogun01]

Whatever. If this law passes i'm forming a store that only sells violent games.

 

Anyone want to be business partners?

[Calax]

Bad PR has nothing to do with something being illegal, bad PR is exactly why most retailers don't carry porn, not because it's illegal to sell it to minors. So long as they carry R rated movies, they'll carry M rated games. Unless you believe people will stop watching R rated movies.

 

Edit: Bad PR is exactly why most small video rental shops would carry porn, but the big chains wouldn't. Had nothing to do with being afraid of the fines, they were simply trying to protect their image as a family-friendly place to rent.

Except that R rated movies don't have the same fines chasing them around as this law is trying to impose on M rated games. (Which is exactly why people are trying to stop this).

 

Then it's just a slippery slope to censor all sorts of violence.

[Walsingham]

I'm probably getting old, but do we actually need so much violence?

 

*hides*

[Wrath of Dagon]

Bad PR has nothing to do with something being illegal, bad PR is exactly why most retailers don't carry porn, not because it's illegal to sell it to minors. So long as they carry R rated movies, they'll carry M rated games. Unless you believe people will stop watching R rated movies.

 

Edit: Bad PR is exactly why most small video rental shops would carry porn, but the big chains wouldn't. Had nothing to do with being afraid of the fines, they were simply trying to protect their image as a family-friendly place to rent.

Except that R rated movies don't have the same fines chasing them around as this law is trying to impose on M rated games. (Which is exactly why people are trying to stop this).

 

Then it's just a slippery slope to censor all sorts of violence.

Everything is a slippery slope. And again, it's not censorship if it only applies to sales to children. If they make R rated movies illegal to sell to children, I wouldn't cry over that either.

 

Edit: Btw, the counter argument has been staring us in the face all this time. In Britain it's illegal to sell games below the age they're rated, have 17+ games disappeared from stores?

 

Edit2: Just came across this article about some stuff Yee said: http://www.vg247.com/2010/10/29/yee-esrb-i...se/#more-126740 It shows he's pretty ignorant, and is quite unfair to the ESRB. Of course the article also made a mistake, The Witcher never got an AO rating.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

Witcher did start with a AO rating till they trimmed it down for standard release... and gave the nudity etc back in a free patch.

 

Dagon, have fun:

http://www.theesa.com/policy/first_amendment_argument.asp

[Wrath of Dagon]

No, you're wrong. You can't restore content in a free patch and keep the rating, ESRB would jump all over them. They modified the American content at the request of Atari, and did not submit the original to ESRB at all. Later they released the Director's Cut or whatever it's called, but it still has the M rating so far as I know. Too bored to read all of your link, but looks like industry bull as I'd expect.

[Calax]

Well, they put the boobs back in Witcher and a lot of the sex with the patches.

 

And your unwillingness to read stuff invalidates any argument you make.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's just ESA's case to the court, it doesn't prove anything.

 

I know they put it all back, and it's still rated M. It was never rated AO.

[Calax]

nor does anything you or I say in general.

[Nihilus5078]

This is a bit confusing now. There have already been a bunch of attempts to censor violence, sex, cuss words, drug use, among others in video games and every single time they have failed. This has to just be a mere attempt to again try and it will likely fail epically. There are a ton of organizations and religious groups that try to censor anything they get the least bit offended by, this has just got to be another one of those organizations or religious groups throwing out this utter horse**** again. Why try again when you already failed? It just escapes me.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Nihilus5078

[Nepenthe]

This is a bit confusing now. There have already been a bunch of attempts to censor violence, sex, cuss words, drug use, among others in video games and every single time they have failed. This has to just be a mere attempt to again try and it will likely fail epically. There are a ton of organizations and religious groups that try to censor anything they get the least bit offended by, this has just got to be another one of those organizations or religious groups throwing out this utter horse**** again. Why try again when you already failed? It just escapes me.

 

Shrug, I still think there is a difference between restricting access for minors and "censoring", actually touching the content. This is of course from the viewpoint where our constitution specifically mentions the possibility of limiting minors' access to violent/sexual etc. content, the market is too small make publishers care about maximising profit (see PG-13 violence vs. R violence) and there is 0 stigma in selling/buying k-18 movies and games (Fallout:NV is one, here)... So, yeah, here the system works just fine, but I admit that in the US it might affect the "creative direction" of the game.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yeah, if the law actually had any effect, it probably would affect the "creative" direction, because it's well known M rated games are normally targeted at the 13+ demographic. But the law even if upheld will have close to 0 effect, so it's not going to affect anything.

[Calax]

Yeah, if the law actually had any effect, it probably would affect the "creative" direction, because it's well known M rated games are normally targeted at the 13+ demographic. But the law even if upheld will have close to 0 effect, so it's not going to affect anything.

Actually, no, they're targeted at the 16-21 age bracket (the largest gaming bracket).

[Calax]

Complete rundown for tomorrow:

 

http://kotaku.com/5678354/all-you-need-to-...s-supreme-court

[Wrath of Dagon]

That guy is a genius. First he says that video games will be treated like obscene material, then he says obscene material is illegal to sell to anyone, then he says videogames will be treated like Hustler. So is Hustler illegal to sell to anyone?

 

There's a big difference between this law and the obscenity law. It's illegal for anyone to provide obscene material to a minor, even a parent. Under this law parents could still allow their children to play violent video games. As far as all that bull about retailers being afraid to sell legitimate games to minors blah blah, why aren't they afraid to sell R rated or even unrated DVD's? A prosecutor could certainly make a very plausible case that some of that stuff is obscene and the penalties for selling it to minors are much higher.

[Calax]

Chains can sell "unrated" movies because of a loophole that doesn't make it obscene.

 

Also, while you don't make a distinction between games and movies, the law and public already does, and public perception drives more stuff than actual law business wise.

[Wrath of Dagon]

What loophole? And I did make a distinction, the penalty for selling obscene movies to minors would actually be much stricter than the penalty for violent video games under this law. Anyway, you haven't explained how such a distinction would make a practical difference, except for the usual defensive gamer paranoia.

 

Looking at the actual law, they set the threshhold of prohibited game so high, it really would only conceivably apply to only a few games, may be Postal and Manhunt 2, and even there defense could probably claim artistic merit, so in that respect also the law is a political statement rather than an effective public policy instrument.

[Calax]

The loophole is... *dun dun DUUUUUUN* it's unrated

 

The distinction is thus:

 

You can get away with showing T&A and other naughty bits in movies because they're non-interactive, and thus parents don't think as much about it. Also they have a long cultural history as an art form so most people think that if the movie is ok-good any nudity is done for the sake of art. Comparatively, games as an artform are in their youth and interactive, so parents are more uptight about this stuff. Also it doesn't help that usually when nudity is in a game, it's not done with any sort of maturity and thus it comes off as even less appropriate.

 

May I ask dagon, why do you think this law is a GOOD idea?

[Nepenthe]

May I ask dagon, why do you think this law is a GOOD idea?

I can't speak for him, but I think we're thinking along the same lines and the point is that it's not a horrible idea, either. Hell, if it cuts down on the thirteen year olds playing online Call of Duty, I might start playing those games myself.