IllegalPaladin said:
And look how that has worked in the other attempts of the lawmakers (most, if not, all of them have failed. Usually by being shot down as unconstitutional). This bill will fine the stores for selling an m-rated game to a minor, but that's only if the store advertises that they don't sell m-rated games to minors. Thus, stores wont get into trouble with this bill if they don't bother with ratings anymore, which undermines the whole idea of having ratings to begin with. Now, retailers could potentially still enforce the ratings, but they wouldn't be able to talk about it, but what constitutes as advertising the ratings? The bill is pointless overall. In fact, the FTC found that minors were only able to purchase m-rated games 20% of the time in a secret shopper study which was down from 40% from 2006. Sure, Gamestop led the pack probably because they were a video game oriented store, but the point is that the video game industry and retailers are doing a heck of a job in trying to keep inappropriate content away from minors. In fact, the same study shows that the secret shoppers were able to buy r-rated movie tickets 35% of the time, r-rated DVD's 47% of the time, unrated DVD's 50% of the time, and PAL (parental advisory label) rated music 56% of the time. Yes, I would agree that more can be done to try and keep retailers and parents informed about the ratings of games, but the laws that have been written are a step backwards in this effort. |
the esrb wont stop rating games for this reason. or did you forget the fact that the big three will not, let any game on there systems that are not rated. this bill is good for the industry, it will shut up alot of the people that say videogames are for children.anyways the kids will still get there games they will just run to mommy and she will flash there id and there kid gets the new grand theft auto.







