The US Supreme Court rules against California, gamers rejoice!

[Onyxmeth]

Rainbird said:

Onyxmeth said:
From what I gather from these proceedings, the government was trying to basically stop children from buying M rated games, which they're not supposed to be buying anyways, and was going to fine places that sold them to children? What have we really gained from that, and what would we have lost? If anything this decision takes the parents out of the equation, because they no longer get to be the facilitator to purchase a game for their teenager or preteen. The kids can now buy it themselves.

Supposed to be buying, according to who? We have no proof that kids are actually more mentally damaged from playing M-rated games than they might be from playing E-rated games, so why not let the parents decide if their kid should be allowed to do something rather than letting the government decide it?

The ESRB isn't based on any substantial research in the field of how videogames affect people at different ages, it just looks at the different contents and says "Well, kids of this age probably shouldn't be watching this or hearing that.", which in reality means that the ratings are good for nothing other than informing of the contents of a game. That's fine if you're looking to buy a game and you want to know how bad something can get, but as far as the required age goes, you can't compare everyone to the same standard and get a fair result, much less one that should have an impact on the law.

That argument could be used in any number of areas where we restrict minors whether it be music, film, porn, cigarettes, alcohol, banking, driving, etc.. They all have gray lines where it's far more evident it's on an individual basis who can handle what, but we still have government put down lines in the sand(either firmly or loosely) on when it's generally appropriate. Even the best parents can't have their children under lock and key and know every last thing that goes on in their lives, so having stores step in at the appropriate times and further the goal is not a bad thing. An involved parent that doesn't mind their children having any number of the following things I mentioned can still purchase it for them, so yes I don't see the downside. The only people that feel championed by this are snot nosed teenagers that wouldn't have their parents approval to purchase violent software if this had gone the other way.

The way the game industry is getting behind this makes it seem they care more about continuing to peddle this to minors and not wanting it to affect that revenue stream, becuase I've seen nothing to support what they've been saying about how this gives them the freedom to express themselves. This bill wasn't trying to kill any developers' dreams, merely spell out who can purchase them.