Forums - Gaming Discussion - The US Supreme Court rules against California, gamers rejoice!



Around the Network
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.

All that this ruling did was get the government out of performing censorship.  (They never really did, since this law never went into effect.)  This ruling does not prevent private entities from enforcing ratings.  The ESRB will still rate games, and its retail members will still enforce the policies.  This means that minors will still not be able to purchase M rated games from Best Buy, Gamestop, Kmart, Target, or Walmart.



NNID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing/Backlog:
Wii U - Currently Gaming Like It's 2014 (Hyrule Warriors) - 11 games in backlog
3DS - Currently Gaming Like It's 2013 (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon) - 7 games in backlog
PC - Currently Gaming Like It's 2012 (Borderlands 2) - 11 games in backlog
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links

badgenome said:
It's not quite "US Government deploys tactical nukes against California" but it'll do.

hey hey hey some of the best games are made in California.



Who are these people that want to ruin my/our gaming. O the Terminator and miss thing Leland yee.



The law was really a nonstarter, given that the self-enforcing system of the ESRB means that retailers aren't supposed to sell to minors anyway. Giving that the force of law wouldn't have changed much, it was merely distasteful from an ideological perspective of government regulation where it doesn't belong, but functionally it wouldn't have changed anything



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
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.



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Wonktonodi said:
badgenome said:
It's not quite "US Government deploys tactical nukes against California" but it'll do.

hey hey hey some of the best games are made in California.

I would miss Naughty Dog and thatgamecompany a great deal, to be sure, but it's still a small price to pay.



theRepublic 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.

All that this ruling did was get the government out of performing censorship.  (They never really did, since this law never went into effect.)  This ruling does not prevent private entities from enforcing ratings.  The ESRB will still rate games, and its retail members will still enforce the policies.  This means that minors will still not be able to purchase M rated games from Best Buy, Gamestop, Kmart, Target, or Walmart.

Where did those private entities come from though? The government breathing down the neck of the gaming industry. I'm not all for government getting it's hands into everything, but from what I've read about this, I don't see the connect with why this is so great for the industry. I don't see why developers are so happy about this and found this bill to be hindering their creative freedome, unless they just feel they can't financially work violent projects in without the undying support of the under 18 demographic.



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Onyxmeth said:

Where did those private entities come from though? The government breathing down the neck of the gaming industry. I'm not all for government getting it's hands into everything, but from what I've read about this, I don't see the connect with why this is so great for the industry. I don't see why developers are so happy about this and found this bill to be hindering their creative freedome, unless they just feel they can't financially work violent projects in without the undying support of the under 18 demographic.

Don't you mean the under 16 demographic? As far as I know retailers wouldn't stock AO games anyway, so M is pretty much the highest rating.

And, of course, a sizeable chunk of people who buy M rated games or for who they are bought for are aged 15 or under, because they think those games are actually mature. Before the ESRB was founded, games like Mortal Kombat showed minors playing the game in print ads.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

mrstickball said:
oldschoolfool said:
I disagree with this ruling. People say leave it up to the parents,but the kind of parents you have are different then when I was growing up. Back in the day when you parents told you to do something you did it. They put the fear of god in you so to speak,but no aday's you have these parent's just letting there kids run wild and letting them do whatever they want. "I'm sorry I yelled at you little timmy;" this is the reason you always have govment,teacher's and other people always trying to step in,because parent's don't want to be parent's these days,plain and simple. For these reason's I have to disagree with this ruling.


So if you believe the government should rule over the home in the case of violent video games, I am sure you approve of them teaching kids about homosexuality, sex education, and other such issues, correct?

I'm on the fence about this issue. I agree partially with OldSchoolGamer and partially with the rest of you.

PS Mrstickball the Government already teaches kids about homosexuality, sex education and other issues. If the Government is already going to educate the kids why should video games be any different?

As for Old School Gamer's point, all this would do is put the parent in charge. The law said minors wouldn't be able to buy M rated games , basically that means the parent would then have to permit purchasing an M rated game. This wouldn't fix bad parenting as Kantor pointed out. But it would mean parents would be directly responsable for what their kids play.

Now others have pointed out several retailers have policies against selling M rated games to minors. But guess what not all do. Also if the industry itself is going to ban the sale of M rated games to minors where the heck is the problem with the Government backing the retailers in their decision?

Also since I'm an adult from Canada I could care less what California does. Especially since its not that unreasonable.

If I have kids and I tell my kid he can't buy this M rated game, he decides to go buy it anyway. I'd be pretty pissed, now granted I don't think the Government should teach our kids, but heck the law would sure help me if I was a parent.

Also I'm sick and tired of five year olds on Halo or GTA etc...etc... I council at a summer camp. Last year a twelve year old came to camp and was obsessed with Left4Dead. All he'd talk about is hacking zombies to peices blowing up a tank. He started to scare the other kids talking about all the blood and guts and how their could be a zombie apocalypse. I had kids asking me "Are zombies going to take over the world". I finally had to talk to the kid, I was like "I liked Left4Dead too, but aren't you alittle young to be playing it". He told me his mom told him he couldn't get it so he took his allowance and bought the game anyways and plays it behind his mom's back. I told him that was wrong and he is too young to be playing Left4Dead.

Fact is if this was law little kids like that wouldn't be playing Left4Dead or GTA or F3ar! Obviously retailers aren't doing a good enough job enforcing their no selling M games to minors. That twelve year old should never have had access to that game, his parent said no and the game was obviously way to violent and gory for a kid his age.

I can blame bad parenting like Old School did but honestly if the Government lets minors consume this stuff they are taking the power away from the parent and allowing the children to consume anything they want. The parent should be in charge.

I mean as a fourteen year old you can't go see an 18A movie in the theater without an adult, you can't rent an 18A movie from Rogers without an adult. Why should a 12 year old be able to buy a M rated game without the consent of an adult?



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer