California Bans Sales of Violent Videogames [Archive]

Duncan

04-20-2005, 08:12 PM

"The bill defines violent games as those that appeal to a minors� morbid interest in violence, inflict serious injury upon human beings or creatures with human characteristics."

...like those in Monkey Ball? Or Mr. Driller? :/

I can't stand over-reactive crap like this. I'm all for restricting sales of M games from minors if it can be done reasonably, but this is way too vague.

There's no way this can pass a vote if anyone in the California House has their head on straight. And if, God help us, it does pass, it opens up a lovely legal precedent for EVERY OTHER TYPE OF MEDIA YOU CAN THINK OF. :eek 2:

By the way, I find it hilarious that the article at Team Xbox was accompanied by a large ad for Doom 3. LOL

Famidrive-16

04-20-2005, 08:17 PM

I'm sure everyone here just skipped their eyes over the text that read 'to the youth' :roll:

Duncan

04-20-2005, 08:32 PM

Some fun highlights from the bill (my emphasis in bold:

(f) (1) "Violent video game" means any video game or any copy of an electronic game that meets all of the following criteria.

(A) The game may be played using a portable electronic device or hand held gaming device using a television or computer.
(B) Taken as a whole, to the average person, applying
contemporary statewide standards, the game appeals to minors' morbid interest in violence.

Ahem...what was that last bit? "To the average person"? Find him or her, and I'm sure some marketing people would love to get in touch. There is no such thing as an "average person"...

(C) The game enables the player to virtually inflict serious
injury upon human beings or characters with substantially human characteristics in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.
(D) Taken as a whole, the game lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

Okay, hold up again. So something like Brothers in Arms is okay because it involves World War II? And how could you argue that Mortal Kombat doesn't have "political value"? It's what got this whole mess started - should we deny children the chance to learn about this pivotal entertainment experience?

(2) "Violent video game" does not include a game in which the visual depiction of violence occurs as a result of simultaneous competition between two or more players in which the game's violence may be committed only against characters or entities controlled by other players.

Unreal Tournament or Half Life 2 are just fine, then! No problems there! :D :/

(g) (1) For the purposes of subdivision (f), a visual depiction of violence shall be deemed "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" if it contains each of the following elements:

(A) It depicts exceptional pain or suffering on the part of the victim and is accompanied by a graphic depiction of the victim's injuries.
(B) The violence is accomplished in the commission of acts that would be punishable as crimes.
(C) The circumstances surrounding the violence indicate that it is committed without conscience, pity, or empathy.
(D) It is accompanied by auditory or other sensory elements that serve to enhance the realism of the visual depiction.

Which means as long as Master Chief says "Aw, crap! I'm sorry, Mr. Alien!", everything's golden. LOL

Pray that this poor excuse for legislation dies quickly and quietly, as it deserves to.

RockyRaccoon

04-20-2005, 08:52 PM

and once for this , Non-locked one.

http://www.cooncaderomp.cjb.net/baneverything.gif

It's So True!

MegaDrive20XX

04-20-2005, 09:06 PM

LOL

Rocky hits it on the nail. That is too funny lol

Also to point out

"the game appeals to minors' morbid interest in violence"

So are you saying all children or the "average" person is Morbid? O_O

Gamereviewgod

04-20-2005, 09:31 PM

A game store should never be forced to be a parent, and that's what stuff like this does.

AFGiant

04-20-2005, 09:54 PM

A game store should never be forced to be a parent, and that's what stuff like this does.

Agreed. Let parents be the parents, for goodness sake.

RetroYoungen

04-20-2005, 09:55 PM

and once for this , Non-locked one.

http://www.cooncaderomp.cjb.net/baneverything.gif

It's So True!

Greatest soccer mom representation EVER. LOL LOL LOL

I can't believe this. Not because I'm under 17 or anything, but because I just can't believe people are so willing to make the government or some other body of power to do a job that they should be taking on themselves. If you don't want your kids playing violent video games, teach them about WHY you don't want them playing violent video games.

And it just HAD to happen here in CA... dammit. I promise, that's not an accurate representation of all Californians. :angry:

stevec1636

04-20-2005, 10:02 PM

and once for this , Non-locked one.

http://www.cooncaderomp.cjb.net/baneverything.gif

It's So True!

banning games *sigh* :hmm: i hate people who think they have the right to choose whats right or wrong for other people. but i think you hit it right on the head, that is Awesome!!!

slip81

04-20-2005, 10:04 PM

Mangar

04-20-2005, 10:28 PM

Will be declared unconstitutional, because it is.

FantasiaWHT

04-20-2005, 10:36 PM

Cryomancer

04-20-2005, 10:40 PM

So then the kids will give their 50 bucks to the guy outside the store to go buy it, instead of their 5 dollars to the guy outside the gas station to get them cigs.

Hey maybe if society didn't force the opinion that anything that isn't bloody and profane is automagically "kiddie", and liking that and not being under 14 is HORRIBLE AND YOU SUCK AS A PERSON FOREVER, this wouldn't be such an issue. If people would relax about everyone else's hobbiest and tastes, then maybe kids would like the kiddie games too since they don't all suck. Now they will be looked down upon by their peers, and even parents, if they like something with bright colors or whatnot.

source: my ass

edit: i second the idea of TALKING TO YOUR CHILDREN and EXPLAINING THINGS to them. the lack of this is seriosuly causing more problems today, and in the future (and the past for that matter) than like...anything i can think of offhand.

XxMe2NiKxX

04-20-2005, 10:43 PM

Is anyone other then me sitting in my chair laughing my ass off and thanking god that I live up here in Canada where we're too drunk to make stupid laws?

Mythik

04-20-2005, 10:43 PM

...or better yet...the parents should do a better job.

RetroYoungen

04-20-2005, 10:56 PM

Is anyone other then me sitting in my chair laughing my ass off and thanking god that I live up here in Canada where we're too drunk to make stupid laws?

To be perfectly honest, sometimes I do. I don't know much about Canada, I just know that there are so many people doing this sort of thing in my country that I do get sick sometimes.

But then, I do live in CA where we all live on the beach, smoke marijuana and know somebody who knows somebody who's friends with the sister of the cousin of some B or C-level celebrity, so I can't complain TOO much. LOL

Jorpho

04-20-2005, 11:03 PM

"Minors' morbid interest in violence" ? I say, if minors have a morbid interest in violence, what exactly can anyone do about that in particular?

Aussie2B

04-20-2005, 11:04 PM

Crazycarl

04-20-2005, 11:05 PM

Carls thoughts on banning: AHHHHHHHHHH :angry: :angry: :angry: .

but really it dose give a reason for anybody who sells games to minors not to, and to also get rid of the dumbass parents who fight for their kids to have Manhunt. but this also make me pissed because parents should be aware of what their kids are playing. hell i dont let my 5 year old nephew play voilent games (hell sonic is fun at any age). so i say hey lets just put a ban on dumbass parents, that should get rid of all our problems. :D

YoshiM

04-20-2005, 11:05 PM

I'm not suprised in the least. Video games are the new EC Comics, and besides, banning the sale of "offensive" material to minors has been going on for years with movies, magazines, and music, so I see no big deal here.

Just because this is something new doesn't mean everyone has to get all pissed about it. I don't hear anyone here ranting that a group of 15 year olds can't get in to see the latest R rated Porky's rip off.

True, but when it comes to such broad laws, there's always the chance that someone will take it as far as it can go, making life miserable for everyone while lining their (and their lawyer's) pockets with money.

Okay, let's run with it. Down the road studies find kids are still "morbidly curious" about violence. Instead of playing the latest FPS blowing people's brains out, the next big thing is purposefully causing "injury" to virtual football players. Now the bullet points mention that competitive play would be exempt, but there's also the point "The circumstances surrounding the violence indicate that it is committed without conscience, pity, or empathy. " and "The violence is accomplished in the commission of acts that would be punishable as crimes." Turning the penalties off and then going out to try and bust up a quarterback with intent to injure or cripple would fall under these categories because, within the scope of the rules (enforced electronically or not) would be borderline battery. So then would football games be banned, if kids are able to perform such acts and the average person finds those acts "violent" (doesn't necessarily have to be bloody, cutscenes in sports now show players grabbing onto an injured limb and being carted off the field).

With this in the books, who's to say lawmakers and lobbyists couldn't go a step further: cover books and television. Go the illogical extreme: people getting sued for even having, say, GTA on the TV when someone's child is within eye/earshot.

May not happen, but we don't want the ground work to be made to make things like this easily happen.

Note I am all for restriction, but don't be laying out laws to tell ME what is "indecent" for my child (if I should have one).

Mangar

04-20-2005, 11:06 PM

Will be declared unconstitutional, because it is.

To this person and other people who ridicule this....

would you want pornography to be able to be sold legally to minors?

Not committing one way or another to this particular law, just trying to draw a parallel.

On a completely personal note? Depends on the age of the respective "Minor". I know i had hidden porno magazines at around age 13-14, as do most kids. The only thing that prevention to porn provides kids with, is a complete obession with getting laid. This logic that you can simply legislate social problems away, only makes the situation worse. Alcohol is a perfect example of this. Teenage drinking is a worse problem in America then it is in Europe, Latin America, or Canada - Yet our "legal" drinking age is 21, while it's 18 elsewhere. The problem stems from the fact that wine and beer are simply more "normal" in other places. Wine and Beer are consumed with meals, and kids are exposed to it very early on as something "normal." It's the "taboo" factor or stigma which creates the problem.

So direct answer is "No." I wouldn't. If you make the choice to have kids, then it's your responsibility to take care of them. Not expect society or adults to change their own behaviour to accomodate your children.

On a legal note: The California Law is unconstitutional, and regardless of anyones personal feelings on the issue - Will not be upheld. The Constitution is pretty cut and dry here, and every law like this one has has been overturned because of it.

Zadoc

04-21-2005, 01:53 AM

Here we go again... :/
http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/8082/California-Assembly-Committee-Approves-Bill-to-Ban-Sales-of-Violent-Videogames-to-Youth/

Who cares? It will be unconstitutional.

InsaneDavid

04-21-2005, 01:59 AM

Few replies before I post...

Will be declared unconstitutional, because it is.

Obviously you don't live in California. ;)

Is anyone other then me sitting in my chair laughing my ass off and thanking god that I live up here in Canada where we're too drunk to make stupid laws?

Naa, I enjoy living in a country where if you commit hideously violent crimes you have a possiblity of being sentenced to death.

I really don't understand this kind of crap. Isn't this what the ESRB is for? If a kid looks under 10, don't sell them an E-10 game. If the kid looks under 13, don't sell them a Teen game. And if the person looks under 17, don't sell them a Mature game. If they argue, tell them to prove their age or bring in a parent to buy it, otherwise they get no game.

That's pretty much what this enforces, it punishes retailers and employees of retailers who don't abide by the rules - same as convenience stores that sell tobacco or alcohol to minors. It's as simple as checking ID, which everyone of appropriate age to buy M rated games should be carrying anyway.

When I was running electronics departments of large scale retail stores there was no official position on this. "you shouldn't..." was the call but no one ever did anything about it. Basically if a kid was close to age, I had no problem selling them the game. If they were underage and being a total little prick, well then, you have to wait for mommy to come buy it for you - and I'm going to go over every little quirk of the game IN DETAIL. :evil: I spent some time managing in a game store after that and there you needed to show ID to trade in games or even look at M rated titles.

After spending my life in Silicon Valley I cant tell you this will never pass, but really something like this should. However first there needs to be stricter enforcement of movie and music sales. (really I'm just tired of little chatty kids ruining good R rated action films 'cause they just don't shut up "huh huh huh, we snuck in.. we're such badasses! huh huh")

Minors SHOULDN'T be able to buy M rated games on their own, since they are MINORS. I'm not one of those "kids shouldn't be playing that!" people, but usually if I talk with the parent(s) for a few minutes and explain the content of the game properly they'll pick it up anyway. Knowledge is the one thing that can iron out the remaining wrinkles in the rating system. The ESRB ratings are GREAT but they're worthless if a sales represenative ignores them when it's time for a sale. Stores need to follow through - that's what this does.

GunPanther

04-21-2005, 05:05 AM

and once for this , Non-locked one.

http://www.cooncaderomp.cjb.net/baneverything.gif

It's So True!

Whoa. That soccer mom looks like she could go for a ride on the BANGBUS. LOL

:rockets: GunPanther :2gunfire:

InsaneDavid

04-21-2005, 05:15 AM

and once for this , Non-locked one.

http://www.cooncaderomp.cjb.net/baneverything.gif

It's So True!

Whoa. That soccer mom looks like she could go for a ride on the BANGBUS. LOL

:above me: ROFL

Griking

04-21-2005, 09:11 AM

I really don't understand this kind of crap. Isn't this what the ESRB is for? If a kid looks under 10, don't sell them an E-10 game. If the kid looks under 13, don't sell them a Teen game. And if the person looks under 17, don't sell them a Mature game. If they argue, tell them to prove their age or bring in a parent to buy it, otherwise they get no game.

Everyone is saying that the law isn't necessary because there are already ratings on the games. Well what good are the ratings is half of the stores that sall games don't enforce them? All this law really does is hold a retail store legally accountable to enforcing the ratings that are already in place.

I really don't see the big deal. If you're of age then it doesn't effect you. If you're under age then you already shouldn't have been able to buy the games covered under this law.

SoulBlazer

04-21-2005, 04:03 PM

I'm inclined to agree. The rating system is volunteary, but it's up to the towns and states if they want to pass a law that requires stores to check ID before selling M rated games. I mean, really, we do it with cigs and alcohol -- what's the problem with games?

Chunky

04-21-2005, 04:04 PM

violence is horrible

http://mason.ytmnd.com/

bargora

04-21-2005, 04:47 PM

Well, we went through this before when Washington proposed similar legislation:

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11411

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=54875

I'm guessing that Washington's first hack at it didn't go through, or else we probably wouldn't have had the second. Is anybody reading this topic from Washington and so can tell us what the situation is?

The interesting thing about California's proposal is that it at least attempts to strictly define what is prohibited, and so won't run into the legal problems it would have if it simply criminalized sales in violation of the ESRB rating system. As to whether the prohibited matter is well-defined enough or is too restrictive of free-speech interests, I suppose that someone will make a federal case of it if it passes. And then we'll know within a few years. LOL

xaer0knight

04-21-2005, 04:54 PM

well i can see it now... Whats next no Magic:The Gathering, Dungeons and Dragons, Vampire:The Masqurade, Pokemon, or Yu-gi-oh, there RPGs and Card games good way to apply math and other skills. In D&D, it teaches math, budgeting, and how to act. And cartoons too, because they do show pain and to them that should be banned too. Its like "some" parents are even keeping a tab on kids and that is wrong, now others have to suffer because they dont care. Im not a big fan of violent video games, i prefer storyline and gameplay over blood, guts, and firetrucks... But i'm glad that some companies like GameStop and Wal-Mart started to card peeps for games, but now because a few select people deamed some games overly violent, they put a ban on it. I dont mine the ESBR and even tho im 23 and still getting carded it doesnt bother me as much. But im sorry for all the people in Californa now have to seek other methods to get some M or T games with violent... There is always online places including EBay,

-Jason

Mangar

04-21-2005, 09:03 PM

Everyone is saying that the law isn't necessary because there are already ratings on the games. Well what good are the ratings is half of the stores that sall games don't enforce them? All this law really does is hold a retail store legally accountable to enforcing the ratings that are already in place.

If i own a store, i'm more interested in why you feel I should be held legally accountable for your poor parenting abilities. As a parent it's your job to enforce game ratings, not mine. The next step using this form of logic, is that if little Billy decides to walk down the block to play Grand Theft Auto at his friends house, you can hold the parents there "legally accountable" for giving him access. Because as this person just said here...

I mean, really, we do it with cigs and alcohol -- what's the problem with games?

Frightening logic.

Luckily we have a little thing called a Constitution, which will shut this law down quite fast. If it even manages to get signed in the first place. Freedom of speech and expression. Plain and simple. Don't want your kids playing M-Rated games? Then pay some damn attention to them and stop expecting the nation to babysit them.

Rogmeister

04-21-2005, 09:25 PM

Of course, the first thing this made me think of was the fact of who California's governor is...Arnold Schwarzenegger. Is he going to ban all violent films, too...like the very ones he built his entire career on? I think not. Come to think of it, there've been quite a few games based on Ahnuld's films, haven't there? :hmm:

SoulBlazer

04-22-2005, 04:21 PM

Since I was singled out....

I just don't see a problem with stores enforcing age limits on games the same way they ALLREADY do on cigs and alcohol. I mean, really -- how much hassle is it if a young person comes to the counter with a M Rated game to ask to see some ID? It's a logical extension of the law.

Now, having said that, that's the end of the stores responbility. Once the person buy theirs M Rated game and leaves, the store can't be held for anything else that happens. If the person used fake ID, or if a parent bought the game with the kid present, then the store is off the hook as well.

This California law needs to be overturned. I think it's time for stores to enforce the rating system, though. Parents need to do more as well, of course, but everyone has to step up to the plate -- before a whole NUMBER of silly laws get passed trying to deal with this. :/

machine.slave

04-22-2005, 04:40 PM

Is anyone other then me sitting in my chair laughing my ass off and thanking god that I live up here in Canada where we're too drunk to make stupid laws?

Naa, I enjoy living in a country where if you commit hideously violent crimes you have a possiblity of being sentenced to death.

Uhh... right.. because that solves everything. :roll:

@ XxMe2NiKxX> we have our own problems, ya hoser! ie. our Government is laughable.

Anywho, as far as this bill goes, I don't think it'll go anwhere. Just because your government says it's illegal, it doesn't mean it's not available. Look at weed! :D

Zadoc

04-23-2005, 10:15 PM

People under 17 are not allowed to buy M rated video games at Gametop/EB, Blockbuster, Game Crazy, Wal*Mart, Circuit City or Best Buy. These chains alone make up over 90% of all video game sales.

Movies are rated by the movie industry, the MPAA. The game industry is also already self-regulated by the ESRB.

I understand the need for parents to prevent their children from viewing or purchasing media with adult content and themes, however, there is not a need for a law to enforce regulation that is already being enforced.

The largest problem with this California bill is its ambiguity. It does not clearly define what is a "violent video game," except to say that "violent games as those that appeal to a minors� morbid interest in violence." A reasonable argument can be made that no video games are designed to appeal to a minors' interest in violence, (as violent games are marketed towards adults). Throwing the modifier morbid into the mix is perhaps morbid in its own right. Just as the spokeswoman including video games, which are protect as free speech under the First Amendment, into the same category as cigarettes and alcohol, which enjoy no such protection.

A law, state or federal, would constrict the voice of a video game developer in the sense that they will now have to fear whether or not their product will be put on retail shelves at all due to murky legislation. In an industry where developers live and die slim sales and profit margins, the ability for the breadth and depth of a developer's voice and vision to be seen and heard becomes restricted, and would not doubt dissuade many to simply not produce the product which they had intended.

geelw

04-23-2005, 10:33 PM

great. it'll soon be easier for kids to get guns in california than video games. :roll: hoo boy. i can't wait 'til the stupid 50 cent game comes out. then, watch all the talk show heads blow up simultaneously, taking out the eastern seaboard. er.. i hate to ask, but..

what century is this again?

we want to zombify our kids with drugs, pacify them with crappy career choices (wal-mart, mc jobnalds, etc.), and make them good amuuricans. so instead of embracing all forms of entertainment and considering them part of the would of today (hell, you can't have violent games and books without a crappy world where real-life violence is paraded across tv hour after hour after hour ad nauseum), we try to criminalize their makers as lowlifes trying to destroy society.

i think it's time for another revolution in this stupid country (and NO, not the nintendo console, LOL ).

g.

Promophile

04-24-2005, 07:46 PM

I wouldn't be worried about this. Cali is one of the top video game producing states in the country. Do you think the video game lobbyists will sit by and let this pass?

Yago

04-24-2005, 08:04 PM

Hmm, all I can say is thank god they banned the games Halloween and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre for the Atari 2600 when I was young. Man, just think how messed up I would be right now, probably would have gone postal by now, or worse! :roll:

Wavelflack

04-24-2005, 08:37 PM

I think this issue will be solved only when youth culture has a massive paradigm shift and stops being fascinated by "antiheroes". Come to think of it, it's not just "youth culture". Adults display this as often as not.

At any rate, I see a larger problem with games (and the people who want them) that encourage players to do things they should not do "in real life". Differentiate that from games that encourage as player to do things they cannot do in the real world. GTA3 is a blank canvas of sorts, for the player determines whether to exploit the nonlinear freedom of the game or to exploit the "closet criminal" opportunities presented. Other games are not as ambiguous about their intentions, and those games are just fodder for the shock craving dipshits that we all know.