Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Clinton Introduces Invasive Game Legislation

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the slippery-slope dept.

Games 157

An anonymous reader writes "Senator Clinton has introduced a doozy of a game bill. It mandates an investigation of the gaming industry to determine how pervasive hidden mature content like the 'Hot Coffee' mod is." GamePolitics is reporting on the bill itself, as well as the ESA's response. From the latter article: "While we are gratified that the Senator holds the ESRB in such high regard that her bill would give these ratings the force of law, the courts have made clear that giving a private party governmental powers is unconstitutional. Beyond that, the bill clearly infringes the constitutionally protected creative rights of the video game industry. Thus, if enacted, the bill will be struck down as have similar bills passed in several states...." More commentary at Gamasutra.

cancel ×

157 comments

The only good nigger is a dead nigger (-1, Troll)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148186)

Discuss

O.B Simpsons (1)

birder (61402) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148220)

I wanna tack a rider on to that bill. $30 million dollars of tax payer money for the perverted arts.

To The Editors (1, Insightful)

HunterZ (20035) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148257)

Can you please make Politics the primary category for this article so that people will actually see it and comment on it?

LOOK AT ME (4, Funny)

oni (41625) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148352)

Hey everyone, look at me! I'm running for president, and I'm absolutely *not* a liberal at all. No sir (or ma'am), I am a moderate and I care. I care so much, that sometimes care oozes out of my pores and drips onto the ground. And I mop it up because I don't want anyone to slip and fall. That's how much I care.

Want another example? I care about your little son, Timberland, whom you drive to Soccer practice every day in your 30 ton SUV. I care about him so much that I'm going to get those evil game companies that push violent games on him. I'm going to get them. I'm going to make them pay. Don't you see how much I care?

VOTE FOR ME!

Re:LOOK AT ME (2, Interesting)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148583)

You're right, Hillary is not a liberal. She's a part of the Democratic party called the DLC, which for years has been saying that the Dems need to be more like Republicans because conservatives get the votes. That DLC strategy doesn't really work that well, as we have all seen.

Hillary is quite uniformly rejected by the liberals in the Democratic party.

Re:LOOK AT ME (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148733)

Sorry, I don't understand - there are liberal sin the democratic party? Since when?

Re:LOOK AT ME (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149902)

There's a couple of us liberals in the party, it's true.

Re:LOOK AT ME (3, Insightful)

Dausha (546002) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149808)

I'm sorry, but Hillary is definitely *not* a moderate. She is a closet socialist--in the closet because she realizes that most of Americans disagree with her agenda. Remember her universal medical coverage, her bus tour across the U.S. to push it? More importantly, I don't think liberals have rejected her. She is very popular among the NOW, which is not the bastion of Moderateness.

If she were a Moderate, or a Conservative, then she would have run for Senator in Arkansas, her last state of residence. She might have won, even though she is a Yankee. She ran in NY because it is *not* a Conservative state. She went to where her base was.

Re:LOOK AT ME (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149889)

Nobody can be strictly categorized, and if you pick and choose you can pigeonhole anyone in any way. For example, the way GW Bush spends money you'd think he's a conservative. But, the way he invades nations makes you think he's a fascist.

Hillary won in NY because of her name, and there wasn't any better Democratic candidate there. Now she's the incumbent, so there's not likely to be any more liberal Democratic opposition. I suspect that she chose NY because, let's face it, if you were to be Senator from anywhere, would you choose NY or AK? Shopping in Little Rock isn't as good as even one good NYC department store.

just curious... (3, Insightful)

C0rinthian (770164) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148377)

why something like this only applies to games and not other forms of media. Why does 'Family Entertainment Protection Act' specifically target games when movies, books, and magazines can be just as 'harmful' to children.

Personally, I have a problem with the bill even existing, but I find the double standard to be particularly disturbing. I guess we're looking at FOTM politics.

Re:just curious... (2, Insightful)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148441)

Because it's their turn.

We've already had book burnings and banned movies. And after video games, the fundies will jump on the bandwagon against those evil holographic crystals

Re:just curious... (1)

C0rinthian (770164) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149532)

Exactly. The same ignorant backlash has happened to just about all new media. The goal is to prevent this from evolving into the video game form of "The Comics Code Authority".

Re:just curious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14149594)

"And after video games, the fundies will jump on the bandwagon against those evil holographic crystals"

Dude, what the hell is wrong with you?

HILLARY CLINTON IS NOT A FUNDIE.

At least get your fucking stereotypes correct.

And some putz modded you insightful, holy crap what a bunch of dumbasses.

Re:just curious... (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149777)

She's doing this because of them, however. And their delicious, delicious votes.

Re:just curious... (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148510)

I understand and agree with your point, but technically movies, books, and magazines are not as harmful as video games because games are interactive. There's a huge difference between sitting back and watching/reading something violent, and actively controlling the violence yourself. I'm so surprised so few people here realize that.

Re:just curious... (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148589)

Why are they different? I don't think that's obvious at all.

Re:just curious... (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149296)

I think I explained it quite clearly. Movies are not interactive. Video games are. Something that is interactive is more "intense" than something that is passive. So interactive violence is more intense than passive violence. The more intensive the violence, the more psychologically damaging it is.

After I play a racing game, I get an adrenaline rush that makes me want to race a real car. Fortunately, I'm a mature adult, and I can easily overcome this rush. But children typically aren't as strong-willed as adults, so their exposure to such influences needs to be limited. That's one of the jobs of a parent, but it still should be done.

Re:just curious... (1)

flyinwhitey (928430) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149627)

"Video games are. Something that is interactive is more "intense" than something that is passive. So interactive violence is more intense than passive violence. The more intensive the violence, the more psychologically damaging it is."

Do me a favor. Go find some evidence to support this idea. I'll wait til you do.

You'll be looking a long time, because the research clearly indicates that people who play video games do not generalize their behaviors into every day life. It's actually pretty overwhelming evidence at that.

Now, why you think otherwise is an interesting question, but only because I'd like to know why you're acting so certain about something which is completely wrong.

Re:just curious... (1)

wilbz (842093) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148678)

I entirely disagree with you. The fact that games are more interactive is what makes them less harmful than movies or books. With the exception of light gun games, carrying out any kind of violent act in a video game requires an input entirely dissasociated with the act itself. Moving an analog stick and pressing a button does not generally emulate what would actually need to be done to carry out an act of violence.

Conversely, books and especially movies provide no interactive context for their viewer. Therefore, if something looks 'cool' on the TV, emulating it often involves carrying out the specific activity.

Videogames provide a nonviolent way to act out a violent activity, movies don't provide the same level of catharsis.

Re:just curious... (0, Troll)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148854)

The fact that games are more interactive is what makes them less harmful than movies or books.

I don't know how you can say that. Violence is harmful, both to the victim (physically) and the perpetrator (psychologically). The more interactive the violence, the more "real" it is, and therefore it has a greater impact on the perpetrator.

Moving an analog stick and pressing a button does not generally emulate what would actually need to be done to carry out an act of violence.

You're kidding, right? What do you think a gun is? It's a stick with a button! You aim the stick at your target, and you push the button to fire it.

Re:just curious... (1)

chrismcdirty (677039) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149070)

There are several other factors to firing a gun. Now I'm not saying guns are harmless, but playing an FPS will not in anyway way teach you to shoot a gun. Until they make a gun with a holographic crosshair that shows me exactly where it will shoot, removes recoil, and automatically reloads magazines for me, video games, as they currently are, will not teach you how to shoot a gun.

Re:just curious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14149203)

The original poster asked why are video games treated differently from movies, and I answered that question. Obviously, shooting a real gun at someone is worse than doing it in a video game - no one is disputing that. But that doesn't mean that pretending to kill someone is completely harmless. Who care if I don't learn how to shoot a real gun after playing GTA?

It sounds to me as if you're saying children of all ages should be allowed to play violent video games, even if their parents think it's a bad idea.

Re:just curious... (1)

chrismcdirty (677039) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149927)

Where did I say anything about children playing violent video games? The only thing I said was that video games will not teach you how to shoot a gun, in response to your semi-sarcastic comment.

Re:just curious... (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148928)

While I agree with you in principle, you don't really believe what you just said do you? When playing a FPS are you really thinking "I'm gonna move the joystick to the left then press the 'A' button!" Or are you thinking "I'm gonna whack that biatch!"

Otherwise killing somebody with a gun is only "pointing an inanimate object and pulling a trigger."

Re:just curious... (1)

wilbz (842093) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149829)

No, I really do believe what I said. The physical activities involved in playing a videogame are entirely different from those required to perform those same activites in real life (although certain human interface devices do try to maximize the 'reality' of the experience). All activities, while they might be carried out inside a virtual 3d world, are actually happening on a 2D plane (the TV/Monitor Screen). You don't move your head to turn your point of view, you don't lift or lower your entire arm to raise or lower your gun. Your 'inanimate object and trigger' is a gross oversimplification of the actual actions required.

For a more obvious example, try playing halo, then head to the arcade and play a game of House of the Dead. Both involve shooting, but the physical interaction (and many of the skills required) are entirely different.

Re:just curious... (1)

Krater76 (810350) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148546)

why something like this only applies to games and not other forms of media

Because the average American doesn't see video games as an adult industry. Over and over it's been shown that more adults (18+) are buying video games than minors, and it's a huge difference. It makes sense because we (I'm 29) were playing games since Atari, NES, SNES. We've grown up and so have the games but the gaming industry is still seen as being something only kids buy.

The only oversight the movies get are MPAA ratings and TV has ratings - they've already done this to video games. TV has parental controls and so do consoles. If the parents don't use those then they either don't care what their kids play or they just don't know. Ignorance is no excuse.

Re:just curious... (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148742)

Because games are interactive. This allows users to boot up GTA for the first time, find a knife, and spend all of their time slitting prostitute's throats, and not doing anything else. Or shooting cops over and over, or...

Granted, there is an actual plot and achievements to GTA: San Andreas that don't require (and even discourage) the above actions. And doing the above gets boring after a while (much as reading over and over a section of a book detailing a murder would quickly get boring), but the interactivity still makes it a little worse... the fact that the player can have an impulse to do something that's normally bad in society, they get to immediately carry those actions out to some extent, and immediate get pseudo-gratification for those actions.

No, I honestly don't think games are significantly worse than movies, but I think it's understandable that some people might think that way?

Re:just curious... (1)

HunterZ (20035) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149737)

No, I honestly don't think games are significantly worse than movies, but I think it's understandable that some people might think that way?

Well sure, but that doesn't mean that those people should be able to pass laws to restrict the choice of people like you and me. In fact, I think letting them do that would be pretty much in direct opposition to what the USA was supposed to stand for...

Re:just curious... (1)

dasunt (249686) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148845)

why something like this only applies to games and not other forms of media. Why does 'Family Entertainment Protection Act' specifically target games when movies, books, and magazines can be just as 'harmful' to children.

Could you imagine the chaos that would come from not letting children go to R-rated movies? People might have to *gasp* HIRE A FREAKING SITTER before going to the latest bloodbath and/or sex romp movie flick.

Re:just curious... (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148914)

why something like this only applies to games and not other forms of media. Why does 'Family Entertainment Protection Act' specifically target games when movies, books, and magazines can be just as 'harmful' to children.
Indeed, when I was a kid, I would masturbate looking at pictures in pornographic magazines. The result now is that I am a raving sex-maniac, and now I masturbate at pictures downloaded from the Internet.

Re:just curious... (1)

FosterKanig (645454) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149350)

Lucky you. When I was young it was hard to find a porn magazine. I had to masturbate to the bra section in the Sears catalog.

Re:just curious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14148924)

Thats a very good question

Especially considering the content of the local bookstores "Young Adult Section"

Ie, books specifically marketed to teenage boys/girls rather than games which when labeled "M" are targeted at older audience

a selection of books I found at a local realitor include books entirely dedicated to:
Oral Sex Parties
Sexual Explotation
Extreme Voilence (both in pictoral and non-pictoral form)
Blanant Moral/Materialistic books

And thats just what the main (teenaged) characters were doing

Yet all of the books were targets at ages around 14. Although the case can be made that many of the subjects are actually appopriate as they depict real life situations many 14 year olds could face, they are often far worse in terms of content that many "M" rated games.

Well gone are the days that a teenager would pick up a Nancy Drew or Babysitter's Club book.

Re:just curious... (1)

Bellum Aeternus (891584) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149348)

Because games target kids, specifically.

Ever notice nobody dies in Scooby Doo?

Welcome to black hole federalism (2, Interesting)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148411)

The single biggest reason politicians fail:

"Yes, it's illegal. Yes, I know it's been defeated before. But, goddamn it, I want it! Want want want! Rrrrr, gimme! Mine!

Irrationalism is alive and well. (4, Interesting)

max born (739948) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148420)

Usually when someone wants to pass a law for something, like seat belts, speed limits, drunk driving, etc., they have some scientific data pointing to a problem that can be rectified by a law.

But when it comes to nudity, profanity, violence -- you need no scientific evidence to support you claims. Afterall we all just know it's bad, right?

It's also interesting to note that, despite reasonable evidence to the contrary people still believe in horoscopes, ghosts, and angels. A recent CBS news poll found that 51% of Americans don't believe in evolution.

I'd hazard to guess these kinds of bills are more about justifying our own irrational superstitions than they are about protecting children. What exactly are we protecting them from anyway?

le sigh (5, Insightful)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148437)

Young people WILL get what they want, be it porn or violence. Let's spend money on education and community programs instead so they won't be corrupted by said porn and violence.

Re:le sigh (1)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149207)

I agree completely. The problem is that when the state funds these programs, people are often too proud to use them. I work in health care and there is a very generous state aid program that protects the middle class from small to astronomical bill amounts, but people are too proud half the time to use it.

Back in the day you could trust your kids were at some church youth group some nights, but those days are gone now. Nobody trusts anyone. But that isn't even the problem. Most of the time it's because somebody trusts the wrong person (say, priests, in general, are not all bad) to be a role model. A lot could be fixed if parents took a much more active role and held those our children interact with accountable for all their actions. And vice-versa. As the phrase goes, "It takes a village to raise a child."

It's not just the family structure that's been breaking down (some laws help, others hinder), but the community structure as well. I guess it's a lot easier to hide at home and complain about other people's beliefs than just accept it and move on (all those people who want churches to keep from being seen from state highways/freeways). Those churches have every same freedom of expression to walk up into your face and tell you you're going to hell as you do to tell them you think their God doesn't exist and they should find a real job.

A tough one (1, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148438)

Politicians who write bills that would actually work would be crucified by the Religious Right. Given the current trend in extremism in the US, possibly literally.


On the other hand, I would certainly regard it as both fair and reasonable for Government to determine if "easter eggs" and other hidden content frequently contain illegal extras. I'm not just counting adult material in a juvenile game - the whole Sony DRM thing was definitely hidden content containing illegal extras.


This does not mean such material should not be circulated, but rather that the Government would seem to be in the ideal position to provide information on what products actually do, as opposed to what they are advertized to do. (As the media and consumer agencies have done bugger all to protect consumers, in recent years, if Senator Clinton is volunteering to do the job, I'd say let her. She can't do worse.)

There Goes My Support for Her (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14148443)

It's really a shame. I've heard that Senator Clinton might try to run for office in the next presidential election, and I was even contemplating supporting her, but I can't if she keeps promoting this kind of stupidity.

Re:There Goes My Support for Her (1)

fonetik (181656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148628)

Nahh... this is just something that she can yell about later about how she supported it, not that it'll ever get passed. Just like Bush and the amendment banning gay marriage. They will never really try and do it, they just talk about it a lot at the right time so that the red state homophobes will think that they're on "their side".

This is all just Clinton's push to look like she's in the middle. I doubt she'll take it as far as Tipper did with her censorship campaign. It's gonna be great to see where Bill fits in all of this.

Personally, I'd pick a name at random out of the phone book and take my chances rather than the fuck-ups that are currently running the show.

Re:There Goes My Support for Her (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149571)

What part of this is offtopic? Senator Clinton introduces a bill about Video Game Violence (that's the gist of the article). Based on this information, an AC decides he will no longer support Hillary. This looks more to me like a moderator quashing a viewpoint they don't agree with than a legitimate moderation.

ob. Onion Headline (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149895)

Could Hilary Clinton have what it takes to defeat the Democrats in 2008?

I'd help campaign for her in the primaries! :)

Mature content (2, Interesting)

fastgood (714723) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148449)

So in 1965 when Senator Clinton was 17 years old, the government should have been investigating
all the hidden content being revealed when teens started playing 45rpm records backwards?

There's little new under the sun, and gray hair still makes people forget their own younger days.

so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14148473)

Need you more proof that she is a disgusting, loathsome, self-serving being?

Proof? Just the "Target of the Period" (3, Informative)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148603)

What you described probably fits all of the politicians inside of the Washington beltway. All that this latest stunt proves is that she's a perfect fit for the Washington insiders who say and do what is necessary to garner votes and successfully fool their constituents.

Look, every so often the politicians make it seem as though there is some critical issue that demands their attention (and our tax dollars) so that we can feel good about ourselves. In the 1950s, we had the horrible Communists infiltrating America. Later on, we had Watergate, which happens all of the time except in this case the culprits were caught. In the 1980s we had Iran/Contra. In the 1990s (or was it 1980s) we had the evils of suggestive music where John Denver was accused of subliminally advocating drugs in "Rocky Mountain High". In the 1990s we briefly had violent games in the spotlight due to those two jackasses at Columbine. We also had to investiage whether Billy Boy screwed a government intern. Lots of money spent on that one.

And now we have video games back in the spotlight because of -- HORRORS! -- sex!! You know, that thing that every parent through th the history of man has performed in order to propagate the species? Obsessive, narcissistic, self-absorbed politicians on both sides of the ailse have once again found a rallying cry to make it look like they have our interests (and of course our children's interests - can't forget the children) at heart.

I'm very much right-of-center politically, but I can spot opportunistic politians on both sides of the aisle. And right now it's just about even. If you're going to include Hillary, you have to include that idiot Republican senator from Florida (Jack Thompson, I beleive) as well.

Re:Proof? Just the "Target of the Period" (1)

faloi (738831) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148853)

Except that Jack Thompson isn't a senator. He's a crackpot lawyer looking for a way to make his name in the world, or a quick buck, or whatever it is he's after. When Jack Thompson says something, we can all safely ignore him as a crackpot. When real law makers start talking, we have to pay some attention. It was enough to slap warning labels on our music in the late 80's, early 90's to protect the childrenz...but we've already got the warning labels on video games. If something can actually happen as a result of this, besides squandering untold amounts of tax dollars, we have a vested interest in keeping an eye on it.

Re:Proof? Just the "Target of the Period" (1)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149394)

Fair enough. I thought that he had something to do with politics, but the idea is still the same. He's just someone out there who is desperate for attention to make people think he's out for their interests. Unfortunately, we still have to keep an eye on him because his shrieking is obviously rubbing off on Hillary who has idientified this as her Political Spotlight du Jour.

Re:Proof? Just the "Target of the Period" (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149256)

And now we have video games back in the spotlight because of -- HORRORS! -- sex!! You know, that thing that every parent through th the history of man has performed in order to propagate the species?
Fuck reproduction! We fuck and suck for the orgasms!!!

Who'd want to bring children to this fucked-up world anyways???? Let's adopt them from the overcrowded turd-world instead. They're waaaaay much cuter then white trash offspring, and they'll diversify our gene pool.

Steady on, Gromit! (1)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149687)

Fuck reproduction! We fuck and suck for the orgasms!!!

Don't be childish, Jenkins. Where did I say that it was for the sole purpose of propagation? ;)

My point is that (until recently) people had to engage in sex in order to have children. The fact that we're here and that we have evidence of humans that go back millenia is proof that this is nothing unnatural and therefore should not be given such a spotlight or such a negative view. So, even if there was no pleasure attributed to it, it has to happen or the species disappears.

You need to lay off the cough syrup. Seriously. I'm worried about you, man.

SSDD (3, Funny)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148486)

Another "What can we stick our noses into" bill that might become law.

I'm glad the Religous Right and the Lame Left are here to protect me from, ah, everything.


This land is their land,
It isn't our land,
From the Wall Street office
To the Cadillac car-land;
From the plush apartments
To the Hollywood starland,
This land is not for you and me.

If this is our land,
You'd never know it,
So take your bullshit
And kindly stow it,
Let's get together
And overthrow it,
Then this land will be for you and me.

Re:SSDD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14148973)

I know that the parent comment is flamebait but damn that song is catchy.

As an adult... (2, Funny)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148520)

I could care less about this. This IS NOT censorship. You can make any game you want. You can sell your adult themed games to adults. If you think your child is mature enough to play a game that they cannot legally purchase, purchase it for them.

Let the FCC investigate the Hot Coffee incident. What are they going to suggest? That we get a new and improved rating system? Oh, NO! Not another rating system that childrens parents are going to ignore anyway. This problem wouldn't exist if people would raise their own children, which they don't do. So now Big Mother has to step in and do it for you.

The major target of video game companies are 28-35 year old's who grew up playing games and have disposable income. This demographic votes with their dollar and those votes are for violence and adult themes. Companies are catering to this. Maybe it is time for some harsher regulations on sales. A little kid cannot go and purchase Scarface at the media store, so why should he be able to get GTA:SA?

Now, if this starts to regulate content - I'm fighting tooth and nail.

Re:As an adult... (2, Informative)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148622)

The problem for adults, as I see it, is that it's such a stigma for a game or movie to be marked "for 18+ year olds only", and that some stores then refuse to sell it. Walmart sells beer but not violent games. As a result, manufacturers want to fudge the rating systems a little.

I think we should encourage honest disclosure about what's in a game, and have manufacturers pander to the large market out there for mature-only content, have stores sell games to adults only, and leave the kids out of it.

Re:As an adult... (1)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148923)

Walmart sells beer but not violent games.

Not true. [walmart.com] But I do agree that the 18+ tag is a real stigma. If we could change the rating system to acknowledge the levels of each element in a game, I think we would be on the right track. Rate for Violence, Sexual Content, Language, and Adult Themes and you can then make decisions with more confidence.

Re:As an adult... (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149072)

Well, that's the online site, which is possibly different from what's available in local stores. But I guess this blog post [idsnews.com] clarifies a bit more... specific local stores decide to not carry specific mature-rated games. Which, I believe is also true for beer as well, so perhaps it is more consistent than I thought.

Weird thought: are they any jurisdictions where retailers are required to get the game equivalent of a liquor license from their local jurisdiction before they're allowed to sell Mature games?

Re:As an adult... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14149287)

Actually, the correct statement is not always true

Depending on location/store, Wal-mart has to pass criteria as a supermarket. In many states, this allows Wal-mart to sell beer. Again, this is highly dependent on location/services so YMMV

Re:As an adult... (1)

BigZaphod (12942) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149171)

I know this is kind of off topic, but the comment about Wal-mart and beer brings up something I've wondered for ages... Why are the XBox/PS2/etc. games always hidden behind glass cases? The computer games aren't. Neither on the CDs or DVDs. And yet the console games are! They cost similar to some DVD movie packs, are larger than CDs, and aren't even illegal for minors. Very odd.

Re:As an adult... (1)

corrosive_nf (744601) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149246)

Theft. Kids are more likely to try and jack some ps2 games than a pc game.

Re:As an adult... (1)

HunterZ (20035) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149772)

What annoys me is that after all this time, most stores STILL don't bother to shrink-wrap PC game boxes. Last year my brother bought me Half-Life 2 for Christmas and I had to take it back to my local GameStop because someone had already stolen the CD key and carefully replaced the plastic tape on the box flap. Now I have to inspect the tape very carefully before making any PC game purchases to ensure that it hasn't been tampered with.

Re:As an adult... (1)

BigZaphod (12942) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149812)

I would be amazed if the attempted theft of video games is higher than DVDs and CDs. Why don't they just put those electronic theft tags in the video game boxes the same way they do with the CDs and DVDs?

Re:As an adult... (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148731)

I care quite a bit because I think this is an overreaching attempt to control what people do in their own homes. The content of video games should be way outside the jurisdiction of the government. This is just as bad as Ted Steven's recent attempt to bring cable and satellite tv under FCC supervision.

Another reason why I am very much opposed to it is because it is a waste of time and money. There are so many issues that congress needs to be dealing with: the war, economy, environment, political corruption, energy. Even if this was an issue that congress should be involved in, it is still a waste of time compared to all the important issues that she should be focusing on.

Re:As an adult... (1)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148786)

I care quite a bit because I think this is an overreaching attempt to control what people do in their own homes.

RTFA. This does not attempt to control what people do in their own homes. This attempts to control the sale of questionable content to minors, that's it. The government isn't trying to regulate content. Joe Leiberman even stated this. Take the tinfoil hat off.

Another reason why I am very much opposed to it is because it is a waste of time and money.

This I can totally agree with, but that's politics for ya. Hillary is trying to garner conservative support for her presidential run. Joe did this before she did, and then it fell off the planet. Tipper too.

Re:As an adult... (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148860)

"A little kid cannot go and purchase Scarface at the media store, so why should he be able to get GTA:SA?"

Legally, he can go purchase Scarface at a store. The MPAA rating system is voluntary, just like the ESRB. The difference is that many parents are not as aware of (~concerned about?) adult content in games as they are of adult content in movies.

This is compounded when the ESRB ratings are not accurate -- and according to whose definition they are established (i.e., is Hot Coffee part of GTA:SA, or not?).

"Now, if this starts to regulate content - I'm fighting tooth and nail."

It will regulate content, whether directly or indirectly. Consumer pressure will be enough to get adult-themed games off the shelves in mass retail shops, which means that no one will develop those games.

"The major target of video game companies are 28-35 year old's"

Not true, you've got to shift that range lower considerably. A quick Google of video game market demographics will help you clear that up.

Re:As an adult... (2, Informative)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149097)

It will regulate content, whether directly or indirectly. Consumer pressure will be enough to get adult-themed games off the shelves in mass retail shops, which means that no one will develop those games.

Sorry, it will only regulate content that isn't neccesary. If the creators of that content are not directly prevented from creating that content, then they are not censored. If they decide to change their content in order to sell more games, then they made a marketing decision that either compromised the original intent of the game or alludes to the content being a marketing tool in and of itself. If a Game or Movie or Song NEEDS the adult content because it's an integral part of it and the creator has intergrity, they will accept the loss in revenue for creating the work that they wanted.


"The major target of video game companies are 28-35 year old's"

Not true, you've got to shift that range lower considerably. A quick Google of video game market demographics will help you clear that up.


It did, and I'm still right. The major demographic IS NOT kids.

Source 1 [google.com]
Source 2 [economist.com]
Source 3 [theesa.com]

Legally, he can go purchase Scarface at a store. The MPAA rating system is voluntary, just like the ESRB. The difference is that many parents are not as aware of (~concerned about?) adult content in games as they are of adult content in movies.

I think you're correct about this.

Re:As an adult... (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149396)

You're right, the major target demographic is not kids... nor is it 28-35 year olds.

1) the target demographic is not necessarily the purchasing demographic -- people buy games for their kids. This is going to shift the average purchaser age up by a lot.

2) according to your sources, the average gamer age is 27 -- which still lies below the range where you assign the target demographic.

I agree that the kids demographic is not the major target of a lot of games, but 28-35 is quite a bit high...

Also, one of your sources is justa chop of another of your sources.

If you read the article from the economist, you'll see that 61% of gamers are adults... being 18+. If you look at the ESA figures, 18-49 year-olds make up 43% of the game-playing population, 35% is under 18 -- and that's for all games. For consoles, the largest demographic is under 18. For PCs, the largest demographic is over 35.
http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php [theesa.com]

I'm not disagreeing with your statement that a lot of games are not being developed for the sub-adult population. But saying that 28-35 is the target demo, well, that's plain wrong.

Re:As an adult... (1)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149453)

I will have to agree with you on this until I can find the source that broke the demographics down to a more granular level. The age brackets in this are huge.

Re:As an adult... (1)

fonetik (181656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148889)

Now, if this starts to regulate content - I'm fighting tooth and nail.

Well, if this plays out anything like the Tipper stickers did, it will regulate content. She used the same defense... that this is to help parents make informed choices for their kids. What it actually did was keep records with tipper stickers from selling, and in a lot of cases, thrown out of stores. Bands like the Beastie Boys capitulated to the threats of getting a sticker and pulled profanity from their records so that they could still get sold in the big chain stores.

The question isn't weather the new ratings system that they try to install works for the parents, if the games that don't meet the best selling standard can't be found on the shelf at wal-mart, the game manufacturers won't bother making it.

Re:As an adult... (1)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149211)

Bands like the Beastie Boys capitulated to the threats of getting a sticker and pulled profanity from their records so that they could still get sold in the big chain stores.

Self regulating content is not the same as outside regulation. If the Beasties wanted to stay true to their work, they wouldn't have changed a thing. The instant it affected their MONEY is when they made changes. This is not artstic integrity, and doesn't draw an ounce of sympathy from me. If you make a MARKETING decision that compromises your content for more sales, than so be it. But please don't try to confuse the issue with censorship, because it's not the same.

If there is a great enough demand for something, all the regulations in the world won't stop it from being provided for a considerable profit. Look at drugs, prostitution, and gambling. Illegal all over the place, regulated to the point of where you are not supposed to have access to them. Still readily available.

Putting a little sticker on your work means shit. Everything has a little sticker on it, no one cares. When Tipper pulled this it was kinda new, but after a little while no one paid attention to it anymore. In fact, it became a marketing tool on it's own.

Re:As an adult... (1)

flyinwhitey (928430) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149648)

"I could care less about this."

So you're concerned about it too then?

I think you meant "I couldn't care less" which is how I feel about the opinions of people who say "I could care less".

So Much For Bible Video Games ... (3, Informative)

rewinn (647614) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148522)

If we apply this standard to the Holy Book, we're going to have to put warning labels on any game based on, e.g. "a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against a rock!" (Psalms 137:9) or "And that slave, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten." (Luke 12:47)

Re:So Much For Bible Video Games ... (1)

hahiss (696716) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148759)

Don't forget Ezekiel 23:20:

  For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh [is as] the flesh of asses, and whose issue [is like] the issue of horses.

Yep, turns out the bible was all obsessed with donkey penis size and horse ejaculation volume/force.

They're gonna have to close down the bible outlet near my home. . . .

Re:So Much For Bible Video Games ... (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148963)

If we apply this standard to the Holy Book, we're going to have to put warning labels on any game based on, e.g. "a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against a rock!" (Psalms 137:9)
I promise that I will give $10,000 to a charity the instant a videogame company will put up a videogame based on the gory details of the Old Testament!!!

Re:So Much For Bible Video Games ... (1)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149375)

Well, actually, many "Bible games" I've seen seem to be either completely lame based on some idiotic idea (like that one about throwing baby Moses around and stuff) or a secular game disguised as a biblical game. As in "Don't let your kid play that violent, Satanic secular game where the player shoots demons and stuff! Buy our... um... violent biblical game where the player shoots demons and stuff."

I still think Ultima IV is the best "Christian" game even when it doesn't deal with specifically Christian ethics. =)

Re:So Much For Bible Video Games ... (1)

(A)*(B)!0_- (888552) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149435)

And this point has what to do with the article? Clinton made no reference to Christianity so why are you attacking Christians?

Re:So Much For Bible Video Games ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14149765)

If we apply this standard to the Holy Book, we're going to have to put warning labels on any game based on, e.g. "a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against a rock!" (Psalms 137:9)

I know this is Slashdot, where antichristian sentiment reigns supreme, but the context of this quote (which is a little incorrectly quoted) is akin to, say, an American crying out in vengeance for some other nation, say, nuking New York:

"O LORD, remember what the Edomites did
on the day the armies of Babylon captured Jerusalem.
"Destroy it!" they yelled.
"Level it to the ground!"
O Babylon, you will be destroyed.
Happy is the one who pays you back
for what you have done to us.
Happy is the one who takes your babies
and smashes them against the rocks!"

- Psalm 137:7-9

Re:So Much For Bible Video Games ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14149827)

"And that slave, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten." (Luke 12:47)

Another quote which misrepresents the actual message because it's take out of context. Have you really nothing better to do? No wonder so many people have such whacked out ideas about what the Bible actually says.

Misplaced Priorities (2, Insightful)

wilbz (842093) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148549)

Back in the day when her "husband" was president, her supposed top priority was reforming health care to ensure that every American had some sort of reasonable coverage for if they were sick or injured. Now she's more worried about protecting our youth from potential images of sex or violence.

It seems to me that government in general lately has been more concerned with legislation that protects "morality" (e.g. media content, gay marriages, etc.) than with doing anything that tangibly affects people such as health care. It's like going back to the days of the Puritans and all of their 'blue laws' (many of which still exist in New England).

Re:Misplaced Priorities (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148574)

An interesting point of view. This makes me wonder if its more of a ploy to appeal to religiously conservative Americans, for re-election or perhaps a presedential candidacy.

Re:Misplaced Priorities (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148643)

That's because when it comes right down to it they realize that real reform would mean hurting those in power.

Health care for all means you can't have the few [insurance providers] screwing over their customers. Access to education means private schools can't rape you into submission, etc, etc. It's easier to pick on the gays, foreigners or other "threats" because it doesn't require any talent beyond simple biggotry.

These new game laws [and trust me there will be more] are just a new way of showing off their ignorance. you think any of these "concerned peeople" have actually played the games in question? Fuck no. If they did they would realize how trivial the matter really is. It's easier to argue out a position of ignorance because you can just MAKE UP facts as you go along.

And frankly I'm tired of hearing from the religious nutbags from the USA. "christmas tree" not "holiday tree", gay marriage, etc, etc.

THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT.

Why they complain about "holiday tree" but not the total commercialization of the religious event is beyond me. Personally I think it's more twisted and perverted to cut down a perfectly healthy tree for no purpose other than to put decorations on it and commercial presents under it.

I guess that shows where the AFA and others have placed their priorities [e.g. making $$$ is christian but tolerating others is not...]

Tom

Re:Misplaced Priorities (1)

Delphiki (646425) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149174)

Health care for all means you can't have the few [insurance providers] screwing over their customers. Access to education means private schools can't rape you into submission, etc, etc. It's easier to pick on the gays, foreigners or other "threats" because it doesn't require any talent beyond simple biggotry.

You're right, the government should do everything. Because government projects always work out so well. I mean, I'm sure if the US had public health care the government wouldn't force drug companies to sell their products for so low that they couldn't afford research anymore, right? And I'm sure if we just keep dumping more and more money into public schools that will make everyone smarter and not a single dollar will go to waste, right?

Why they complain about "holiday tree" but not the total commercialization of the religious event is beyond me. Personally I think it's more twisted and perverted to cut down a perfectly healthy tree for no purpose other than to put decorations on it and commercial presents under it.

Hahaha, oh you crazy hippies. You may not be clean, or have intelligent opinions, but at least you're funny.

Re:Misplaced Priorities (2, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149366)

"You're right, the government should do everything. Because government projects always work out so well. "

Usually when a government project screws up it's because the contractors bidding on the work are corrupt (either incapable or incompetent or both).

Look at Diebold as a prime example.

But why take my word for it. You drive on public highways, using your government mandated safety test passing vehicle, your kids likely attend public school and can get public emergency health care. You're subject to government standards for food and bio safety regulations (FDA, NIST and a dozen others...), etc...

There are a lot of things in your daily life that are controlled by the government. Know what's in your drinking water? The soil around your house? The very air you breath?

Who is fucking up the water, soil and air though? Is it the government or companies who process chemicals that spill into underground waterways, cars that pollute the air, etc, etc? I can make just as strong argument that private corporations are evil as you can that the government is.

BTW you can't get cheap heart medication because the same company is also trying to make new ways to get your penis [yeah I said it, penis] hard to pleasure your wife. And they go through hundreds of trials [costing millions of dollars] before they get the perfect penis pump pill.

Tom

Re:Misplaced Priorities (1)

flyinwhitey (928430) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149789)

"You drive on public highways,"

Which are roundly criticized as being poorly designed and managed.

"using your government mandated safety test passing vehicle,"

Which still isn't very safe, and is also far more expensive and heavier than necessary, because of said government mandates.

"your kids likely attend public school"

Yeah, this one's self explanatory.

"and can get public emergency health care."

This one could be better, but it could be MUCH worse too. I'll call it a push.

"You're subject to government standards for food and bio safety regulations (FDA, NIST and a dozen others...), etc..."

Which also makes food more expensive, and are routinely ignored, hence the need for a massive beauracracy to make sure they're not ignored, which fuels greater more sophisticated attempts to get around the standards.

So out of five examples, the goverment pooches 4 of them, and gets passing grades for the fifth. Great job Government!

"Usually when a government project screws up it's because the contractors bidding on the work are corrupt (either incapable or incompetent or both)."

No, when the GOVERNMENT screws up, it's the GOVERNMENT screwing up. When it's the contractors, it's the contractors. Are you incapable of differentiating between the two?

Re:Misplaced Priorities (1)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148647)

Don't bash the puritans too much. At least they didn't create Jim Crow laws.

Just like Jack Thompson, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14148659)

Hilary Clinton is a monster who must be stopped before it's too late. That this joyless, ignorant, carpet-bagging, opportunistic, buck passing fiend gets the kind of backing and exposure it does is a crime against nature. Come on, New York, show us you've got enough sense to kick her out of not just your state but national politics altogether.

Hilarious Hillary (1)

jqstm (703262) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148724)

It's hilarious that Hillary would be on a crusade to protect kids from sexual content after her husband did so much to promote fellatio and marital infidelity. Hillary says she wants to put parents "back in the driver's seat" with respect to protecting their children. But isn't her proposal an attempt to put the federal government in the driver seat? I think little Timmy will download mature games from file sharing networks anyway.

Re:Hilarious Hillary (1)

BlackCobra43 (596714) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149825)

Tsh. Yeah, being ready to LIE UNDER OATH to deny it sure means you want to promote it.

The Solution (3, Insightful)

hunterx11 (778171) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148851)

The solution to this problem is obvious.

The video game industry needs to start making campaign contributions to politicians at a level on par with the film and music industries.

Protecting our youth? (1)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148980)

Or is she just trying to keep tabs on what Bill's video games are showing him.

The same for legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14149002)

They want all the hidden or removed from access items of video games to be laid bare for all to know about before purchase or rating. Why can't we get this same type of openness with legislation. I would really like it if we could get a list of all the addendums and amendments and hidden pork in the bills being passed by Congress.

Yes there are ways to see this, but I believe an easily readable version should be made available. Plus the availability of this version should be made known to all Americans, via tv news, newspapers, radio, and the internet. That way there will be fewer people saying they never knew where to find this information.

People know where to look for the hidden items in bills. The same as some people know where to look for the hidden items in games. If they want to know about all of this in an easy to see way, then I want an easy to see list for legislation.

I hope people understand what I am trying to state.

typical excuse (1)

ShadowsHawk (916454) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149014)

"This is about protecting children," she commented.

I'm so sick of people buying to this excuse. Every time I hear it, I shudder to think what liberties they're attempting to strip away.

The gamers respond: (1)

AzraelKans (697974) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149015)

No Hilary, there isnt any more content in games like the hot coffee mod thats why it was interesting in the first place, yes I know thats what made you famous and you want to milk it as much as possible but you just CAN'T the well is dry, sorry.

No Hilary, you cant go to the developers offices and check if they are adding penises to their game models when nobody is watching it's anticonstitutional and is against the first ammendment the artists are (surpringsily enough) human beings and united states citizens. You can't impose Gestapo like rules on them because you think is convenient.

No Hilary, theres no way in hell we are voting for you for president, seriously, no way, not a slim chance, nada, zero, zip, not even if you get elected as the new pope, we would vote for Bush again before voting for you (and that is saying a lot).

Go back and do.. whatever it is you do when you are not trying to bring back the inquisition to the 21st century

BTW those games are rated "M" they are not intended for "children" which is whom your holy crusade suposedly tries to protect, children are not supossed to play those games with or without adult content, parents should be penalized for allowing their kids to play "M" games NOT game developers. How about if parents start acting like responsible adults for a change? instead of blaming the [insert scape goat of the week here] for their problems?

My letter to Joseph Lieberman, D, CT (3, Interesting)

illumin8 (148082) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149089)

I just sent a letter to Joseph Lieberman, and if you live in either CT or NY I suggest you do the same (send one to Hillary Clinton if you live in NY of course). This is the only way they'll know we don't approve of their actions:

Dear Senator Lieberman,

Today I learned that in two weeks time, you will be introducing a bill along with Senator Clinton titled the "Family Entertainment Protection Act." I would like to request that you reconsider introducing such a bill.

I am 32 years old, college educated, and work as a professional in the chip manufacturing and semiconductor industry here in Connecticut. I am also a gamer. I play all types of video games, including violent ones, and have never felt the urge to commit any violent acts in real life. Much like sports, games are a good stress reliever and can help people to work out their aggressive tendencies in a non-harmful way. There are millions of people like me that are professional adults, have real jobs, and play video games. Guess what? We're also voters and we won't hesitate to send you back to Connecticut in 2006.

The bill that you are prepared to introduce would have the end result of introducing a type of censorship and control that is unprecedented over any type of media, whether it be books, films, or music.

The bill you are proposing limits free speech and the creative expression of the artists that make video games, and don't try to think for one second that games are not an art form. As a United States Senator, you swore an oath to uphold the constitution. The fact that you would even consider introducing such legislation gives me serious doubts about your abilities as a senator and representative of the people.

I have heard conservatives argue that video games contribute to violence in our youth, and I want to make sure that you don't believe those lies either. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, violent crime in schools has declined dramatically since 1994, the same time period that video game sales have increased dramatically. Please see the following study: http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violenc e-in-schools/national-statistics.html [virginia.edu]

In conclusion, if you propose this bill I will not vote for your reelection to the US Senate next November, and will actively encourage everyone I know in Connecticut to do the same.

Don't make the mistake of thinking all of your constituents aren't capable of thinking and acting for themselves. Video games are like any other media and should be controlled by an individual child's parents. If a parent doesn't want their kid playing Grand Theft Auto, they should watch their children and not let them play it. How hard is this if the child is living in the same house as the parent? It is just like any other media, whether it's a book, a movie, or television. The responsbility is the parents and the parents alone to ensure that their kids aren't exposed to things they find offensive. Government should never interfere in this.

Nitpick: Conservatives? (2, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149721)

I have heard conservatives argue that video games contribute to violence in our youth, and I want to make sure that you don't believe those lies either.

My only problem with your letter (other than that it's a little confrontational) is your quickness to blame this on conservatives. Although there are certainly too many Jack Thompsons in the world, there are also plenty of Hillary Clintons and Tipper Gores. This is not a liberal-vs-conservative issue - it's a government-vs-individual issue.

People who tend to be pro-big-government also tend to be pro-censorship, and there are at least as many big government liberals as conservatives. The real lesson is that all of us, regardless of the direction of our leanings, need to watch out for those would would claim to represent our wants as they strip us of our liberties. Republican, Democrat, or whatever else you might happen to be, don't think it can't happen in your party.

Game Industry Sucks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14149098)

...at policing itself.

I like games. I got kids.

Do I want my kids playing Grand Theft Auto? Of course not and I don't buy it and don't let them play.

But do my kids go over to some other kids house who bought it at some EB and play it. Yep.

The game industry is bringing this upon themselves. They took an existing industry that primarily catered to 'kids' and found a way to expand it so that 'big kids' (like myself) will still play. That was a good thing for business but tough on parents.

Because, they forgot to put in the proper systems in place to make sure that kids didn't get at the stuff they were making for the 'big kids'. It is like comic books showing full nudity, and still letting little kids buy it in comic book stores.

All it points to is that sales are sales, and the game industry really doesn't care who buys what they are selling.

And that is getting them into trouble... instead of managing the expansion into the 'big kid' market properly, they just added fuel to the religious right fire.

All I know is, it is time for the game industry to grow up and start figuring out how to keep the big kids separate from the kids market. If that means putting more info on the box as to what the game has it in for parents to know, fine. If that means that EB has to card kids who want to by an MA game, fine. If that means EB can't cary MA games and I need to buy them online, fine.

But the way it is going now, the game industry is trying to have its cake and eat it. They just want the sales. Don't let them tell you this is a freedom of speech issue, it is a 'we wanna make all the money we can' issue for them. You tell a sales guy he has to take his game out of walmart and he will begin to cry. Case in point, Walmart sells Grand Theft Auto. Too much money in that game to make a crazy religious right stand on.

And all those who may flame back, all I can say is: get kids, try to raise them right, and see how screwy things are. It is easy to see how the religious right gets so whacky, and how they get so powerful because it is so easy to see that the game industry won't do anything, because $ are $.

Re:Game Industry Sucks... (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149758)

But do my kids go over to some other kids house who bought it at some EB and play it. Yep.

I'll bet some of your kids' friends' parents also have a pot stash. What's your point, other than that you need to pay more attention to who your kids are hanging out with?

Re:Game Industry Sucks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14149928)


>What's your point, other than that you need to pay more attention to who your kids are hanging out with?

Point is, if a kid is giving my kid pot, i really don't give 2 craps if the police arrest him. And if a game company is trying to sell my kid grand theft auto, i really don't give 2 craps if the govt. says they can't. I say, go for it.

P-A-R-E-N-T-I-N-G (3, Insightful)

Sierpinski (266120) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149104)

If parents would stop leaving it up to the ESRB or the government to decide whats best for their children, these kinds of things wouldn't even be an issue. What the hell is a 13-year-old doing with GTA: San Andreas in the first place? I doubt he has a job, SOMEONE gave him that money, or SOMEONE took him to the store to buy that game. If it wasn't Mom or Dad, consider it a probably-not-illegal version of contributing to the deliquency of a minor. If it was Mom or Dad, shame on you, its YOUR fault.

Stop blaming the game companies and start being a parent. If you don't have the time to spend to screen games and movies for your children, and if you're just letting them have whatever they want, then your parenting skills need some work. Obviously Dora the Explorer is probably going to be okay. Any game that has a masked gunman on the front, more than likely will not be okay.

My wife and I recently went to go see Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Our daughter (4.5 years old) has seen movies 1-3. We thought the dementors in part 3 would be a problem for her, but we told her ahead of time "This movie has some dark ghost-looking things in it, do you think you'll be okay with that." Of course she's going to say yes, (as she did) but it at least gave her a heads up when she did see them. We told her that we were seeing #4 before we did, and we told her why. Even at 4.5 years, she understood (or seemed to) that maybe that movie was too much for a little girl and that if we didn't think it was okay for her to watch it, then she wouldn't get to see it. It wasn't, and she didn't. She (luckily) understood that and didn't even give it a second thought. She just said "Will I get to watch it when I'm older?" and we of course said yes.

Before you ask, was I going to see the movie anyway? Probably. The difference being that we went through the trouble of getting a family member to watch her while we went, instead of just taking her in the first place.

A neighbor's kid watched The Ring [imdb.com] because he wasn't being supervised (at all) and he had horrific nightmares for about 3 months because of it. The parents got upset and started blaming the studio. Finally another neighbor (who wasn't afraid to speak her mind) said that it was basically their fault that they weren't involved in what their child was watching. It happened in their own house, on the family TV, while they were home.

Any fool can have a child, but it takes a lot of effort to be able to call yourself a parent. Senator Clinton thinks she knows whats best for your children. While I might not always make the best decision with respect to my kids, I do try to, but the bottom line is that they are MY kids, and its MY decision.

Re:P-A-R-E-N-T-I-N-G (1)

thundar2000 (459149) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149474)

>While I might not always make the best decision with respect to my kids, I do try to, but the bottom line is that they are MY kids, and its MY decision.

Yeah, but the problem is that many companies are trying to make decisions for your kids, around your back.

Reading the comments on this board, many people are swayed that this is a freedom of speech issue, or a parenting issue, when it really isn't... or rather, the companies involved would love for you to believe that.

All entertainment companies makes lots of money off of kids, especially the game companies, and the less parental involvement, the better.

So when you read about the game companies standing up for our rights, well, it really really ain't true. They are just standing up for their rights, to make money off our kids.

Figuring out how to deal with ratings of content, and so far, is hard. And I won't comment on that.

But everyone just not be so naive to think that the game industry is doing anything but protecting money making turf.

Not Everything is MEANT for Children (1)

queenb**ch (446380) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149365)

Seriously, the whole dang world isn't meant for kids. We're adults and we'd like to have some adult type fun. If you honestly beleive that the whole world is meant to be some damned Disney park, PG-rated place, you are a moron. "Southpark", while it is cartoon, is clearly not meant for children and neither is "Drawn Together", which is also cartoon. We keep "Playboy" and "Hustler" available for adults but access is denied to children, unless a parent buys one and gives it to them. The same goes for "R" rated movies, booze, cigarettes, porn, and whole host of other things we, as a society, have deemed "unsuitable" for children.

As an avid gamer, I cannot tell you how many times I have seen parents purchasing video games rated "M" for their children. In many cases, the parent enters the store, guided by said child, who points at what they want and Mom or Dad plops down the plastic to pay for it. In cases where the child looks to be of sufficient age to me (15+), I don't generally say anything to the parent. If they look younger, I generally do say something like "So...Do you get your kid hookers and booze too?"

A lot of parents don't take the time to investigate what's in the games that Little Johnny wants and they flatly ignore the ratings labels. I realize that a lot of parents don't game and I do think that stores need to have at least one rather large poster that explains that games are rated "M" for violence, nudity and/or sexuality, languge, and/or drug usage. Lord knows we have mandatory signs for everything else in the country.

2 cents,

Queen B

Confused (1)

rhadamanthus (200665) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149513)

Aren't there real problems to solve?

You know, like Iraq or the defecit or health care?

What a screwed up country.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...