Beta
×

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!

'Over 30' Section For Games Stores?

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the early-20s-soldiers-not-old-enough-to-play-violent-games dept.

Games 220

A New York law introduced by Representative Keith Wright seeks just that, a section for gaming stores that keeps 'violent games' under lock and key, and is accessible only to people over 30. The law is one of two poorly-thought pieces of legislation being considered by New York state's legal system. From the 1up article: "The history of the courts striking down such legislation goes just about as far back as politicians who attempt to bolster their own image by capitalizing on the public fear and hysteria over the bogeyman of video gaming. It's interesting to note that recently, courts have begun penalizing entities who purposely waste their time with attempts at passing frivolous and unconstitutional anti-videogame legislation. You'd think might deter motions like [these] somewhat, wouldn't you?" Update: 01/19 04:10 GMT by Z : As ahecht points out in the comments 1up has things wrong here. There is only one bill, and it restricts violent games from being sold to those under 18 only. Line 5 of the bill's text is the section in question.

cancel ×

220 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I would understand 21, but 30? (5, Insightful)

The Real Toad King (981874) | more than 6 years ago | (#17671798)

"Yes, you're allowed to get drunk off your ass and purchase hardcore porno flicks, but you can't buy these video games."

Re:I would understand 21, but 30? (5, Insightful)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 6 years ago | (#17671840)

Or: "You can be sent overseas and kill people, but you can't play Quake 4!"

Mod parent up, +1 insightful. (4, Insightful)

Lane.exe (672783) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672412)

If what we're worrying about is kiddos getting their hands on a violent game where they take up a gun and kill people, then we should be doubly worried about signing them up for the real thing.

/In life, there's no reset button or checkpoints.

Re:Mod parent up, +1 insightful. (4, Funny)

WobindWonderdog (1049538) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672562)

In life, there's no reset button or checkpoints.
But I can't wait for the expansion pack!

Re:Mod parent up, +1 insightful. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17673054)

It's vaporware...

Re:I would understand 21, but 30? (1, Insightful)

Lord_Slepnir (585350) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672054)

I don't even understand 21. In theory, the reason we have an age limit of 21 for booze is because the brain is still developing up until age 21, so alcohol might stunt that growth.

at 18, you are legally an adult. I expect to be treated like one.

The reason for 30 (3, Insightful)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672096)

I suspect the main reason they choose 30 is to ban violent videogames without actually banning violent videogames ...

Even though there are lots of gamers over 30, and the average age of gamers is quite high, the quantity of games played by a gamer decreases with age; as a guess I would say you probably buy/rent twice as many games at 15 as you do at 25, and you buy/rent twice as many games at 25 as you do at 35. If you could successfully prevent 66% of game sales from occuring in the age of the $20 Million game you will successfully prevent any company from attempting to make one of these games (because you simply can not be profitable).

Re:The reason for 30 (2, Informative)

Baldrake (776287) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673666)

...the quantity of games played by a gamer decreases with age

But aren't the over-30's more likely to pay for said games?

According to the ESA [theesa.com] , parents of children under 18 are present 89% of the time when games are purchased or rented. Presumably most of these parents have dinged 30.

But this law is silly for all sorts of other reasons.

it won't pass (3, Insightful)

6ame633k (921453) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672248)

Hooking their little red wagon to the ridiculous and ARBITRARY "30 years of age" rating will kill this piece legislation for sure. It makes me think it's a ploy for attention, and not a serious bill.

Re:I would understand 21, but 30? (5, Informative)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672260)

It's not 30, it's 18. The law is to prevent access to violent games by minors and would require clerks to check the ID of anyone who looks under 30, just like a lot of liquor stores do.

Re:I would understand 21, but 30? (1)

krotkruton (967718) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672846)

Umm, no? I can't really tell from the article, but they are discussing two such laws in it.

FTA, the first law mandates the creation of an "Adults Only" section in your local game store, where any game containing the above is kept under lock and key, accessible only to people over 30. I haven't read the actual law, but that is how the article descirbes it, and only 30-year-olds would be allowed in the section. The other law is about banning the sale of violent games to minors (under 18). The summary of the article, along with the grandparent, were both talking about the first law, as far as I could tell.

Re:I would understand 21, but 30? (4, Informative)

ahecht (567934) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673196)

I have read the two bills. The first, the supposed "under 30" bill, is located at:
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A00547&sh=t [state.ny.us]

This bill reads:
3. Sale or rental of any video game that contains any contents listed in subdivision one of this section, shall be made only to an individual who demonstrates, through (a) a valid driver's license or non-driver`s identification and issued by the commissioner of motor vehicles, the federal government, any united states territory, commonwealth or possession, the District of Columbia, a state government within the United States or a provincial government of the dominion of Canada; or (b) a valid passport issued by the united states government or any other country; or (c) an identification card issued by the united states,indicating that the individual is at least eighteen years of age. Such identification need not be required of any individual who reasonably appears to be at least thirty years of age, provided, however, that such appearance shall not constitute a defense in any proceeding involving sale or rental of any video game, to an individual under eighteen years of age.


The second bill is located at: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A02024&sh=t [state.ny.us] This bill, surprisingly, also reads:
3. Sale or rental of any video game that contains any contents listed in subdivision one of this section, shall be made only to an individual who demonstrates, through (a) a valid driver's license or non-driver`s identification and issued by the commissioner of motor vehicles, the federal government, any united states territory, commonwealth or possession, the District of Columbia, a state government within the United States or a provincial government of the dominion of Canada; or (b) a valid passport issued by the united states government or any other country; or (c) an identification card issued by the united states,indicating that the individual is at least eighteen years of age. Such identification need not be required of any individual who reasonably appears to be at least thirty years of age, provided, however, that such appearance shall not constitute a defense in any proceeding involving sale or rental of any video game, to an individual under eighteen years of age.


In fact, there aren't two separate bills putting video games under "concentrated fire", it's the same bill, but one was the prefiling of the bill on the 3rd, and the second is the actual filing on the 11th.

This is just sloppy reporting.

Re:I would understand 21, but 30? (0)

cyber-dragon.net (899244) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673478)

Wish I had mod points... very informative thank you :)

Re:I would understand 21, but 30? (1)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673490)

The article is incorrect, take the extra step and read the bills. Almost everyone is reporting this wrong.

Re:I would understand 21, but 30? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17673958)

What praytell is the difference between doing this with books and doing this with computer games?

Re:I would understand 21, but 30? (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672730)


"Yes, you're allowed to get drunk off your ass and purchase hardcore porno flicks, but you can't buy these video games"

Why do people continue to conflate sex and violence? One is about having fun and procreating, the other is about hurting people.

 

Re:I would understand 21, but 30? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672838)

Which was which again?

Re:I would understand 21, but 30? (3, Insightful)

Atomic6 (1011895) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673208)

We're talking about virtual violence, which has nothing to do with hurting people. The two are very different and while real violence is a very bad thing, virtual violence is not. People should only be concerned about whether the player is mature enough to understand the difference between real and virtual violence, which many people associate with understanding sex.

Re:I would understand 21, but 30? (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673668)

One is about having fun and procreating, the other is about hurting people.

I agree. Why do people continue to conflate sex and pornography?

Re:I would understand 21, but 30? (0, Offtopic)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 7 years ago | (#17673708)

Why do people continue to conflate sex and violence? One is about having fun and procreating, the other is about hurting people.
In America, they have a way to mix sex and suffering. See sig below.

Re:I would understand 21, but 30? (1)

scruffyMark (115082) | more than 7 years ago | (#17673882)

And here I was hoping that it would be a section for games with enough of an intellectual component to be of interest to someone over 30. I'm only 29, but I'd head straight for that section...

honestly (3, Insightful)

PunkOfLinux (870955) | more than 6 years ago | (#17671818)

People mature differently. I know a couple teenagers that are more mature than my 32-year old cousin. Leave it up to parents and oneself to make this decision.

Re:honestly (1)

ErGalvao (843384) | more than 6 years ago | (#17671922)

People mature differently.
Well said, but still a line must be drawn, even if it serves as reference only. Thing is 30 is weird by any common standards (as I've noticed by the american posts here too).

Re:honestly (1)

peepleperson (888013) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673104)

Hey! I'm 33, and you said you wouldn't talk about me on here, you insensitive poop-head.

Re:honestly (1)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673434)

Leave it up to parents and oneself to make this decision.

Shouldn't booze too then be left to parents? And porn? If my 16 year old by wants a playboy I wouldn't stand in his way. Really, with the internet nowadays porn is readily available anyway.

The reason we have these controls in place is because some parents are truly incompetent and don't parent when they should, and the rest of society pays a price for these parents incompetance.

A parent can still go into an adults only section in a video game store and buy a game for their kid, there's no laws against that afaik.

Featuring the new EA Title (5, Funny)

darth_MALL (657218) | more than 6 years ago | (#17671826)

GTHOML2007 (Get The Hell Off My Lawn)

Re:Featuring the new EA Title (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672062)

C'mon mods, this is funny on several levels! If you take it to mean "Games that only appeal to people over 30", then Get the Hell Off My Lawn may, though you'd probably want it in games for people over 60. It's also funny in the fact that as an EA game, there'd be a GTHOML2008, GTHOML2009, etc. Mod parent funny...

Re:Featuring the new EA Title (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673560)

U just got pwnz0r3d by my fl4m1ng p00p b0mb, g33zr!!!

Re:Featuring the new EA Title (4, Funny)

IdahoEv (195056) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673608)

This would be a hysterical MMORPG. You can either play a leathery old grandpa sitting on his porch swing with a shotgun or a 13-year-old street punk with staples in his ears and a spraypaint can.

Punks gain EXP for tagging houses and retirement centers.

Gramps characters get EXP for filling punks' asses with high velocity rock salt.

I like! Who wants to join the development team?

Re:Featuring the new EA Title (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 7 years ago | (#17673746)

I think that concept would work better as an action game, a la Jet Grind Radio.

There should be a punishment (5, Insightful)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 6 years ago | (#17671828)

As in, if a law is passed and rejected by the courts, all the people that voted for it should be forced to watch a one hour video on the constition of the United States, before they are allowed to vote for any other law.

Re:There should be a punishment (1)

Teese (89081) | more than 6 years ago | (#17671900)

They should also not be allowed to vote on any legislation until they have retaken the oath of office ("defend the constitution..."), as public demonstration that they have violated it all ready, and are no longer fit to serve until that new oath is in effect. or something.

Re:There should be a punishment (1)

Katmando911 (1039906) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673058)

You can't do this. The constitution was written with the idea that it (along with all the other laws) could be changed. If the constitution is changed the courts can't though the change out as unconstitutional. What I think we need is to draft a modern constitution that takes into account everything that's happened since the current one. (ammendments, etc) That way we could, as a people, decide how to handle issues like copyright, taxes, etc. Hell why we're at it, why even have a Congress, why not make it one vote per citizen (like the democracy of ancient Greece) That would get rid of a ton of corruption, is totally possible to do with current technology (ie the Internet), and if there is an issue that is put to a vote it would probably be left up to only those parties interested enough to bother voting on it.

Re:There should be a punishment (1)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673620)

Yes because I'm totally qualified to evaluate on my own time every possible decision the government makes. There's a reason we have a republic. If we had a pure democracy, everybody's full time jobs would be debating and making decisions. Even with the issues we have in our modern republic, I shudder to think of how much worse a democracy would be.

Re:There should be a punishment (2, Insightful)

Merusdraconis (730732) | more than 7 years ago | (#17673702)

I fear a one vote per person system ala Ancient Greece. Haven't you seen American Idol? Imagine that system applied to something important!

Re:There should be a punishment (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672734)

Personally, I think that the punishment should be worse if they do it again. Say, do it three times and get thrown out of office. do not pass go, do not collect your salary.

Legislators serve the people. So many of them forget that.

Re:There should be a punishment (3, Insightful)

Dagowolf (646208) | more than 7 years ago | (#17673736)

The bigger issue here hasn't really been addressed by anyone in the general media or the gaming specific media. The issue is that most of the people in office haven't played many of the modern video games they are demonizing and seeking to legislate. Should laws like this (the correctly cited version that is) pass? I don't see why not, there is no added burden beyond having to look at someone's ID. Besides, the kids will just get their parents to buy the games for them, therefore circumventing the law.

The larger issue of uneducated (or undereducated) lawmakers is where the gaming public needs to focus its energy. The industry is often viewed by the lawmakers and the non-gaming public as attempting to push their agenda of violence for all. The education needs to come from the gaming public. There are books out there that discuss the real impact of gaming on people, and the impact is not as bad as lawmakers and the non-gaming public believes.

In Steven Johnson's book Everything Bad is Good For You he discussed how we as gamers spend so much time "not having fun" while playing a game, how we learn skills beyond that which we would subject ourselves to in the real world. An example Mr. Johnson uses is his nephew who learned the basic premise of industrial economics while playing SimCity. No seven year old would sit through an urban planning or economics class to learn that reduced tax rates spur growth, but that same child happily learns this while playing a game. Granted SimCity isn't going to be regulated as violent anytime soon, but Mr. Johnson doesn't stop with SimCity. He touches on the value of games like Half-Life in building the players ability to track objectives. As the player progresses they develop a sort of running task list of objectives. While a game like PacMan might have a relatively short objective list, a game like Zelda or Half-Life has a large and complex matrix of objectives, some of them might even appear on the surface to conflict with each other.

If Mr. Johnson's book doesn't fully address the world of gaming (which it doesn't as it also looks at TV), James Paul Gee's book What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy addresses the impact of gaming do a much deeper level. Mr. Gee's book addresses the development of semiotic domains, learning and identity, situated meaning, telling and doing, cultural models, and the social mind through the lens of a converted gamer. Using games such as Pikman, Deus Ex, Tomb Raider, and EverQuest (to name a few) Mr. Gee investigated how playing games helps develop a person's ability to read, understand, and interact both in the virtual world and in the real world.

I mention these two books because they are what is missing from the debate on regulating the gaming industry. Lawmakers look past the good and seek out the bad because it is in their political interest to do this. We as gamers need to make sure that our elected leaders understand that gaming is not a "waste of time," but is a "fun" way for the gamer to learn skills and concepts that can help them in the "real world." Instead of voicing our displeasure concerning these proposed laws only on Slashdot we as gamers need to interact with our elected leaders and make sure they understand that it is not just young boys that play games anymore, but that more and more middle aged men and women are playing games like Quake or Gears of War.

Remember... (2, Insightful)

Lord_Slepnir (585350) | more than 6 years ago | (#17671846)

It's ok to actively recruit 18 year olds and send them to real violence in Iraq, but it's not ok for a 29 year old to play fake violence.

Also, why 30? Why not 21? 18? It's one thing if the government regulates what can be sold to minors without their parent's permission, but what exactly gives them the right to arbitrarily block adults from something?

Damn hypocrites. Keith Wright, feel free to exercise your right to bite me.

Re:Remember... (2, Informative)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 6 years ago | (#17671888)

I'm 28, have two kids and a mortgage, and apparently some of our elected officials think that I lack the maturity to purchase my own games. I guess I'll have to find other ways to get my games.

Yo ho, yo ho...

Precedent (1)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | more than 6 years ago | (#17671936)

You have to be at least 35 to be president.

Re:Precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17672172)

And clearly even this isn't enough to keep the morons out of the ofal office.

Re:Precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17672864)

If that's a typo, that has to be the most awesome typo I have ever seen.

Offal Office. I rather like that.

Re:Precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17673016)

With the last pres. it was the oral office.

Re:Remember... (3, Interesting)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672060)

The de facto right that was granted when we decided to let them stamp 18 and 21 as the line for adulthood. Would you not agree that prohibition for 19-20 year olds is also arbitrarily blocking adults from something?

30?! (0, Redundant)

ErGalvao (843384) | more than 6 years ago | (#17671850)

Why over 30?!?!

I don't know how it is in the U.S., but the legal age here in Brazil is 21, while the driving age is 18 and the voting age is 16. I mean, ok, I can try to understand the reason to make a 'mature' section, but over 30?

Disclaimer: I'm over 30 and I'm a game geek, but I wouldn't like to see that happening...

Re:30?! (1)

F-3582 (996772) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672318)

Well, acording to research the brain region responsible for reasonable thinking is fully (re-)developed at the age of 25 after being pretty much smashed during puberty (guess why).

They propably just wanted to make sure that every possible "variations" are covered.

Exception for the developers & testers? (1, Insightful)

mad.frog (525085) | more than 6 years ago | (#17671864)

Given that a substantial percentage of game developers and testers are under 30, this would definitely put the kibosh on game development there...

It's actually not a bad idea (1)

DigitalReverend (901909) | more than 6 years ago | (#17671874)

Actually I don't think it's such a bad idea. Parents refuse to take responsibility for what their kids do because it's inconvenient. If you make it where it is more inconvenient for the parent to get the game for the kid, than it is for them to monitor their kid, you get the same result. You keep the games out of the hands of kids. I personally am tired of my gaming experience being tamed down or ruined because kids might play the game. If you make it where instead of sending Johnny in to Gamestop with $40 to grab a game while sitting in the car and make it where the parent has to get out of the car and go in themself to buy the game, then little Johnny doesn't get the game, and game developers can truly cater to their customers.

I will admt that 30 is too old. (3, Insightful)

DigitalReverend (901909) | more than 6 years ago | (#17671908)

18 is the age of becoming a legal adult, 18 should be the age for everything, games, drinking, voting. An 18 year old can pay taxes, get married, die in war, but can't play a video game or drink? Puhleeese.

Re:I will admt that 30 is too old. (2, Insightful)

TheJerg (1052952) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672064)

It's not the government's responsbility to tell parents what is and isn't acceptable for their kids. All it does is enable parents to take an even smaller role in determining what is and isn't right for their children.

Re:I will admt that 30 is too old. (1)

Katmando911 (1039906) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673154)

That common age should be when a person can obtain a drivers license also. If America had something like this it would clearly distenguish between Adult and Child. However, I don't care much what age is actually picked, 16, 18, 21, 25, whatever. It'd probably be 18 though that way the military could still grab people right out of high school.

Re:I will admt that 30 is too old. (1)

ffejie (779512) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673502)

An 18 year old can pay taxes, ...

I paid taxes at 16, when I got my first (legal) job. And yet I didn't have any of the rights of most of the citizens. The truth is, the government takes advantage of kids in a lot of ways under the guise of "protect the children!" The reason it stays that way is because they don't have the right to vote, so not too many people have the incentive to give them other rights. Also, by the time you can vote (and drink, smoke, watch porn, etc.) everyone forgets how much it sucks to be 16, with 17 year old friends trying to go to a rated R movie.

I'm glad I'm older.

Re:It's actually not a bad idea (2, Insightful)

bunions (970377) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672002)

> Parents refuse to take responsibility for what their kids do because it's inconvenient.

When my kid is 28, my responsibility for his behavior is pretty much zero.

I could sort of not mind a law like this too much, but the age can't be 30.

Re:It's actually not a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17672026)

Do you truly believe that onerous restrictions on the sale of violent video games will result in MORE violent games being developed? It would just mean that the few violent games that do get produced will have to be pretty extreme in order to be worth having them locked up. I don't want to play a game with constant extreme gore anymore than I want to play a kiddie game. It would be awful if these were the only options.

Yes, but *30*? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17672086)

I'm a 20-something. I don't live with my parents, I'm self-sufficient, and I like to purchase and play videogames. I drive myself to the videogame store and buy them with my own money. If a law like this were passed, I would not be able to buy the next GTA or such (though frankly I don't think I will anyway, but that's another issue).

Some sort of age based rule, while inherently arbitrary, is perhaps a decent idea. But it should not be as high as 30, as there are millions of independent self-sufficient gamers between 20 and 30 who don't go around with their parents to the videogame stores still.

Re:It's actually not a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17672998)

You know, I hate that. Parents are the ones who should be smacked down, not forcing the stores to police everything.

I'm sick of sue-happy dipshits wanting everybody to parent their kids but them.

And yanno, if little Johnny is old enough to not get his parents called on child endangerment for him being alone, and buys a game, then blows shit up or something, then little Johnny had issues to begin with.

Small, dirty room behind the beaded curtain (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17671898)

Featuring adult-themed games like:

Prostate Kong
Ligament Hunter
Early Bird Buffet 2142
Need For Slow: Cataract

Re:Small, dirty room behind the beaded curtain (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 7 years ago | (#17673906)

Smörgåsbord II: Blue Plate's Revenge

Just great... (1)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 6 years ago | (#17671946)

JUST when I get to the point where I can conveniently buy my favorite violent games, *BAM*, I get arthritis!

Related jokes:

Oh, violent games? I thought you were talking about Brain Age, Sudoku, etc.

Or

A PC game shelf with over 30 games on it in stores these days - that's quite an improvement!

Or

Yes! Finally! I can discover that the immature jerks playing games are NOT actually just angsty teens, and can be further disappointed by humanity! It's like a whole new flavor of misanthropy!

Thanks! Good night - I'll be here all week. Enjoy the veal!

Ryan Fenton

The Vagia Crowd... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 6 years ago | (#17671956)

How many more retro arcade games from the 1970's and 80's do we need?

"Over 30"? Uhh, no. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17671966)

Far be it from me to criticize a kneejerk headline on Slashdot (on Slashdot? You jest!), but the bill in question would require stores to CARD people to ensure that they are over EIGHTEEN if they LOOK under the age of 30. If you're between the age of 18 and 29 inclusive, you can still buy the game, just expect to be carded when you do so. This headline has about the same accuracy as a headline that says "You must be over 45 to buy beer."

Re:"Over 30"? Uhh, no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17672114)

I had to go to here [gamepolitics.com] to figure that out, not even the linked blog article made it clear. A lot of us RTfA and still had the wrong idea.

This is KIND of an important point, might mod up? (2, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672198)

Half the fricken' comments in this story wouldn't have been posted if people had happened to notice this point: You have to be over 18, not 30. They will only card you if you look under 30. Very inaccurate summary and headline.

Re:"Over 30"? Uhh, no. (3, Informative)

Brianech (791070) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672254)

FTFA:

That's a pretty all-encompassing list -- especially the first and last entries. Rep. Wright's law also mandates the creation of an "Adults Only" section in your local game store, where any game containing the above is kept under lock and key, accessible only to people over 30.


Now if you read into the links in the article you find

Rep. Wright's bill also calls for the equivalent of an "adults only" section for such games. Retailers would be required to check I.D. for buyers who appear to be 30 or under. The bill has been referred to the Assembly's Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection.

So its not that the summary of the article is incorrect, the writers of the article can't even cite their sources correctly... You can't just read an article these days, you have to read their sources...

Re:"Over 30"? Uhh, no. (1)

Braedley (887013) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672760)

Thank you for clarifying that before I even read the article. I was going to go on about how I'm 21, am legally allowed to drink, etc, etc, but that seems rather pointless now.

Re:"Over 30"? Uhh, no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17673078)

I can't tell you how depressed I was when I no longer was carded for beer.

Oh well, my dad is no longer carded for senior citizen's discounts, so I guess it could be worse.

You've GOT to be joking (1)

Vacardo (1048640) | more than 6 years ago | (#17671978)

Hey, I know, I have a GREAT idea!
 
You know that 'Kids' section in Electronic Boutique? With "Star Wars Activity Centre"? We'll make THAT our mainstream form of entertainment!
 
We'll also enforce nappies be worn by anyone between age 9 to 90!

Re:You've GOT to be joking (1)

s-gen (890660) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672456)

"We'll also enforce nappies be worn by anyone between age 9 to 90!"

That's not a bad idea.

After all... they're worn by people under 9 and over 90.

Age is not a measure of moral maturity (1)

Fox_1 (128616) | more than 6 years ago | (#17671984)

it can come close, maybe even approximate for some groups, but pulling a random number out of your ass representing the number of spins around the sun it takes to become a responsible adult is silly. In particular setting 30 as the age that someone can access violent video games is pretty silly, the kind of thing I expect from a person that would rather make a decision based on bias and lack of understanding. In this case someone long past 30. If this law is even to approach reason it should operate more like effective gun control laws that require some element of education and licensing. That's a reasonable measure, can you pass a responsibility test? But of course we are just talking about video games, games, make believe, imaginary, not actual real guns, or real killing or real explosions, you would think the honourable member would be old enough to figure out the difference.

It would kill the industry. (0, Flamebait)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672000)

The games that those of us over 30 want generally run on 8-bit platforms using simple player-missile graphics and damned near every one of them is already available on MAME or via telnet.

30- America's Army (2, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672024)

So does this senator want to personally pay for all the then wasted resources the army has put into its whizz bang recruitment game:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Army [wikipedia.org]

Or are they going to have to modify the game so nobody gets killed?

This is outrageous! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17672038)

I'm 32 and when I wan't the classics I don't need some stupid "over 30 section" in shops... I have internet!

...What? "RTFA"?

I can see it now... (1)

OglinTatas (710589) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672044)

...a whole aisle stocked with checkerboards. /over 30

All right! (3, Insightful)

Megane (129182) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672246)

Now I can look for those Sega Genesis games in one convienent place!

I was expecting the "over 30" section to have the intelligent games, not the violent ones. Sheesh, what a let-down.

And get off of my yard, you punk kids!

Re:All right! (1)

HiVizDiver (640486) | more than 7 years ago | (#17673806)

I admit that's pretty much what I thought as well. I figured "Wow, they're going to have a section that has games that don't require the reflexes of a gnat on speed and that actually have a storyline that took more than 30 minutes to write! Woohoo!"

Bill actually only bans sales to minors (under 18) (5, Informative)

The Cheez-Czar (4124) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672322)

The bill only bans those sales to rate M game to those under 18, and requires if someone looks under 30, that they show proper id to prove they are over 18
1UP misread the article when they summarized it from the original article [gamepolitics.com]

From the text [state.ny.us] of bill:

S 391-Q. SALE OF CERTAIN VIDEO GAMES TO MINORS PROHIBITED. 1. NO PERSON, PARTNERSHIP OR CORPORATION SHALL SELL OR RENT OR OFFER TO SELL OR RENT TO ANY PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS ANY VIDEO GAME THAT HAS A MATURE OR VIOLENT RATING.... SALE OR RENTAL OF ANY VIDEO GAME ... [as described] TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DEMONSTRATES, THROUGH [some sort of ID ]... AT LEAST EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE. SUCH IDENTIFICATION NEED NOT BE REQUIRED OF ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO REASONABLY APPEARS TO BE AT LEAST THIRTY YEARS OF AGE,...

Re:Bill actually only bans sales to minors (under (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672740)

What about games that are not rated?

Re:Bill actually only bans sales to minors (under (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673592)

Those are banned by Homeland Security. They might contain nipples.

Incorrect article (2, Insightful)

TravisW (594642) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672484)

According to this link [gamepolitics.com] cited in the article, it's not that "violent" games would only be "accessible" to customers over 30, it's that retailers would be required "to check I.D. for buyers" who wanted to browse that section and "who appear to be 30 or under." It's more like the policy of checking IDs when serving alcohol than the nonsense the article and summary suggest.

Incidentally, if they were accurate, it would (comically) mean that someone could run for and win a seat in the House of Representatives and sponsor laws re video game violence before they could browse the proposed section at game stores.

It's apparently too much to expect that when a story is submitted by an editor, he check the primary sources linked in the cited article to support what's obviously an improbable assertion (and in this case, a flatly incorrect one).

Look at the bright side.. (3, Funny)

mad_psych0 (991712) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672684)

At least the violent online games wouldn't be full of 12-year-old griefers =)

Expensive to enforce (1)

safiel (1016237) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672822)

Having a special section for adult only games seems like it would be a large burdon for stores (espeically small stores). Setting up a special area for these games and making sure that someone will insure that people who go in get carded. Not to mention, that stores like gamestop are normally shoved into a space way to small for them to begin with, and this would only make space tighter. Seems so crazy that video games shouldn't be held to the same sorts of standards as other things not intended for children. A small kid can go into sun coast or block buster browse through R rated movies but can't buy them without parental consent. Anyone can go down isles in a grocery store that sell beer, but they'll get carded when they try to buy them. Unless video games are some kind of danger to kids by them just looking at the boxes, forcing stores to set of special areas is a lot of crap. Isn't their point that its the playing of them games that some how corrupts the kids, not seeing a still image on a box?

The headline tricked me (2, Funny)

snookums (48954) | more than 6 years ago | (#17672962)

I thought some game store was introducing an "over 30" section so that grumpy old men like me could go buy our copies of Brain Age and refurb wood-grain Atari 2600s without having to deal with all those pesky kids. I clicked to find the location this trigenarian utopia but alas it was not to be.

Oh, now I'll need a fake (4, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673126)

ID to buy Ultra Porn. -Professor Hubert Farnsworth

I happen to be 30, but this is unacceptable (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673136)

I would have beat the living shit out of a clerk when I was 25 for not selling me a game.

that's violence.

the legal age is 18 for everything except alcohol.

to change that to 30 will kill gaming instantly.

Representative Keith Wright is a moron.

Re:I happen to be 30, but this is unacceptable (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673312)

You need therapy.
Also, your post is what people would wave infront of people as a reason to ban games, and as proof that they are harmfull.
Watch what you say.

in short: STFU

I think it's a good idea (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673158)

I think it's a good idea. I'm over 30, and quite honestly, I hate pouring over 10,000 kiddie or Japanime games to find the few good ones. I want my games to be good, but with extra graphic realism, or good acting/scripts. That Mario shit is about as interesting to me as Barney the dinosaur is. So I say, great idea. I'll be able to shop a lot easier.

That's what I thought, too (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673370)

Then I read the article and was disappointed and confused. Damn Xbox tapes.

Re:I think it's a good idea (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673624)

I hate pouring over 10,000 kiddie or Japanime games to find the few good ones.

What are your pouring on those games? I think most stores would kick you out if you started pouring any substance on their games.

Re:I think it's a good idea (1)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673664)

When I first saw the headline, I guessed that it would be about special sections in video game stores geared towards games that aren't either cartoon-spinoff games for 8-year-olds, or same-shooter-game-but-with-more-entrails games that appeal to teenagers. I'd love to have a store where they seperate the interesting games from the kiddie or flashy ones.

Instead, I find that it's really about seperating all of the blood and guts games out. Lame.

I think you guys are missing the big picture (2, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673250)

If "violent" games can be purchased by anyone of any age, then these do-gooder politicians have an excuse to ban them completely. However, limit these games to 18+ only, and you can make the argument of, "I'm an adult and only adults can purchase these games. Stay the Hell out of my business."

(assuming that the law is 18+, not 30+ as the summary says.)

Don't forget the UltraPorn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17673310)

As someone over 30, I approve this measure.

Finally we'll be able to get our ultraviolent games and UltraPorn in one place.

Are you kidding? (1)

Derek Loev (1050412) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673578)

It seems like it would be more likely for someone to act violent after playing three hours of a Sudoku game than it would be after that same amount of time playing, say, Quake.

"Over 30" department with no childlish stuff! (2, Interesting)

porttikivi (93246) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673584)

I would love the "Over thirty department", if it would have games, that handle relevant modern day psychological and social problems and challenges. That have novel, deep insights into relationships with friends, bosses, parents, spouses, children. I would love games that handle realistic social and political problems in a non-trivial, perhaps thought-provoking ways. Games aware of academic philosohical tradition and debating the limits of our knowledge and the true nature of the world around us without worn-out clichés of pop culture. Games rooted in modern academic understanding of psychology, economics and science.

I would love a single game that is worth playing even if you need to choose between a) working more hours with good extra money, b) spending more time with your beloved kids/spouse, c) exercising/sports d) any other entertainment or e) playing games.

I would love just one game that is not a glorified, graphically decorated 3-D board game/puzzle/Pac-Man with almost non-existent emotional impact, except "I found the secret way/key/lever" or "I was fast/clever enough to manouver my opponent".

It's 18, not 30 (1)

Sku-Lad (990269) | more than 6 years ago | (#17673644)

You need only request ID from people who look under 30.

You can see it in section 3 of the text of the bill http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A00547&sh=t [state.ny.us] :

/. won't let me cut and paste it because of the all caps.

Good! (1)

dR.fuZZo (187666) | more than 7 years ago | (#17673730)

As someone who recently turned 30, I say good! I want to be able shop for games without all of those 20-somethings fussing over everything with their damn iPods and text-messaging and tattos. Damn whippersnappers!

Oh, sheesh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17673732)

As if those M-rated videogames weren't inconvenient enough for under-18 people to buy already. This isn't going to make the whole piracy problem any better, is it?

Y halo there Torrentspy!

This is getting crazy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17673938)

I don't see what the deal is with all this. Why not just make a law that you have to be of age 18 to purchase M-rated games. If someone would just do that, all this would be done with. I have not been to a store in 4 years that would sell me an M game since I'm under 18. I'm pretty sure Gamestop, Game Crazy, Walmart, Best Buy and all other major retailers have their own policing of who can by M-rated games. Just make it a law and get all this nonsense about banning and being 30 over with!

Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17673984)

As someone who entered the Army at 17, had a steady paycheck, a credit card, and an address, I would've just bought it online...

I read it differently... (1)

ewrong (1053160) | more than 7 years ago | (#17674006)

To me it read: "People have to be 18 to buy x and you must card them to prove the fact. Though lets be sensible and if they are clearly older than that, say 30 ish, then you don't have to card them".

We should be commending the writer of the act for trying to apply some common sense and flexibility.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>