Video Game Industry to Sue California

Rob Updegrove 11 Oct, 2005 at 9:07am ET Article published in Tech

Comments

1. 
   11 Oct 2005 ~ 10:20am Jengo Oh wow, lets make a big deal out of this...
   
   I hope california wins. If parents cant be good parents and watch what games their kids play, its about time the government steps in.
   
   People are so used to violence/sex/nudity now a days that they dont realize its bad...
2. 
   11 Oct 2005 ~ 10:23am GHoosdum I hope California doesn't win. Not because I think it's OK for kids to play porno games or whatever, but because it is a constitutional rights issue. If the video game industry loses this case, it's a bad thing for everyone.
   
   And I do think it should be the parents' responsibility to take care of their kids. Not that many people do so these days.
3. 
   11 Oct 2005 ~ 11:21am Garg

   GHoosdum wrote:

   I hope California doesn't win. Not because I think it's OK for kids to play porno games or whatever, but because it is a constitutional rights issue. If the video game industry loses this case, it's a bad thing for everyone.
   
   And I do think it should be the parents' responsibility to take care of their kids. Not that many people do so these days.

   I concur. As much as I'm troubled by parents' lack of interest in their kids' behavior, I don't think it's acceptable to have the government step in. This case could be used as precedent for more grevious assaults on our rights.
4. 
   11 Oct 2005 ~ 11:39am Private_Snoball Here I was thinking we in the USA had a free market. Yes I know the gov't regulates and w/e but seriously wtf are they thinking. I could understand if the game industry didn't regulate itself, but they do, it's called the ESRB, set up under people's own volition to help market games to the intended demographic.
   
   This is not such a big deal by itself but what will it open up, violent games no longer sold in stores, can't be made, it costs 1 million extra in taxes to make them, who knows where this will go?
5. 
   11 Oct 2005 ~ 1:58pm PirateNinja Oh screw them, California is broke and we don't need some lousy video game group suing the people of our state. Seriously, all that means is another 50 teachers fired, and another 1000 kids gone retarded.
6. 
   11 Oct 2005 ~ 2:02pm Garg

   Gravite2090 wrote:

   Oh screw them, California is broke and we don't need some lousy video game group suing the people of our state. Seriously, all that means is another 50 teachers fired, and another 1000 kids gone retarded.

   The suit is seeking to reverse the law, not get monetary damages from the state.
7. 
   11 Oct 2005 ~ 2:28pm Thrax Parents should be responsible for their own children; the state should not be parenting for them. I hope California loses, and loses quickly.
   
   Violence, sex and nudity are only as "Bad" as we are educated prudes.
8. 
   11 Oct 2005 ~ 2:45pm Camman California should lose, this is a retailer issue and it's unneeded legislation. If retailers were doing their jobs and following the ESRB guidelines then these games wouldn't get into the hands of kids they shouldn't. As much as people (myself included) bitch about WalMart, I have to give them props on this because they always ask and they have a message pop up to their cashiers on items like mature video games.
9. 
   11 Oct 2005 ~ 2:48pm PirateNinja For one, it is going to cost the state a few million in court fees.
   
   For two, this is not even an issue of censorship, it only applies to minors. I got carded buying Doom3, but who cares? So what? If some 15 year old really wants to play any video game he wants he will get his parents to buy it for him anyways, in the end they have the ultimate power to choose. Given the fact that parents are the ones who choose, this law simply represents the majorities decision because no parent can watch their kid 24/7 and make sure they aren't out buying a game they do not wnat them to have. Face it, kids don't do what their parents say. So what is wrong with this law, and whats more a fundamental issue here is what would give the corporation the right to overthrow a decision made by the people of California?
   
   Is this not going on in Michigan too?
10. 
    11 Oct 2005 ~ 3:12pm Camman

    Gravite2090 wrote:

    I got carded buying Doom3, but who cares? So what? If some 15 year old really wants to play any video game he wants he will get his parents to buy it for him anyways, in the end they have the ultimate power to choose.

    
    So, you are in fact contradicting yourself about this costing the state money because if this is the case, that it doesnt matter because the parent will buy it anyway, then it was a waste of taxpayer money to introduce and approve this bill which would prevent the sale of games to minors. And as I already covered, ESRB when enforced is the same idea and the state is spending time and money to over-legislate a non-issue.
11. 
    11 Oct 2005 ~ 3:24pm Garg Right. And if the law stands, the state is going to have to spend time anlyzing games to determine whether or not they exceed the standard they've set, since that standard doesn't neatly coincide with the ratings from the ESRB. That'll cost money.
    
    If they would have just required retailers to honor the ESRB ratings, it would have been effective without setting dangerous precedents or creating additional bureaucracy.
12. 
    11 Oct 2005 ~ 4:07pm drasnor

    The legislation bars the sale and rental to minors of games that show such things as the killing, maiming or sexual assault of a character depicted as human, and which are determined to be especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.

    What about furries?
    
    -drasnor
13. 
    11 Oct 2005 ~ 5:08pm airbornflght ok, this is about as dumb as it gets, if california wins this one, more states will do it, and then the constraints will get worse and worse. Do i think that and 11 year old kid should go and buy dead or alive 2, no, but its the parents job to be a parent, not the government.
    
    My parents see what i buy and view, but hell its been over 2 years since ive bought a video game because of the high prices.
    
    I also have an argument that video games are only animated, and any eleven year old with access to the internet can go to google and type in boobies. no need to spend $50 to see some cartoony sex. I dont care if a game has sex in it. I care about the storyline and gameplay, which some games seem to be lacking in these days, becaues of all the focus on graphics.
14. 
    11 Oct 2005 ~ 5:49pm Komete I have 0 problems with california winning. When is it a bad thing to protect minors from renting something inapropriate? You wouldn't let them rent a rated R or nc17 movie whats the difference between that and a game?
    
    I'm sick of hearing about "constitutional rights issue".... You have constitutionaly protected child molesters. I think they call them selves Man boy love group or whatever, protected under freedom of speech. The constitution is not perferct and there will be plenty of grey area's were state and federal government will need to step in. As far as I'm concearned Freedom of speach is to protect tax payers right to say what they will about the government not to rent naked video games at the age of 14.
15. 
    11 Oct 2005 ~ 6:01pm TheBaron as far as I'm concerned the government needs to keep their dirty little hands out of issues like these. The problem with violent video games is one that the parents need to sort out, NOT the government. You don't want to set some sort of precedent that increases the frequency of government regulations
16. 
    12 Oct 2005 ~ 9:11am Qeldroma Wait until it is your turn to be responsible- if you ever bother. Wait until it's your kid. Wait until you wished someone was on your side to help make an environment and a world for your kids to grow up in.
    
    Until you have one you care for, YOU DON'T KNOW SQUAT!.
17. 
    12 Oct 2005 ~ 9:31am Garg All I was saying was that there were better ways to achieve the same goal. I don't think there's any disputing that California has done this in an overcomplicated way.
    
    Just be careful about inviting the government into your life. It's rather hard to get them out later.
18. 
    12 Oct 2005 ~ 11:31am MiracleManS I'd have to agree with Gargoyle here. I've seen my nephews try and get bad games, and their parents won't allow it. There was one time where they were at a friends and were playing it, my brother and sister-in-law walked in and took them off of it immediately.
    
    And to Qeldroma: I don't want a picture perfect world for my nephews and family to grow up in. I want them to see the world and have me to guide them through it, not be sheltered and utterly surprised when something bad happens.
19. 
    12 Oct 2005 ~ 12:47pm primesuspect

    Qeldroma wrote:

    Wait until it is your turn to be responsible- if you ever bother. Wait until it's your kid. Wait until you wished someone was on your side to help make an environment and a world for your kids to grow up in.
    
    Until you have one you care for, YOU DON'T KNOW SQUAT!.

    
    Whoa now.. relax! No need to get personal :shakehead
    
    I am a father of two young boys who love video games, and I really am against government censorship. Anything that is objectively based on religious or personal convictions, which in turn affect opinions and ultimately get turned into "what's appropriate for kids" is something deeply personal and should never be handled by the government. Censorship is insidious - it starts small ("oh, nobody wants to see a depiction of rape, we can all agree, right? We all agree, see!") and then gets bigger and bigger. Left unchecked, the 'moral majority' may decide that women should be wearing veils or that children are meant to be seen and not heard. Welcome to Taliban country.
    
    For example, my older son's second grade teacher forbade all Harry Potter books in her class. This is in a PUBLIC SCHOOL. Asked why Harry Potter is forbidden? "Oh, Harry Potter is bad, she says". Oooookay... Bad to whom? Bad because your church newsletter says its bad? Make any of your own decisions lately?
    
    Everyone says "oh, that's innocent" or "no big deal"... But it IS a big deal. We have the RIGHT in this country to read, say, see, and do exactly what WE want. Not what someone else tells us. Every tiny little freedom taken away (Okay folks, you can't raise your kids right - we say so! The media backs us up with charts and stats, see? Therefore, we'll do it for you!) is one step closer to complicity - complicity that takes the responsibility of raising the child even FURTHER away from already drifting parents.
    
    What we need in this country is a cultural revolution - we need to stop placing BLAME and start taking RESPONSIBILITY. I don't want anybody - ANYBODY, any government, any ratings board, any teacher to tell me what I can or cannot do or buy or say. This is a much bigger issue than video games. This is just another attempt to chip away at our freedom.
20. 
    12 Oct 2005 ~ 2:30pm CB Here here!!
21. 
    12 Oct 2005 ~ 5:31pm BuddyJ At least it's only a state govt doing this and not the feds. Hopefully, the California law will be overturned.
    
    The state really should stay out of business matters like this. If parents have a problem with retailers selling things to minors, let them take it up with the business. The world would be so much better if people would take responsibility for their own actions and situations instead of expecting the government to magically bail them out of their problems. That may sound a little too "pull yourself up by the boot straps" for some, but I don't care.
22. 
    12 Oct 2005 ~ 5:49pm Thrax Prime, I love you with mouth.
23. 
    12 Oct 2005 ~ 6:02pm Komete I don't really have a problem with government sensorship as long as I am the one voting for the officials. I mean thats why we elect them to Govern.
24. 
    12 Oct 2005 ~ 6:41pm profdlp Just for the sake of argument, let's substitute "smoking", "drinking", or "drugs" for the term "video games". Still want to leave that up to each individual set of parents? How about driving a car? If I want to hand my 13-year-old nephew the keys to my car so he can run down to the store and pick me up a six-pack, is that cool?
    
    I am a free-market, libertarian-minded person, but when it comes to minor children it seems pretty obvious that we need some kind of insurance against the widespread lack or parental responsibility we see all around us. When the day comes where we actually start holding people responsible for their own failings as parents, along with the behavior of their children, then we can consider leaving things up to what used to be called "common sense".
    
    In any event, I see no problem with limiting the rights of minor children, unless you want to hold them to the same level of responsibilty as adults, too. Are any of us ready to impose a three-strikes-you're-out law on a six-year-old who just swiped his third candy bar?
25. 
    12 Oct 2005 ~ 7:08pm Garg

    profdlp wrote:

    Are any of us ready to impose a three-strikes-you're-out law on a six-year-old who just swiped his third candy bar?

    
    Capital punishment.
26. 
    12 Oct 2005 ~ 8:26pm Qeldroma Prime, before I get into this, I think we are saying the same thing in some critical areas. Responsibility is important. Accountability should be as well. Where I think we disagree is in terms of government involvement.
    
    I think what you are doing is confusing restriction to minors with censorship.
    I also think it's a mistake to think "Moral Majority" to having everyone think like Jerry Falwell.
    
    And what is wrong with "morality"? Would you prefer an Immoral Majority or better still, an Ammoral Majority? I don't think either of us likes to have morality is dictated to us, but many know that true "morality" is based on common sense.
    
    You object to someone banning Harry Potter (I don't necessarily disagree with you here)- but the bible is nearly nationally banned. While I don't believe in preaching the bible in school- I do recognize that it has played an important part in American history and culture. I find irony that I can check out a copy of "Growing up Gay" in an elementary school but not even find a copy of the bible there. It's too bad that I won't find the backing for the bible as I would for Harry- but be that as it may- this is a censorship.
    
    That being said- do you want them also reading about how cost effective an orgy is? Do you think they'll read the AIDS education books first?
    
    I think a wise man once asked- "Do you think a typical ten year-old is ready for multivariate calculus? There will be a time that he/she will be ready, but not right now." There is no reason we should hang-up our children with adult baggage and I'm in favor of restrictions on minors. More importantly, If someone tries to sell it to my kid, I can actually enlist the aid of the government to nail their butts to the wall. That could be very important if the situation is way too big for just me.
    
    Immorality or ammorality seeks or accepts the addictions, afflictions and infections that murder people as effectively as any other war or serial killer does. They are their own forms of slavery. Allowing our kids to have free access to this is for many like saying "it's OK." We're also trusting a lot to parents who are increasingly checked out with their own forms of apathy. They buy the game for Christmas and put the kid out of their hair for a couple of months.
    
    We can't point at any one thing- it is a systemic problem of which things like GTA are only a part of.
    
    While I don't have a problem with free speech, I do have a problem with facism, child pronography, drug overdose, burying AIDS babies, drug addicted prostitutes and that brew of self-righteous and hypocritical arrogance that more aggressively dictates that they should be able to show it all to me and my children in prime-time on a public air-wave. Did someone forget I'm paying for it too?
    
    Now a group seeks to sue because they can't legally get at my "mice" or yours? Do you think they give a dam about your feelings on free speech and censorship? What they care about is their market-share and maybe sweetening the pot with a lawsuit- period. If they can get 'em hooked young and grow the market ... Business is NOT moral- it is ammoral. If you think that won't affect you, then you need to think again.
    
    If you think that you can do it all by yourself and don't need the government to help when you need them ....
    
    Saying that the government is going to fix it is wrong. But I'd like to have the government at my back if if some SOB seeks to tell my kids it's OK to buy this or do that.
    
    I think we are increasingly convincing ourselves that government can't be on our side, and I'm afraid the government is increasinly doing so too.
27. 
    12 Oct 2005 ~ 8:48pm primesuspect

    profdlp wrote:

    Just for the sake of argument, let's substitute "smoking", "drinking", or "drugs" for the term "video games". Still want to leave that up to each individual set of parents? How about driving a car? If I want to hand my 13-year-old nephew the keys to my car so he can run down to the store and pick me up a six-pack, is that cool?\

    
    The flaw in this argument, to me, is that giving a young child keys to a vehicle could end up with someone dead - this can be PROVEN, scientifically or any other way you want to think of it - a child cannot control a physical vehicle, can physically kill a person by improperly using it. You could also say the same thing with a machete or a howitzer, or a blowtorch for that matter.
    
    You cannot prove, PROVE, that any normal child, given a violent or sexually explicit video game, or smoking a cigaratte for example, can actually go out and kill somebody by doing it.
    
    Say I wanted to allow my kids to play violent video games (and I do) - and yet I am here along with my wife giving them guidance, nurturing, compassion, and understanding. And if my children ever exhibited signs of negativity towards another living creature, we are right there to be PARENTS to our children. THAT's what's missing from this story. The moral "authorities" in this country never neglect to immediately place blame on 'bad outside influences', and lament how hard it is to raise a child in today's society. I call BS. It is NOT difficult to raise a child in today's society - it's just that today's PARENTS are so goddamned lazy and unwilling to accept any responsibility for ANYTHING (bad behavior? oh my kid has ADHD he can't help it... Ritalin for everybody... medicating the youth of america, it's the easy way out).
    
    Sorry if I get hot about this subject. I'm right here on the frontlines, seeing how other people are raising their elementary school aged children and it makes me pretty sick to my stomach sometimes. Violent video games are the LEAST of their problems right now.
28. 
    13 Oct 2005 ~ 12:03am Qeldroma

    primesuspect wrote:

    You cannot prove, PROVE, that any normal child, given a violent or sexually explicit video game, or smoking a cigaratte for example, can actually go out and kill somebody by doing it.

    
    prime- you'd have even a harder time proving otherwise. You CAN'T prove, prove PROVE IT to me that it doesn't have any influence on anyone anywhere.
    
    On the otherhand, I can introduce you to some inmates who loved the game ....
29. 
    13 Oct 2005 ~ 12:24am profdlp

    primesuspect wrote:

    The flaw in this argument, to me, is that giving a young child keys to a vehicle could end up with someone dead - this can be PROVEN...

    That makes for a pretty tough standard for a lot of laws and the protections they provide for our children. Should we let kids hang around with non-violent sex offenders just because they are unlikely to get killed?
    

    Say I wanted to allow my kids to play violent video games (and I do)...

    How would this law affect you in any way? If the statute was written in such a way as to make it illegal for a parent to allow their child to play these games I'd be right there with you in opposition to it. All it states is that an adult has some say in the matter.
    

    Sorry if I get hot about this subject. I'm right here on the frontlines, seeing how other people are raising their elementary school aged children and it makes me pretty sick to my stomach sometimes. Violent video games are the LEAST of their problems right now.

    I've met your boys a couple of times and have told you privately what high regard I hold for the job you and your wife are doing with them. I'd bet that everyone who watched them just hanging out and having fun at the LAN Party last July would agree. I also completely agree that there are too many parents who are totally unworthy of the title. Unfortunately, no law is going to make up for that. But as Qeldroma mentioned, if it gives the parents who are at least trying to do their job right another tool in the fight, while still allowing responsible parents the right to make their own private choice, what's wrong with that?
30. 
    13 Oct 2005 ~ 12:28am primesuspect It's a principle - what's wrong with it is not that they are trying to prevent children from buying 'violent' games without permission - the problem is much deeper. It is the fact that this will have some say in determining the definitions of "violence" or "pornography" or "inappropriate". Each tiny little step, though innocuous, will lead to a desensitization to our willingness to stand up for what's right. It sounds dramatic, but to me, it is.
31. 
    13 Oct 2005 ~ 12:38am profdlp I see the major difference as being the distinction between a minor child and an adult. If someone tried to ban certain behavior by adults, or tell them what games they could play, what pictures they could view, what books they could read, or how they could have a good time in the privacy of their own homes then I would fight it all the way. Adults should be able to make those choices for themselves (and pay the consequences when that choice is a bad one).
    
    Kids don't have the level of maturity nor the experience to have a very good batting average when it comes to those kinds of decisions. Neither should they be held to the same level of accountability when they screw up. That seems a fair trade-off in the long run.
32. 
    13 Oct 2005 ~ 7:45am CB It's already against the law to sell violente or mature games to minors. The only diffrerent is that Cali wqants to take the definition of 'mature' and 'violent' away from the ESRB, and give it to the state. There is already a precident for this: The movie industry. We let them decide which movies are bad.
    
    What if Nebraska decided to tell the movie industry (esentially: Southern California) that they were gonna stop participating in the movie ratings system, and start making their own judgements about which movies minors are allowed to see...
    
    Do you think that the movie industry would just say "Okay, whatever you want, Mate!"?
    
    They would not say that.
33. 
    14 Oct 2005 ~ 5:16pm Thrax I do believe the burden of proof is on those attempting to say it's harmful or negative, Qeldroma, since they are asserting the claim and attempting to make changes based upon that assertion.
    
    So, Mister Ulic, you're on a logically-unstable ground to ask Prime to prove that it doesn't, when you are responsible, in fact, for proving that it does. What's more, your analogy about inmates loving violent video games is hardly legitimate, as you can't state that they didn't like the game as a byproduct of their violent tendencies and the game's mimickry thereof. I've been playing violent games since I was five years old, and I am now nearing the age of twenty.. I've played them all; Doom, Duke Nukem, Corridor 7, Rise of the Triad and more. Since the earliest days, all I've done is fired virtual weapons, killed virtual creatures, and bathed my avatar in virtual blood.. I have no criminal record, a very peaceable outlook towards living things, a solid work ethic, and I had good grades in school. Why? Because I had good parents. I am not an aberration.
    
    If this argument fails, I'll hunt you down with a plasma rifle.
34. 
    14 Oct 2005 ~ 6:06pm fudgam How are these issues still.... issues? You get ID'd if your trying buy a game that is restricted to youth. Doesnt matter what state it is as far as I know.
    Same goes for renting movies and games at blockbuster. Im 17 now, so I dont think it matters anymore, but my parents just gave me "clearance" on the blockbuster account so I could rent whatever game or movie I wanted. I could not get an R-movie or an M-game without my parents consent.
    To me, the problem seems to be with the vendors, not the publishers/developers. Atleast if the issue is minors getting their hands on mature/restricted content.
35. 
    14 Oct 2005 ~ 7:06pm profdlp

    fudgam wrote:

    ...To me, the problem seems to be with the vendors, not the publishers/developers. At least if the issue is minors getting their hands on mature/restricted content.

    Agreed. No one is saying they can't make and sell the game; they're just placing an age limit on who can buy (or rent) it.
    
    How is this different than current age restrictions on alcohol, tobacco, firearms, naughty pictures, or obtaining a drivers license? I guess when one of my fourteen y.o nephews isn't allowed to drive down to the mall, buy GTA, then pick up a six-pack, a carton of smokes, a Glock, and the latest edition of Hustler while he's there, he should piss and moan about censorship.
36. 
    14 Oct 2005 ~ 9:37pm Thrax I don't even particularly think that pornographic material should be limited to those above 18, for a variety of reasons, censorship amongst them. But all the other instances you listed, Prof, have clear, scientific, unarguable consequences for their misuse.
    
    Video games have nothing of the sort, so it's hardly a legitimate analog.
37. 
    14 Oct 2005 ~ 10:10pm fudgam A kid can go to an R movie with some boobs in it and as long as they are with a parent, it doesnt matter. So its not completely limited to those above 18. Its more along the lines of giving the parents the choice to decide whats ok for their kids to watch and whats not. I think the same should go for video games.
    But yea, censoring and taking products off the market completely is a no-no
38. 
    14 Oct 2005 ~ 10:23pm profdlp

    Thrax wrote:

    ...all the other instances you listed, Prof, have clear, scientific, unarguable consequences for their misuse.
    
    Video games have nothing of the sort, so it's hardly a legitimate analog.

    You make a good point.
39. 
    16 Oct 2005 ~ 1:38am Komete

    fudgam wrote:

    A kid can go to an R movie with some boobs in it and as long as they are with a parent, it doesnt matter. So its not completely limited to those above 18. Its more along the lines of giving the parents the choice to decide whats ok for their kids to watch and whats not. I think the same should go for video games.
    But yea, censoring and taking products off the market completely is a no-no

    
    fudgam I like the way you put it the best for the most part. But I can't say there shouldn't be any censorship period and Just leave it up to the adults to decide whats appropriate to buy. I'm sure you could think up products that should never reach the hands of certain types of people.