'Over 30' Section For Games Stores?

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.

I would understand 21, but 30?

[The Real Toad King (981874)]

"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?

[XxtraLarGe (551297)]

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

Mod parent up, +1 insightful.

[Lane.exe (672783)]

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.

[WobindWonderdog (1049538)]

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

But I can't wait for the expansion pack!

Re:

[iminplaya (723125)]

Yeah, there's a reset button. You just gotta hit it really hard. Oh, wait, maybe that was the "off" button.

The reason for 30

[HappySqurriel (1010623)]

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).

it won't pass

[6ame633k (921453)]

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?

[Purity Of Essence (1007601)]

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:

[krotkruton (967718)]

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

Re:I would understand 21, but 30?

[ahecht (567934)]

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.

TAG ARTICLE falsesummary

[Millenniumman (924859)]

Wow, this summary is probably the worst I have ever seen. Blatantly untrue.

Please, tag this article 'falsearticle' .

Re:

[Colin Smith (2679)]

"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:

[Aladrin (926209)]

Which was which again?

Re:

[Atomic6 (1011895)]

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.

Mod parent down: Bullshit.

[Snover (469130)]

21 is not the age at which the brain has completed developing. Even if it were, there is no compelling medical reason to prevent the consumption of alcohol for people under the age of 21. Originally, when the law limiting the consumption of alcoholic beverages to people 21 or older was enacted, the voting age was also 21. States tried to reduce the drinking age during the 70s and 80s, but since the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1984, a state not enforcing the minimum drinking age of 21 would be subjected to a ten percent decrease in its annual federal highway apportionment. Overview of Underage Drinking Policy in the United States [nih.gov].

honestly

[PunkOfLinux (870955)]

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.

Featuring the new EA Title

[darth_MALL (657218)]

GTHOML2007 (Get The Hell Off My Lawn)

Re:

[XxtraLarGe (551297)]

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

[IdahoEv (195056)]

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

[kd5ujz (640580)]

I was thinking more along the lines of, Mortgage 2.0, or SUVTurismo.

There should be a punishment

[gurps_npc (621217)]

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:

[Teese (89081)]

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:

[bladesjester (774793)]

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:

[Dagowolf (646208)]

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.

T

Remember...

[Lord_Slepnir (585350)]

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:

[PFI_Optix (936301)]

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...

Re:Remember...

[voice_of_all_reason (926702)]

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?

Exception for the developers & testers?

[mad.frog (525085)]

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

Small, dirty room behind the beaded curtain

[by Anonymous Coward]

Featuring adult-themed games like:

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

Just great...

[RyanFenton (230700)]

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

"Over 30"? Uhh, no.

[by Anonymous Coward]

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."

This is KIND of an important point, might mod up?

[spun (1352)]

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:

[Brianech (791070)]

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...

Age is not a measure of moral maturity

[Fox_1 (128616)]

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 l

30- America's Army

[RichMan (8097)]

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?

I can see it now...

[OglinTatas (710589)]

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

All right!

[Megane (129182)]

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!

Bill actually only bans sales to minors (under 18)

[The Cheez-Czar (4124)]

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:

[Antony-Kyre (807195)]

What about games that are not rated?

Incorrect article

[TravisW (594642)]

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

Look at the bright side..

[mad_psych0 (991712)]

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

The headline tricked me

[snookums (48954)]

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

[geekoid (135745)]

ID to buy Ultra Porn. -Professor Hubert Farnsworth

I think it's a good idea

[NineNine (235196)]

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.

I think you guys are missing the big picture

[ArcherB (796902)]

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.)

"Over 30" department with no childlish stuff!

[porttikivi (93246)]

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".

Huh?

[davmoo (63521)]

You mean to tell me that some 18 year old guy or girl can sign up in the military to be sent off to fight and die in a war for Darth Bush, but they can't buy a game? I can believe there is a law proposing that, because only a legislator could come up with something that fucking stupid.

I will admt that 30 is too old.

[DigitalReverend (901909)]

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:

[TheJerg (1052952)]

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:

[bunions (970377)]

> 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.