Photo ID Required To Buy/Rent Games In Canada 381
securitas writes "Metro International newspapers Toronto edition reports that Canadian gamers must now provide photo identification to buy computer and video games. The restriction is part of the Retail Council of Canada's Commitment to Parents initiative, in cooperation with the Entertainment Software Association of Canada (ESAC) and the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). The RCC says that it has the support of 90% of game retailers in the voluntary program. Read the RCC video game photo ID press release. There don't seem to be any guidelines for how the program will be implemented - whether it will be a simple flash of a photo ID card (which many teenagers don't have) or a more detailed user database, with its inherent privacy concerns. The Ontario government plans to come up with its own game ratings system after the Ontario Film Review Board gave Manhunt an 'R' rating. More coverage at the CBC and CTV before and after the official announcement."
Kind of old (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Do parents reallyt want this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Good. I know a good few parents who could use that...
Re:obvious workaround (Score:3, Interesting)
I got carded to buy Manhunt... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hey... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Is it such a big deal after all? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:obvious workaround (Score:2, Interesting)
The GTA series is our favourite game series, and we play the game together. We see who can beat missions first, the game first. We try to find more hidden packages than the other. We both love exploring the GTA world, regardless that technically, he's not old enough to buy the games (neither was I when the original GTA was released).
I see the rating system as a GUIDELINE for people who aren't familiar with a gaming franchise, name, or gaming in general, to make an informed choice before purchasing the game.
Neither my brother and I go out to szteal cars, kill drug lords, blow up police stations, kill hookers, beat up old golfers, or fire rocket launchers downtown. And we have no desire to either, because we know the game is a simulation. We do the things in the game for entertainment,.
The problem with these ratings becoming mandatory, is obviously censoring youths from material which, while one person feels is not appropriate, doesn't mean it's a travesty to all man kind.
I can't watch TV these days without seeing a warning message about the content of the material I'm about to view. The JOKE, is when these messages are placed at the start (and after commercials) of rerun shows that NEVER received these "warnings" when they were new. I'm seeing all sorts of warnings about the content in the Simpson's, and the other day actually saw an 18 rating. Implying that a FAMILY cartoon that originally broadcast on a SUNDAY EVENING, is now inapproprate for anyone under the age of 18.
These ratings are warnings. I have no issue with the stores deciding not selling games to minors (it's their loss, afterall). I DO have issue with these ratings becomming a manditory screening process for who can and cannot buy FICTIONAL material.
I'm confused (Score:4, Interesting)
A good start (Score:4, Interesting)
A couple of books by Dave Grossman contributed heavily to my opinion. I'd suggest reading Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill [amazon.com] and On Killing [amazon.com] as excellent works on the cost of violence to society.
Disallowing R-rated content to those that can prove they are of an age where they can likely handle it is fine by me. Don't ban the stuff. But the effect these violence simulators can have on a developing mind can be enormous. So taking steps to keep it out of their hands is a step in the right direction. Change will not happen overnight, but we need to do what we can.
limit access to violent fiction... (Score:5, Interesting)
it's full of incredibly violent, gory stories and pornography. many people have committed heinous crimes, driven by what they read in the bible.
i say we start there.
This should work! (Score:2, Interesting)
Hell, I'm 23 and -I- don't even have a picture ID. And what is this going to solve, anyway? You think some kid who wants to buy the new GTA is going to go "Aww shucks! I can't buy violent video games anymore! I guess I'll go play stickball with my friends..."? Right. <sarcasm>Because we all know his parents didn't buy him a DVD burner last xmas...and there's no way he has usenet access.....</sarcasm>
What kid is going to be all broken up about not being able to spend money on something they're now forced to get for free?
I nominate this idiotic initiative as the scapegoat, for when all the game companies come looking for the money lost to the steep increase in piracy.
People would rather force kids to STEAL video games, than to trust that they know right from wrong on their own? Granted, some don't. Some adults don't either. Crazy is crazy, and stupid is stupid, no matter what age you are.
</rant>
(Oh yeah, and this is assuming the kids don't just order the game online...)
But what about renting? (Score:3, Interesting)
Renting a game costs, what, $5? I don't think many 13 year olds would have trouble rustling up this much cash.
They should be glad over in Canada. Australia outright banned Manhunt (and even the new Leisure Suit Larry remake!), so even adults don't get to see it.
I don't even see why such an intuitive system is considered "news", let alone "stuff that matters."
Re:Do parents really want this? (Score:3, Interesting)
change game or movie to alcohol and cigarettes and you have a very different statement. if canada wants to do this, there will always be ways for the kids to get the games anyways (same with alcohol and cigarettes) so it doesnt really matter that much. also, as i heard this on the radio this morning, what they said then was that it was a VOLUNTARY thing. even the article says that only 90% of the retailers are participating.
most likely there will be small video game shops that will make alot of money off of this.
net change to society = 0
Teach, dont deprive. (Score:2, Interesting)
I personally believe that it is better to expose kids to the world and teach them why things is wrong. Shielding someone from something only creates ignorance.
This is the way I was raised, I was able to watch what I wanted and play what I wanted. My mother made sure however, that I knew the difference between video and real life. She's also extremely non violent (she personally can not stand violent movies), she has passed on these views to me. As a result, I play a range of violent games, and watch violent movies yet I am a non violent person.
I believe shielding from reality to be a conservative view (as opposed to the liberal value of teaching). Walking into a religious or conservative home, often I find that the children are not allowed to watch R movies or violent games. From experience, I find that conservatives would rather stop someone from doing something through ignorance rather than to show them and show them why they shouldn't.
I think the game rating should be used as a parental tool, but should not be enforced. But i also think that parents should always be teaching showing their children right from wrong. Its when this doesn't happen, the parents aren't there to guide them enough, that the enforced ratings become necessary.
The government should not have to be parents to our children, however the lack of parenting in society is forcing it to.
None of what i have said is universally true. These are my findings. Dont get mad because your a good parent and your son is a psycho. There are exceptions to everything.
Re:Do parents really want this? (Score:4, Interesting)
How about the fact that violent video games are nothing at all like alcohol (which gets you drunk), cigarettes (which cause cancer), driving (which can have people killed), voting (where kids become tools for their parents political preferences) or gambling (which can make people poor)? I could make the same ridiculous comparison about anything else that is ever sold to kids, since there are always parents that do not approve of something their kids have access to.
Very Vague... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Shifting the burden of parenting (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hey... (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I don't really care - as long as they don't collect information. And, unlike with cigarettes, if any kid asks me to buy the game for them because they're not old enough.. I'll gladly do it.
Re:Do parents really want this? (Score:4, Interesting)
I do think there is a serious freedom issue because the rating system is seriously undemocratic. Personally, I would rate the South Park Movie PG-13 and most of the Disney cartoons as PG-13. What matters most to me is gratuitous violence, particularly when done by the protagonist (the good guy). Sex and naughtly language don't matter much unless it's violent (ie., rape). To get a G rating the movie/show would have to be like Seseme Street or Dragon Tales. Dragonball Z would get an R rating in my book.
I just don't trust a bunch of appointed people to come up with a fair rating, and I understand that my definition of fair is mutually exclusive with some other people's definition of fair.
Inspire kids to pirate games? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Do parents really want this? (Score:3, Interesting)
I used to work at *shudder* Blockbuster (Score:2, Interesting)
A Canadians opinion (Score:4, Interesting)
You have to get your wallet out anyway to pay for the game. If they want to look at my ID when I buy the game, big deal.
I might give a crap if I were 17 or did not have ID handy. But I am not.
I see no problem with keeping mature themed games out of the hands of younger children. And the 17 year olds who want these games can cannot get them are resourceful. You not supposed to be able to get ciggarettes or booze at that age, yet they manage. I dont see games being a bigger problem.
END COMMUNICATION