'Over 30' Section For Games Stores? 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.
I would understand 21, but 30? (Score:5, Insightful)
honestly (Score:4, Insightful)
There should be a punishment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I would understand 21, but 30? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Exception for the developers & testers? (Score:2, Insightful)
I will admt that 30 is too old. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's actually not a bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
30- America's Army (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Army [wikipedia.org]
Or are they going to have to modify the game so nobody gets killed?
Re:I would understand 21, but 30? (Score:1, Insightful)
at 18, you are legally an adult. I expect to be treated like one.
Re:I will admt that 30 is too old. (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason for 30 (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
This is KIND of an important point, might mod up? (Score:3, Insightful)
All right! (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
it won't pass (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent up, +1 insightful. (Score:5, Insightful)
Incorrect article (Score:2, Insightful)
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).
Re:I would understand 21, but 30? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you guys are missing the big picture (Score:3, Insightful)
(assuming that the law is 18+, not 30+ as the summary says.)
Re:There should be a punishment (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There should be a punishment (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
TAG ARTICLE falsesummary (Score:3, Insightful)
Please, tag this article 'falsearticle' .