Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Games

Could CA Violent Game Law Lead To an Industry Exodus? 142

Posted by Soulskill from the or-a-well-armed-uprising dept.
donniebaseball23 writes "Oral arguments for the California games law are set to begin on November 2. It's a hugely important court case for the industry, and if the Supreme Court sides with the legislators it could lead to an exodus of talent from the games business, says one attorney. 'Certainly less games would be produced and there would be a corresponding job loss,' said Patrick Sweeney, who leads the Video Game practice at Reed Smith LLP. 'But I expect the impact will likely be significantly deeper. I believe the independent development community would be severely impacted. Innovation, both from a creative and technological aspect, would also be stifled. The companies, brands and individuals that we should be embracing as the visionaries of this creative and collaborative industry will migrate their talents to a more expressive medium.' Meanwhile, Dr. Cheryl K. Olson, author of Grand Theft Childhood, notes that even if California gets its way, it could backfire."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Could CA Violent Game Law Lead To an Industry Exodus? More

Could CA Violent Game Law Lead To an Industry Exodus?

Comments Filter:

  • No (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportlandNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday October 29, 2010 @06:11PM (#34068760) Homepage Journal

    it would not cause an exodus. If putting age restriction and fines for violating them hurt industry, there would be no porn made in CA.

    • Inversely, would the porn industry be bigger or better if there were no age restrictions?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by geekoid ( 135745 )

        Probably not. If anything I would suspect removing it's 'bad' mystique would cause sales to fall.

        • Really? I don't think sex is one of those things that people like just because its Taboo. I think a lot of teenage boys 12 and up would be venturing into Adult Source and buying stuff if it were legal to sell it to them.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Surt ( 22457 )

            Indeed, the 12-18 block has the most intense levels of urges, the least developed skills for satisfying them, and often substantial disposable income. In the years before unfathomable volumes of porn were completely free, there would have been a huge market to sell to them.

            • the 12-18 block has ... substantial disposable income.

              Um, no.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Surt ( 22457 )

                Why would you say that? Nearly everything they make they can spend on whatever they want because others typically provide their food, clothing, and shelter?

                • Assuming they can get a job in the first place. When I was that age there were paper routes available and other jobs. These days it's getting quite challenging for kids to get work, as a lot of those jobs are being taken over by adults or eliminated due to concerns about child welfare.

                  • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                    by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) *

                    Assuming they can get a job in the first place. When I was that age there were paper routes available and other jobs. These days it's getting quite challenging for kids to get work, as a lot of those jobs are being taken over by adults or eliminated due to concerns about child welfare.

                    There are other reasons. I was watching a prime-time news program last year which was decrying the lack of such "transition jobs" available for our youth, and how that was seriously impacting their ability to enter the workforce as adults. Now, this particular program placed the blame for this entirely at the feet of the elderly. I was listening to the voiceover solemnly declare that our senior citizens were not gracefully accepting their retirement (as if some 80-year-old is working retail because he or sh

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Kjella ( 173770 )

                      The biggest reason why there are so few jobs for youths today is wealth. Yes, I'm serious. Wealth has made employer time a very pricey resource and something businesses have gone to great lengths to replace with machinery or avoid completely. The primary industries (farming, lumbering, fishing etc.) are now full of machinery instead. Same with all the production industry, there's hardly people moving things around or packing crates, it's conveyor belts and machinery. The service industry isn't quite as badl

                    • The biggest reason why there are so few jobs for youths today is wealth. Yes, I'm serious. Wealth has made employer time a very pricey resource and something businesses have gone to great lengths to replace with machinery or avoid completely. The primary industries (farming, lumbering, fishing etc.) are now full of machinery instead. Same with all the production industry, there's hardly people moving things around or packing crates, it's conveyor belts and machinery. The service industry isn't quite as badly affected, but they too try to automate.

                      Those are the usual arguments against automation, the same ones made by the Luddites so many years ago. The reality is that a machine is a machine, and it's the choices we make that determine how beneficial they are. We, as a society, have been making some very bad decisions in recent decades, and yes, the result of those has been a transfer of wealth from the middle class to government and foreign corporations that is unprecedented in U.S. history, but it doesn't have to be this way, nor do we have to thro

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by RoboRay ( 735839 )

              Wait a second... are you saying we can get free porn now?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by geekoid ( 135745 )

            Probably, but then drop off at about 24-25. Over all, probably a decline.

            While 12-18 year olds would probably have enough income for a magazine, the price goes up quite high. will, it used to. Now it's free.

            And you know what? people seem to be a lot more casual about sex these days, and I think that's going to trend towards no one cares about what other people want to do..

      • Yeah because underage kids have no direct access to infinite amounts of porn, violence, and naughty language... Imagine if they had something like this... we could call it the internet! This just dumb, lets face it.. EVERYONE HERE grew up with sex and violence. I remember seeing every damn Arnold Governator film, every stalone film, ever Freddy Krugar, Troma films, etc... And I remember wanting to squeeze titties. Its called growing up. We transition from child to adult.... and in that transition, we m

        • "EVERYONE HERE grew up with sex and violence."

          Whoa! You must be a murderer and a rapist! Everyone knows that children can't differentiate between what we know as reality and entertainment! Everyone also knows that pornography is the leading cause of rape!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      When the Hayes censorship code was adopted in by the motion picture industry in 1930 it arguably led to an in increase in movie artistic creativity. Paradoxically art often thrives in repressive environments. I'm bored with hearing special interests warn of the the end of civilization as we know it (or at least the game industry). Where there is money to be made people will find a way.

      • You got more creative within the acceptable boundaries, but you didn't see a lot of movies being made which pushed the social consciousness either. Restraints do indeed spur creativity, but censorship doesn't do that. What it does is stifle expression and eliminate the possibility of certain stories being told.

        That's the reason why people complain about the damage it does to civilization.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Nikker ( 749551 )
        As much as I dislike this whole idea of censorship your comment made me think for a second. Maybe as far as creativity goes we have stagnated. Don't get me wrong graphical detail has increased, artistic representation of the story has gotten pretty good but it's the genres that need to change or get shaken up anyway. Right now pretty much every game needs a gun or has one anyway. Point, shoot,point,etc. Not that it's not entertaining but the only thing that's changed is the blood and gore. Now that will nev
        • Easy success. Make a film or game with sex or violence, and you can be fairly sure it'll sell. People *like* sex and violence. A lot. Take away those options though, and you find it takes a lot more skill to make something successful.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Game developers - Come to Tennessee! We know about guns and are a good spot to have an east coast distribution center. Housing here is cheaper, so you can pay a bit less and people will still be happy. It's hard as hell to find a job in the industry that isn't on the west coast or in an expensive area to live.

      • If they ran from CA it's more likely that they'd consolidate up here in WA. Seeing as we already have a video games industry. Nintendo of America, Bungie and a few others are already headquartered up here, consolidating near the others would make more sense.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by timeOday ( 582209 )
      I've noticed most of the politcal ads this season say the opponent's policies will "cost jobs," no matter what policy it is. "Costing jobs" is simply today's language for "do not want," exactly like "terrorism" last decade. Whatever the current bad thing is, that's what will happen if I don't get what I want.

      Note: I am not defending the California bill. I have no idea what might be in it. I followed the two links from this article and they are completely devoid of any actual factual content. Next tim

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by hedwards ( 940851 )
        A measure like that would cost jobs. That sort of a ban would reduce the copies sold if by only the people who are no longer able to buy it for themselves. I doubt that it's a significant enough number to make much of a difference though.
      • Political ads have to be tailored to the current public concerns. Post 9/11, they were all about terrorism. But fear of terrorists is starting to fade now, and the new public concern is unemployment - many people lost their jobs during the recession, and many more are barely hanging on to theirs.

    • "age restriction"

      What good does this do? All it does is take away more freedoms for no reason. The people who are detached from reality are the ones that honestly believe that others can't differentiate between reality and a video game. Even at the age if five I knew that video games weren't 'real'. These laws are absolutely worthless, much like stores not selling certain games because of an AO rating.

  • If it's a hugely important case for the industry, you can spend a sentence describing the law.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by im_thatoneguy ( 819432 )

      "You must be over 18 to buy an M rated game."

      • Re:Tip: (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 29, 2010 @06:39PM (#34069036)

        "You must be over 18 to buy a violent game

        FTFY. This law doesn't recognize ESRB ratings. The standards for this law are much lower.

      • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

        by VoiceInTheDesert ( 1613565 )
        How is this different from not being able to buy tickets to an R rated movie? I never understood why game and movie sales aren't regulated in retail like movies are in the theaters. I'm all for anything that forces parents to pay more attention to what their kids are doing for entertainment.

        • Re:Tip: (Score:5, Insightful)

          by demonbug ( 309515 ) on Friday October 29, 2010 @07:07PM (#34069306) Journal

          There is no law, federal or state, that prohibits theaters from showing R (or higher) rated movies to minors. It is all voluntary, from the ratings issued by the MPAA to the individual theaters enforcing those ratings. The fact that lots of people do think it is actually illegal for minors to see these movies just shows that there is really no reason for the gaming law - the film version was struck down in 1965 (according to wikipedia) but the "voluntary" system still seems pretty effective (though I do seem to recall managing to get into numerous R-rated movies before I was 18).

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by LrdDimwit ( 1133419 )
          How about the fact that it is not illegal to let a minor into an R-rated movie? Many people think it is, but in fact it is not. If a movie theatre lets someone under 17 into an R-rated movie, nobody is fined or imprisoned. Someone might get fired, but getting fired is a far cry from being subject to prosecution. Instead, the theatre chains all have agreed to voluntarily impose policies enforcing the ratings. Note that exactly the same is true of all the major game retailer - and modern game consoles co

        • "I'm all for anything that forces parents to pay more attention to what their kids are doing for entertainment."

          Why? Are you one of those people that are so detached from reality that you believe that others can't differentiate between reality and video games? I could do that at five, and probably even younger if I would have had games.

          No, what we need is more freedom, not censorship. Why should parents lock up their children in a bubble because the parents are idiots? There is no conclusive evidence (read:

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by mrsteveman1 ( 1010381 )

        We already do the same thing for porn, you have to be 18 to buy it. If someone wants to argue seriously that violence isn't as harmful as depictions of sex, and therefor doesn't require an age limit, i'm all ears.

        Until then, this law is actually a step in a less hypocritical direction, albeit an even more ridiculous one since limiting access to information based on content is both more offensive and more dangerous than anything a teenager could see in a video game.

        • I'll bite.

          There are many MANY works that are considered appropriate for minors although they contain graphic depictions of violence. Lord of the Flies, Ovid Metamorphosis, The Iliad, the Three Little Pigs, Little Red Riding Hood... hell... the BIBLE!

          However, (with the exception of the Bible) there are few (if any) depictions of sex that are in adolescent literature. American history itself is filled with a lot of violence. But you'd be hard pressed to see any documented record of detailed sex.

          For all tho
          • "When was the last time you saw any porn that had real artistic merit?"

            Interestingly, if you showed some serious artistic porn, many people would simply deny it could be porn. Take, for example, this image:
            http://www.abm-enterprises.net/leda-swan-da-vinci-student.jpg [abm-enterprises.net]
            Here we have a naked woman, with exposed breasts, holding on to a swan. The swan matters, as this is based on the myth of Leda - and her relationship with that swan is very much sexual. Draw something like that today, and it'd be called sof

          • You've given examples but not addressed the point, why is sex more censor-worthy than violence? Simply because of some subjective definition of "Art"?

            So lets take your art claim and run with it:

            Exposing a child to violent dismemberment is ok so long as you're telling a great story in the process?

            But letting them see 2 people having sex is *worse* because you didn't also show all the time spent courting the woman, taking her out to eat, getting a loan for a car, buying a house and paying bills?

  • Uhhhh, why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Friday October 29, 2010 @06:21PM (#34068862)

    Unless I badly misunderstand, the law bans sales of games to people under 18. So the only impact here is on stores that sell the games, not on developers. Developers are free to make whatever they like, it is the stores that have to restrict who can buy it. They can still sell anything, they just can't sell it to anyone. Same as tobacco or alcohol.

    The only way it would cause an exodus is if game sales plummeted and that would only happen if large amounts of sales of M rated games were being made to people under 18.

    I don't buy that for a second. For one, most retailers already ID for games (Target IDs me and I'm 30 and shop there all the time). Also, kids don't tend to have a ton of money to spend. There's a reason there have been more adult targeted games: Adults have more to spend. When I was 14 I had to beg games out of my parents a couple times a year. Now I buy them as I please. Finally parents will just buy the shit anyhow, and that's still legal. Rare is it you hear about the kid who bought their own violent game, the parents bought it for them.

    So unless I really misunderstand this, and if so please show me a link to the reality, I can't see it mattering much to the VG industry, it'll just ber a stupid burden on the retailers.

    • That's a good point. The sales restrictions would apply to games whether they are produced in California or somewhere else. So it wouldn't matter where the developer happened to be located. I don't understand, then, why this law would cause an exodus of game developers from California. I'm not saying I agree with the law, but the headline here is puzzling.

      • Re:Uhhhh, why? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportlandNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday October 29, 2010 @06:44PM (#34069096) Homepage Journal

        It's because the submitter hates video game sales restrictions and doesn't mind twisting the truth to push his agenda.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by vell0cet ( 1055494 )
        Many states have tried to pass laws that restrict the sale of games to minors. So if the California law is upheld, all the other states will follow suit and craft laws based on the California one.

        In reference to why people would leave the industry... It's not because they wouldn't want to make games, it's because the ability to express creativity would become limited. Any depiction of violence could potentially cause your game to be restricted by the law and not get carried by any of the large retailers (

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )

      actually, kids have a lot more control over the purse strings then people used to think. This is why so many toys for ads are geared at children.

      I know a lot of 10-15 year olds that have 50 or more dollar lying around.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Rogerborg ( 306625 )
        All these teens and pre-teens you give many dollah to... you might want to keep quiet about that.

    • Re:Uhhhh, why? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 29, 2010 @06:54PM (#34069194)

      As someone from Germany (we have some of the strictest regulators here concerning violence in games) I can tell you, it WILL affect you as an adult. These for the children laws inevitably affect adults too.

      You won't be able to buy 18+ games without jumping through a lot of hoops. Offline stores don't stock them and online stores have to comply with absurd age-checking requirements that cause the likes of eBay to ban anything 18+ outright.

      On top of that developers pre-censor their games in fears of getting an 18+ rating. Hell even 18+ games in Germany are censored compared to international versions because our fucked up youth protection laws affect material solely targeted at adults.

      As for the exodus, many companies (video game review sites, movie and game mail orders, etc.) had to move to neighbouring countries like Austria because they could not afford the asinine age-checking requirements.

      Things will change for you, too.

      • mod parent up (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Hatta ( 162192 )

        This is the best post yet in this thread. People need to remember that children grow into adults. If you want to do what's best for your children, make sure they inherit a world that an adult will want to live in.

        • This is the best post yet in this thread. People need to remember that children grow into adults. If you want to do what's best for your children, make sure they inherit a world that an adult will want to live in.

          I was just thinking the other day about how we ended up "here". And what I came up with is public school. Most children are sent into a system of indoctrination where they are aggressively taught to run with the herd. Most of them will be effectively programmed by it, even the majority of those who think they're above all that and managed unscathed.

          Spending your formative years being deprived of supposedly human rights can not achieve anything positive.

          • How about just 'school?' Public, private... they both indoctrinate. The only difference is in who choses the contents of the indoctrination, the government or the parents. The herd mentality barely needs teaching - it's deeply encoded in instinct by natural selection since before humans were humans. The tribal weirdo doesn't get to mate, but the adaptable socialite who is always popular by imitation can pass on their genes very effectively.

      • Been there, done that.

        Kids usually just had an adult buy the games or simply got a pirated version.
        In the best case the regulations were rendered useless (only wasting time & money) and in the worst the game companies didn't get paid.

        Of course in Germany the games were screened by representatives from the catholic and lutheran churches, psychologists and other education "experts". In other words, senile old farts and other people so far removed from reality (and games in particular) it's not even funny.

    • This law is already inplace in the UK and I'm pretty sure it hasn't harmed the industry, I don't know about CA but here its still legal to be under 18 and play the games, you just have to get your parents (or anyone over 18) to buy it for you.

      • No, the law in the UK acknowledges the existence of age ratings (i.e. BBFC) and has a process for rating them, instead of it just being up to the whim of every judge in the state and how they are feeling on the day. So it is possible for retailers to know if they are breaking the law or not.

        A law where you don't know if you are breaking it or not is probably a bad law.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by vxice ( 1690200 )
      If it is harder to purchase violent video games fewer people will buy them, not necessarily in giant droves however, decreasing revenue over all. Now how much of an affect this is will be hard to judge but could potentially, don't read certainly, lead to large decreases in game sales. Also the argument doesn't seem to be that developers will leave California but in general will disappear. On that note we are too obsessed with jobs recently, if a job is not useful or is in fact harmful we are keeping peop
      • They would probably try to tone down the violence a bit in an effort to stay on a lower rating. Expect to see enemies dropping dead rather than exploding into gore or losing limbs, and blood mystiously appearing green in an effort to be less realistic. A shame, as gore is fun - I made a mod for ut2k4 invasion mode that lets you explode enemies with a crazy amount of mess, and it's really quite entertaining to get a few friends together and charge at the invading monsters with tesla coils shooting out arcs o
    • Less games sold means less game bought means less games made means less game developer jobs.

      This isn't about game developers leaving California, it is about game developers being kicked out of the industry to increase profit margins.

    • It does impact developers (I am one)

      Because If you force the stores to sell to only 18 or older, you're forcing the developers to make games that can be old to 18 years or younger.

      For example: If you want your game to hit a wider audience, you would be forced to make it acceptable for that wider audience as per whatever the government deems is acceptable. Which is frankly unconstitutional.

      There are many parents who have no problem with their child playing violent video games. How will their children buy the

      • Mom and Dad will have to buy them personally? Mom and Dad are working 2 damn jobs.

        And does that slow them down? Hardly. Mom and Dad already have to buy groceries regularly. Big-box supercenter chains, such as Walmart*, Target, and Meijer, sell both video games and groceries.

        If they cared about your children, they would impose strict tariffs on imported goods. so that Americans are not competing with slave wages overseas.

        But then the United States would lose its export market as other countries retaliate with their own tariffs. Think of the children whose parents would lose their manufacturing jobs due to the export decline.

        • "And does that slow them down?"

          You're right. Clearly people can't differentiate between reality and video games (not that you, specifically, said that) so parents should have to buy their children the games instead of the children just buying them. There's absolutely zero reason that children should not be able to buy these games, and "parental supervision" is not a good reason.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tepples ( 727027 )

            There's absolutely zero reason that children should not be able to buy these games

            I can think of one: child labor laws. As I understand the law, children aren't supposed to have money; their parents are supposed to have it on their behalf.

            • "I can think of one: child labor laws."

              So they shouldn't be able to buy these games?

              "As I understand the law, children aren't supposed to have money"

              Something is seriously wrong, then. Again, there's no logical reason for this or this new law about games.

    • I don't buy that for a second. For one, most retailers already ID for games (Target IDs me and I'm 30 and shop there all the time). Also, kids don't tend to have a ton of money to spend.

      That's extremely false. Kids are super-important to game developers. They control an amazing amount of their parents' money, collectively.

      On the other hand, you're right that more mature gamers have led to more mature games. And by that I mean fishing, hunting, and golf.

  • Who cares (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Physical game sales are on their way out the door anyway. Or they are with PC games that is... next-generation consoles will probably see the same displacement.

  • I don't see how banning sales of some games to minors will cause an exodus of game developer talent. No matter where the games are made they will still be subject to the same ban.

    • Obviously the exodus of talent would be to the porn industry.

    • I don't see how banning sales of some games to minors will cause an exodus of game developer talent.

      That's probably because it won't.

      And the article isn't illogical. It's hyperbolic demagoguery.

  • Welcome to Nevada! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PatPending ( 953482 ) on Friday October 29, 2010 @06:29PM (#34068926)

    California's neighboring state, Nevada, would welcome these businesses because it would diversify its economy which is predominately based on alcohol, tobacco, gambling, and sex.

    Plus, Nevada has no corporate income tax nor personal income tax.

    • It wouldn't be an "exodus from California" it would be an exodus "from the industry" altogether according to the lawyer.

      Moving to Nevada wouldn't change anything. And if no longer being able to sell M rated games to minors "stifles developer creativity" then I can only imagine what living in Nevada would do to them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )

      but it is Ugly, has poor services, and no class.

      Of course, if you like brown it's the place to be.

      • Kind of like a brown version of Alaska, but not pretty, and they don't pay you to live there.

  • I fail to see why CA has any businesses at all. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It's a very beautiful place to visit, but I would hate to try to run a business from CA. HORRIBLE economy and regulatory environment. The state is bankrupt, and Americans can watch CA if they want some insight into where the country is headed if we keep allowing our government to load us up with debt. When Bernard Goldberg "borrows" money to create bogus profits he goes to prison, but when our Treasury Department does it by selling T-bills to the Federal Reserve it's totally legal. Go figure.

    • your stupid rant aside, I will answer your question. California has a PERFECT climate. Year round, it is an absolute delight just to wake up and walk outside. That really is the reason why all these rich people and rich companies are there, because they can afford to be delighted every morning just by opening their door.

      you can move your headquarters to say Texas, and many companies do... They don't really have to pay taxes, the wages you have to pay out are lower, the cost of living is nothing, but t

  • The law is stupid, but claiming it would cause an exodus of developers is equally stupid. It doesn't change in any way what they do, or what they are able to sell nationwide, it only affects what they can sell to minors in California - and in that respect affects developers equally regardless of where they live/work. The law should be struck down, as it was originally before our (nominally Republican - I thought those guys were supposed to be against such idiocy) loveable governator decided to appeal the de

  • if the Supreme Court sides with the legislators it could lead to an exodus of talent from the games business

    Production is based in California because talent, production facilities and resources of every kind are to be found in California.

    • It could happen. I doubt very much that it would as a result of this, but there is a pretty substantial games industry up here in Washington, and the courts here are amicable to software companies. Between that and the cheap electricity MS stays here, even though they feel like paying most of their taxes in Nevada.
  • Look at the movie industry. Rated R movies make getting in for minors much harder. What do the directors do? Make PG-13 movies, and push the limit all they can. There is not a shortage of people wanting to make movies.

  • States all over the union have passed laws restricting "violent video games" (with various definitions for that term) and every time the courts have overturned them as unconstitutional.

    Why do the states keep wasting taxpayer money on laws that they know wont survive in court? (are they just trying law after law until someone finally finds language that wont get overturned?)

  • The reasoning appears to be that if we can't program violence, there's nothing worth doing, so everyone will quit...

    What a strange world it is, where creative imagination can't come up with anything unless it involves mayhem and death.

  • They'll just change the games (Score:3, Interesting)

    by billsayswow ( 1681722 ) on Friday October 29, 2010 @07:40PM (#34069564)
    All military shooters will take place in a parallel universe where the world's governments realize that while war is a means to an end, the cost of life is too great to be a viable option. All firearms were discarded, used only for sport now, and instead all guns are paintball guns. The UN sends judges to determine when soldiers have taken enough hits to be considered unfit to continue. In the end, the soldiers meet in the middle of the battlefield, shake hands, and pull out wet sponges to clean paint off the opposing teams's uniform and kit. In this world, in war, no matter which side is victorious, everyone is a winner.
  • This is the same stuff legislators were trying to pull with the motion picture industry. In the end a self-regulating body was put in place, accepted by the consumers and producers, and all is well. Do younger kids end up seeing violent or sexual movies? Sure, it can happen and there is recourse if a parent thinks a theater isn't adhering to the system. TV has it's rating system that is enabled by the V-chip and controlled by the household authority (presumably the parents). All gaming systems (compute

  • I don't expect the number of kids playing the forbidden games to go down, just a change in their method of obtaining them. Of course, if the kids are playing them NOW, they probably don't have parents that care a great deal, and those parents are unlikely to object greatly to acting as a filter for the purchase.

    And for those situations for which piracy is an option (every non-online PC game), expect it to be exploited more often than it might have been in the past. More and more games are also sold online

    • "(every non-online PC game)"

      Even some that are. Some of them have figured out how to access online services while some people host private servers.

    • Also...

      "Ultimately, this all boils down to the parents monitoring the activities of their children and rearing their children in the way they best see fit."

      Why? The only type of people who would want to do that are those who want to indoctrinate their children to believe false information. "Video games cause violence! People can't differentiate between reality and video games!" We don't need such indoctrination, we need choice. If the parents don't want to pay for the games, fine. But if the child has the m

  • The companies, brands and individuals that we should be embracing as the visionaries of this creative and collaborative industry will migrate their talents to a more expressive medium

          Or better yet, they will just move to a different state/country.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close