Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Entertainment Games News

Innocuous California Game Ratings Bill Passed 82

Posted by simoniker from the no-jail-after-all dept.
Thanks to GamePro for its article noting that a newly revised bill "that requires video game retailers to clearly display signs of the game ratings has been passed by the state senate in California." The bill, "now waiting to be signed by Governor Schwarzenegger", was originally paired with a more controversial bill which "called to define 'atrocious or cruel' video games as 'harmful matter to children'", but that pairing failed to advance, despite support from bill sponsor Leland Yee, leading to a straightforward "requirement to have game ratings clearly displayed, and also have information about the ratings system readily available to parents purchasing games."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Innocuous California Game Ratings Bill Passed More

Innocuous California Game Ratings Bill Passed

Comments Filter:

  • Good news... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dmayle ( 200765 ) * on Thursday August 19, 2004 @07:12AM (#10011113) Homepage Journal

    I think we can definitely see this as good news. Anything that increases the amount of information to the end user is a good thing, as it allows for informed purchasing decisions, and anything that prevents consumers from getting what they want can generally be considered a bad thing.

    This seems to give something to both camps. The educationally conservative will be able to avoid what they consider sensitive material, and the rest of us will be able to buy the next Grand Theft Auto game...

    • Re:Good news... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by black mariah ( 654971 ) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @07:38AM (#10011241)
      Exactly. I welcome ANYTHING that will keep idiots off the ass of gamers. I like my GTA as much as the next guy, and I don't want some dipshit buying their 7 year old the game and then getting pissed because there are hookers and drugs. Stores should have been prominently displaying rating information for a long time. I generally don't like laws such as this, but it makes it so much better for those of us with at least half a brain to continue about our carnage without morons butting in.
      • You mean the stick that says "RATED M FOR MATURE" isn't displaying rating informatiom?
      • Dude, up until about a week ago, I used to work in a store that sold games. Though we didn't have to, we had a nice big sign about games ratings. On top of that, her in the UK, games such as GTA, which feature realistic violence and such get a legally binding rating the same as films.

        This doesn't stop the parents buying the game. I tell parents who are buying the game for their kids, "Do you know this game allows your child to screw hookers, and then beat their brains out with a bat?", and they're like, "Y
        • And that's what EVERY retailer SHOULD be doing. Personally, I think that any kid over the age of ten probably has enough brainpower to understand the difference between real and fake (I'd HOPE so anyway) and I really wouldn't have a problem with my kids playing GTA. But that's my choice based on what I think my kid could handle. Unfortunately, too many parents don't give a fuck about what their kids are watching or playing and expect stores to do what's best for their kids. Fuck that. Do what you can, yes.
          • Well, in the UK it is illegal to sell the game to anyone under the age of 18. It carries a BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) certificate of "(18) - Not To Be Sold To Any Person Under That Age.", and that certificate is enforceable by law. What I'm talking about is parents who assume that because it's a game, it couldn't possibly be harmfull. Then, when they see the game, later, in the tabloid press, they come over all moralistic. It's a bit late for that, isn't it.

            Are you telling me that in the U

    • Re:Good news... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by FlimFlamboyant ( 804293 )
      On the surface, I suppose it seems harmless. I have no problem with game ratings, though I am leary of the government mandating such things. I am especially leary of the bill they tried to attach to it, which is a common tactic; pair a radical bill with a "reasonable" one that will make the governor/president look bad if he vetos it. Every "reasonable" step that the goverment takes under the guise of "protecting" our children advances their ultimate goal, which is to basically raise our children for us.
      • I doubt it. They haven't added up with movie ratings or CD labels in all the years people have been jizzing in their tinfoil over those subjects.
        • I doubt it. They haven't added up with movie ratings or CD labels in all the years people have been jizzing in their tinfoil over those subjects.

          The big difference being that movie and album ratings are voluntary, not required by law, and that most video games already carry a voluntary rating.
        • Actually the number of R rated movies has begun to decline since they first adopted a rating system. So, i'd say that it does have an effect.
          • Bullshit. The way the ratings are given has changed over the years. There are more PG-13's because just a few years ago, they would have qualified for an R rating.
      • Not necessarily. I think in this case, it's more of a matter of using the government as a tool to enforce what is widely accepted as an industry standard. (But I don't live in the US, so take this with a grain of salt.) I suspect that most stores already do this and were getting annoyed with losing money to the few 'unscrupulous' vendors selling adult games to kids.
    • A 3 year old can distinguish between a reality and fiction, to quote a 3 year old "You have to kill 3 more zombies before you can use that again Daddy". This from a 3 year old watching her father frag things in Doom3. Now if only our state legislatures had that kind of maturity.

  • Sign, sign, everywhere a sign. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bluesman ( 104513 ) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @07:24AM (#10011172) Homepage
    I'm about to move out to California. What's it like out there? There must be warnings every three feet.

    I recently installed a new drain pipe in my bathroom sink. It came with this warning label:

    "This product is known by the State of California to contain materials known to cause cancer in labratory tests. Plumbers must notify the customer of this before installation."

    Isn't this all going a bit far? I'm concerned that my dirty water and used toothpaste might get cancer, but let's assume a bit of common sense.
    • materials known to cause cancer in labratory tests

      I didn't even know lab tests could get cancer... Lab rats, yes. Tests, no.

      • I didn't even know lab tests could get cancer... Lab rats, yes. Tests, no.

        your attempt at humor failed.
        Lab rats cannot cause cancer. Lab tests in fact, can. (ex: This test shows "The effect of injecting heroine into the cerebellum of rodent species (i.e. rats)." Result: The rats developed tumors. The published paper, and yes i have written in a few so i know how it is worded, would say something along the lines of "This test demonstrates that heroine injected directly into the brainstem was responsi

        • your attempt at humor failed.
          Lab rats cannot cause cancer. Lab tests in fact, can.

          Your attempt at a rebuke failed.
          He never said anything about Lab rats causing cancer. He said they could get cancer.

          For clarification's sake, Lab tests can't get cancer, rats don't cause cancer unless you wrap them in tobacco leaves and smoke them, and lap dances don't cause tumors (growths, yes.. but no tumors).

          C'mon, at least read what you quoted!

    • Re:Sign, sign, everywhere a sign. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @07:52AM (#10011352) Homepage Journal
      Good luck is all I can say. You couldn't pay me to live in that kooky state. I heard the northern part is OK, but you're still subject to the nanny-state tyrrany. California seems to want to legislate things that can only work through the free market (like alternative fuel quotas), and they fail time and again. I could not deal with that smothering benevolence. Of course, it could be worse. At least California didn't put a poet in charge of Homeland Security like NJ.

      Still, this particular piece of legislation seems like a good idea because it increases information without reducing access. I avoid these kinds of games myself. Mostly I have no interest in violent games, but I have to support other people who want to purchase them (reluctantly because I think some of these games are morally harmful, but it's a free country).

      But it's not only about the kids. It's important for everyone to be informed.

    • It's a different world from where you come from... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Mongoose Disciple ( 722373 ) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @08:43AM (#10011779)
      I lived in California for a few years during the dot.com era, like probably a lot of people.

      Legislation-wise, it's really different out there. California is often the first state to try a new law for something. As you might expect, some of those experiments work out pretty well, and some don't. It's the price you pay for innovation, so to speak.

      I'll tell you this, though: I sure as hell miss the California smoking laws. I wish I could spend half an hour in any local bar or club and not come out smelling like an ashtray.

      • Well there are smoke free bars out there that are created by people who want that choice. But as they arn't public facilities I personally don't think its my place to tell a private buisness what they can do. Though we already tell them that what types of foods they can sell. How many exits they must have and so much other shit, so I guess its just more of the same.
        (Note I'm not advocating the removal of all these laws, some of them are probably good, I think its just that we seem to always think we need th
        • Well there are smoke free bars out there that are created by people who want that choice.

          Well, right. But good luck finding one in, say, Wisconsin. Good luck finding a really top/popular club anywhere but Cali that is one.

          I guess you could say I'm in favor of oppressing the rights of smokers for my own benefit because I'm not one, and I wouldn't really argue with that. When you come right down to it, I think it should be one of those things that's ok in the privacy of your own home but not in the
          • Note, when the State of Florida sued tobacco companies saying that it increased medicare (or what it medicade, either way) cost, several independant groups (and I'm sure there was plenty of backing fromt he tobacco lobby but so far their conclusions havn't been scientifically debunked) did a study and concluded that smokers actually saved the state money in the long run because they died younger. Now I'm sure they don't save life insurance companies money (though life insurance is higher for smokers) I'm su
        • As a smoking californian bar-goer(and I vote!), I have to say that pretty much everyone here recognizes that the ban on indoor smoking turned out to be a Good Thing. You smoke less, you don't smell like shit, you meet cute girls when you go outside. A welcome side effect has been the surge of open-air sections in bars.
          • Yea, I guess its kinda like having a law that says you can't pee in the corner of bars. Everybody is going to be against it at first, then your gonna see that it was for good.
            But you do have to wonder what happends to the bars that specialize in public peeing and sell expensive pee accessoried.
      • Hate smoke? Move to New York City or Delaware or El Paso, TX, or if you don't mind just in restaurants: Vermont, Maine, and Utah.

        Back on topic, I'm assuming everyone sees the irony in the star of a lot of violent 80's action movies (and films so bad they make me violently ill [imdb.com]) signing a law to warn against violence.

        I support the idea of warnings & anything that gives parents more information.

      • The California smoking laws piss me off. They were passed in order to "protect" employees of bars, because apparently the fact that you could smoke in a bar was really cutting down the list of available jobs for bartenders and bar-backs who didn't smoke. Free hint: There aren't too many of these. Bartenders should just expect to breathe smoke, it goes with the territory, and being a bar-back is unskilled labor and you can get the same kind of job anywhere. Instead the mother state has made yet another deci

        • Bartenders should just expect to breathe smoke, it goes with the territory, and being a bar-back is unskilled labor and you can get the same kind of job anywhere.

          That being the status quo isn't really a very good argument for it remaining that way. Once upon a time in America, black people should just expect to be worked as slave labor, too. I don't see anyone rational defending that.

          Instead the mother state has made yet another decision for us.

          Don't forget that the state represents the will o

          • Only the people who visit bars should have been eligible to vote on that issue. Of course it doesn't work that way, and the majority gets to vote on things that don't affect them. It's like when students attending a four year college become residents and vote, then pack up their shit and move on - they have no real idea what effect their actions will have on the city they're voting in, nor do they have to live with the consequences.

        • Ths isn't limited to California. There are lots of parts of the US that already have these sorts of no-smoking laws, or are currently considering them. They get a good amount of news coverage, and I've seen a lot of articles where bartenders and other employees were interviewed, and they generally say that their health has greatly improved since things went non-smoking, even if they are themselves smokers. Just because someone smokes cigarettes of his own sometimes doesn't mean it isn't very harmful to his
          • The answer is not to outright outlaw smoking, though. In TX there are a lot of restaurants (like IHOPs) which at least until fairly recently - I've not been following things - you could smoke in half of. They mandate an air cleaner of a certain CFM or and effectiveness or something like that. This is a sane system. Want smoking in your establishment? You need some hardware, but you can have it. This makes a lot more sense than outlawing it completely...
    • You can have California. I lived there for three months a few years ago. Yuck!

      Informing the consumer is a good thing, but when EVERY SINGLE STORE IN EXISTENCE there has signs up warning about carcinogens, it looses its effetiveness. "Gee, we just purchased a bottle of typing correction fluid for the secretary. Now we need to add a carcinogen warning to our front door."

      That law now requires every business to cry wolf, which means that you are more likely to ignore real threats.

      BTW: Where I worked, al
    • California. What can I say about California that no one else has? Let me see. One town in California tried this past year (might have succeded by now) to outlaw .50 caliber rifles. They were all up in arms about how they could be used to shot the large refinery fuel tanks near their community. For starters rounds much smaller than a .50 caliber round will puncture a steel storage tank. Hell a 30-06 loaded heavy will puncture the tank at 200 yards easy. Their logic was that no one had any legitimate r

  • govern^H^H^H^H^H^Hterminator (Score:3, Insightful)

    by madaxe42 ( 690151 ) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @07:25AM (#10011176) Homepage
    I wonder how games oriented around the govern^H^H^H^H^H^Hterminator will be rated.... This entire system is nothing new - it's been like this in europe a long while with ESRB ratings... You can't buy a game if you're underage, much like trying to rent porno. Not that I'd know. erm....
    • The ratings are not law. If I am 14 and try to buy GTA, I don't get in legal trouble. Nor does a clerk who sells to me. His company may have actions against the clerk as a matter of corporate policy, much like some movie chains.

  • Ratings (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I think I'm generally in favour of content-ratings for video games. Here in the UK, we have a fairly robust system for it now. Admittedly, we were only spared from a much-worse lunacy when the BBFC lost its case over Carmaggeddon (horrible game, but it achieved a lot in terms of preventing video games censorship here). When Doom 3 came out the other week, I saw the staff in my local GAME refusing to sell it to several un-escorted kids.

    Ultimately, I think a system which throws a bone to the loony censorship

    • Re:Ratings (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bodgit ( 658527 )

      This is thing with these ratings ideas, you can slap warnings and ratings over games as much as you want, but it still doesn't stop shops like GAME selling them to kids, (and lets face it, the majority of places like this are staffed by kids that probably aren't old enough themselves to buy it either, let alone sell it).

      But more importantly, it doesn't stop parents buying these 'unsuitable' games for their kids, I myself have also been in GAME, and witnessed parents buying games like Vice City, etc. for

      • Re:Ratings (Score:3, Informative)

        by delus10n0 ( 524126 )
        sales representative inquire if the game is actually for the children and that it might not be suitable.

        They train the employees at GameStop to do this very thing. Whether or not they remember to ask is another matter..

        When I was in a GameStop last week to buy Doom3, a mom and son had come in, and he instantly ran over and picked up Grand Theft Auto: VC for XBox, asking his mom to buy it. She didn't even look at the box (like you said) and took it to the counter to pay. The GameStop employee told her tha
      • This is thing with these ratings ideas, you can slap warnings and ratings over games as much as you want, but it still doesn't stop shops like GAME selling them to kids,

        The purpose of the legislation is to give parents the information they need to make the decision, not have the government make the decision for them.

        But more importantly, it doesn't stop parents buying these 'unsuitable' games for their kids,

        So, in other words, it is the government's responsibility to raise our children and not the pa
      • it doesn't stop parents buying these 'unsuitable' games for their kids

        GOOD!

        Perhaps that parent doesn't happen to think it is unsuitable at all. Perhaps that parent doesn't think the game is going to turn their kid a drug dealer or emit mind-control rays forcing him to gun down his schoolmates.

        -

  • atrocious or cruel' video games as 'harmful matter (Score:3)

    by kabocox ( 199019 ) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @07:45AM (#10011298)
    Why not atrocious or cruel' movies as 'harmful matter to children and adults!
    • Why not atrocious or cruel' movies as 'harmful matter to children and adults!

      Why don't we start with 'atrocious or cruel' governments, such as the Bush government Arnold supports in Washington today? It certainly has been harmful to plenty of children and adults, in this country and, even more acutely, abroad.

  • It seems reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fiftyvolts ( 642861 ) <mtoia@nOspAM.fiftyvolts.com> on Thursday August 19, 2004 @08:03AM (#10011435) Homepage Journal

    This seems reasonable enough to me. I am of the opinion that we don't need laws to ban kids from obtaining violent video games, but rather put the responsibility on the children's parents. However, even the most caring parents can be damn near clueless when it comes to games.

    Putting big visible warning labels on packaging won't make won't reduce my enjoyment of that game. They'll give clueless parents a chance to raise their kids the way they want, and let those who think their kids are ready allow their children to play them.

    • Big visible warning (Score:5, Funny)

      by Chemisor ( 97276 ) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @09:02AM (#10011939)
      > Putting big visible warning labels on packaging

      Doesn't a gory image of a blood-spattered dismembered zombie with blood-shot eyes and half-flayed decaying skin, reeling from a shotgun blast that put a ragged, gaping, gore-dripping hole in its torso, qualify somewhat as a visible warning label?
      • It tells you nothing about profanity, nudity, or sex. And in this country, parents are more likely to be worried about those elements than violence (sad as that may be).
    • Putting big visible warning labels on packaging

      Uhm, we already do this. The ESRB can rate your game, and even though it's voluntary, 99% of the games out there now have an ESRB rating, usually on the very front or the back of the box. It's high-contrast black and white, so it's kind of hard to miss. It's also required to be a certain size on the box.

      Not to mention the fact that all the ESRB ratings information has been available ever since the system was developed, on their websites, and in pamphlets you

  • Why aren't books rated? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 19, 2004 @08:43AM (#10011776)
    Or paintings of naked people? Michelangelo's David might make children violent, or sexual deviants! Why, if they read Lord of the Flies, they might crush fat kids with giant rocks! Someone, please think of the children!
  • The Kahleeforneea legislature needs to get to work on real issues, like the California Performance Review. If this is what they are wasting their time working on, then the legislature should be sent home to save taxpayer money. Leland Yee is the state senator who tried to legislate "feng shui" into the building code.

    What is the penalty for not complying? A $500/day penalty was amended out of the bill. [ca.gov] This is another regulation that California merchants must keep track of.
  • For years the UK has had a little age rating symbol in the corner of every game box there is. It's changed design in the last few years but it's always been there.... It doesn't do JACK.

    Every retailer I knew when I was a kid would sell me any game I wanted, I could buy 18s when I was 12. Sure they all knew my mum would be in shortly after and pretty much knew both of us on a personal level (What can I say.. I was hardcore..). But it's still illegal to do something like that... so yea, fancy stickers/printe
    • It's not illegal. The games rating system we have at the moment is voluntary (ie doesn't need to be there) and is advisory (ie it is an opinion about the game rating, not a condition for buying it).

      Very few games opt in for BBFC ratings (it is voluntary for games to be rated by the BBFC), which is the legally enforcable rating.

  • They don't already? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    All the major chain stores I've been to (yes, in California) already have plenty of signage about the ratings, it's completly not a problem.

    The problem is that the store workers are marketing the violent games to kids. I was at a GameStop the other week, and there was a mother with her three kids, probably ranging 7 to 12 or so, and the cashier convinced them to reserve GTA: San Andreas. That's the sort of thing that needs to stop.
    • Shush. Useless legislation that doesn't actually do anything new is what we need to get these fools to stop mindlessly demonizing video games. They'll think they've accomplished something for a while, and go on to work on some of the real problems facing society.
    • I agree, what exactly will this legislation change? Boxes already have ratings clearly marked... The backs explain why it got the rating it got, and what it means.... and as you implied, most stores have signs warning parents.

      Maybe it's just where I live, but I see stores refusing to sell GTA and the like to minors all the time. I really don't think anything more needs to be done...
  • Australian games have been rated forever. OK so a 15 rating won't stop a 13yo playing but it keeps the age of players much more reasonable. Books are rated too (some very naughty ones even get R or possibly X). I think this is great - even if it doesn't work perfectly and some teenager sees naked boobies, it's good to have the information available, right? What I object to is banned literature. Just mark it D for "don't watch this" and I won't! I realize that some weirdos will seek out this stuff, but it

Slashdot Top Deals

"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger

Close