221 réponses à ce sujet

[marbatico]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

Apophis2412 wrote...

SarEnyaDor wrote...

The important part ( IMHO) was that if it passes retailers will be fined $1000 per game sold, that could very well lead to retailers not wanting to carry certain games anymore to curtail the possibility of mistakes happening which would limit our ability to pick and choose where we buy games from if no one wants to risk carrying them. No competition leads to higher game prices etc etc.

Just something to watch.

Wiat a minute! The game company gets fined because a minor bought one of their games!?
Shouldn't the parents be fined in this case?

No, not at all. It is (in the UK at least) the retailer's job to check the age of the customer if they suspect they are underage. Whether they're buying alcohol, a DVD, cigarettes, porn, gaming magazines (ones with DVDs are BBFC rated), games, a lottery ticket knives or anything else restricted.
So, say you're 16 and you go into a store alone and pick up MW2 and go to the cashier with it. How is your parent responsible for this transaction at all? If the till assistant thinks you're underage then they can and will ask for ID to verify your age.
It's just an extension of the store's ability to refuse service.

this makes thing different. for instance, i'm 16 but everywhere i go people think i'm 20.

[Apophis2412]

Darht Jayder wrote...

Apophis2412 wrote...

SarEnyaDor wrote...

The important part ( IMHO) was that if it passes retailers will be fined $1000 per game sold, that could very well lead to retailers not wanting to carry certain games anymore to curtail the possibility of mistakes happening which would limit our ability to pick and choose where we buy games from if no one wants to risk carrying them. No competition leads to higher game prices etc etc.

Just something to watch.

Wiat a minute! The game company gets fined because a minor bought one of their games!?
Shouldn't the parents be fined in this case?

What?  Parents be responsible for their children.....unheard of

I've read the text again, and it's the retailers that get fined.

And I really think that this law will have little impact. What's stopping minors from just downloading these games illegaly from the internet?

[Loerwyn]

@Marbatico; yeah, some people do slip through the net. Almost every time I've tried to buy age restricted materials on my own (alcohol at gigs etc), I've been ID'd. I went to a gig with a friend once, and he didn't get ID'd for beer despite being a year younger than me. I got ID'd for a pint of cola, and I'm not joking.

[ObserverStatus]

I read an article about this case, and it looks to me like politicians trying to make drama again. I'd be more concerned if they stopped trying to scare us.

[Statulos]

This is the kind of **** I hate from any goverment: why do you have to watch for what is good for people? Aren´t they free and responsable citizens? Fine, then let them be and choose!

[Beocat]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

@Marbatico; yeah, some people do slip through the net. Almost every time I've tried to buy age restricted materials on my own (alcohol at gigs etc), I've been ID'd. I went to a gig with a friend once, and he didn't get ID'd for beer despite being a year younger than me. I got ID'd for a pint of cola, and I'm not joking.

Lol...that happened to me once too.  I didn't bring my ID since I was the designated driver that night and I was drinking soda.  The establishment was about to be raided by the underage drinking cops and the manager ran over and started sniffing my soda.  I made him buy me a new drink.  Apparently, I look younger than I am.  I am sure I was the oldest person in my group that day and none of them got sniffed lol.

[ObserverStatus]

This is exactly why the courts have the final say in these matters. They actually have to consider all of the evidence in order to make the best decision instead of fear mongering and political grandstanding.

[Beocat]

bobobo878 wrote...

This is exactly why the courts have the final say in these matters. They actually have to consider all of the evidence in order to make the best decision instead of fear mongering and political grandstanding.

I am actually happy that they recognize the lack of evidence here for once.  It gives a ray of hope out there for the gamers.

[SarEnyaDor]

SarEnyaDor wrote...

Er, I don't think the GAME COMPANY would get fined, but Gamestop, or Walmart or Amazon - the RETAILER would get fined.

Yeah, I mentioned that, but I don't think anyone noticed.

We have an interesting mix of regulations and freedoms over here, OnlyShallow. For example, I know in London there are those cameras on like every corner to deter crime and what not, people are still pitching fits about the occasional red-light camera in some places, while other towns are as recorded as a bank.

[Statulos]

Darht Jayder wrote...

Statulos wrote...

This is the kind of **** I hate from any goverment: why do you have to watch for what is good for people? Aren´t they free and responsable citizens? Fine, then let them be and choose!

Ha...it's those free and "responsible" parents you can bet on that complain about this issue in the first place.  So the government steps in to do their job for them. 

Seems like everytone tends to forget that freedom means responsability and good sense to use it.

[Loerwyn]

I'm up in Yorkshire, so I can't speak for London. I don't really pay much attention to the Orwellian-state we're in, anyways

I don't see the problem with a system like ours in the UK. Yes, it's not perfect, but that's because there's so many ways around it. It's inefficient to ask every customer for their ID if they're buying a rated product, you cannot assume that every time an adult comes to the counter with their child that the game is for them, and then you've got online buying. Do you age check every transaction? I suspect the bigger places don't; I've had no trouble buying age rated products when underage from some of the bigger retailers.

It keeps the blame of a slip up on the retailer, which is where it belongs, but after a while an awareness will become inbuilt into the people. Most Brits, I assume, know that BBFC is legally-enforced. But I suspect that PEGI, which was made enforceable just last year, isn't that well known to people. It's easily understood, but I would wager that a good number of people think it's advisory and not compulsory. But give it a few years and perhaps that'll change.

[Trapper_920]

If all it does is regulated game sales/rental by age ratings it shouldn't be a big deal. I did not read the whole thing but I wonder what they are going to pass in that bill without telling the public, like they do so often.



!@#$ backstabbing *censored *censored *censored *censored *censored *censored politics.

[MerinTB]

Speaking both as a consumer who's witnessed this on the one side and as a former game store employee, clerks get all kinds of hell for trying to point out ratings to parents.

I personally got chewed out a dozen times by parents when I mentioned the ESRB rating and that, maybe, their 10 year olds might not be ready for GTA 17: More Stealing And Killing Edition.
I've gone to so many horror movies where the parents get annoyed at the few ticket sellers who have the audacity to bring up the R rating and the fact that maybe the 4 soccer-uniform-wearing pre-teens the mom is taking to Halloween might not be best "supervised" by seeing people dismembered.

The ESRB is a better rating system than the movie rating system.  What is needed is some enforcement of the ratings.  If Gamestop decided to not sell GTA to a sixteen year-old but that same kid can buy it at Wal-Mart or online, it only hurts Gamestop to enforce the ESRB.  Some kind of fine doesn't seem, on the surface, too far out there.

I'm not for censorship and I, too, think it is the parent's responsibility to monitor what their kids are exposed to - of course, once the kid has a car and starts working for their own money, good luck with that... but still.

[Beocat]

Well, SarEnyaDor, I think since the gaming industry sued so quickly on it, it is unlikely anything will come of that law. When it comes down to it, the research is clear in that video games do not have a clear effect, or even any effect, on children at all, and that is what will drive the Supreme Court's decision.



I still wish they'd let us have AO games on our consoles. I probably wouldn't have many myself but at least the developers won't feel so constricted and limited in how they tell their stories.

[Loerwyn]

Beocat, according to my research there's only 25 AO games out there, and most of them seem to be ancient porn games.

Perhaps games are censored in development before being rated? It'd explain why, out of hundreds of game releases a year, only 25 games have ever been given AO.



@Merin, yeah it does hurt the retailer in a way. Why should I go into a store and risk having my ID rejected (as it almost always is) when I can just go online and get the game cheaper and not be ID'd? It's a double-edged blade either way, but the method we have in the UK (I feel) is the best option. What's more damaging to a company? $40 dollars of a lost sale or a $1000 fine with possibly a reputation hit?

[SarEnyaDor]

Darht Jayder wrote...
It should be illegel everywhere for anyone to buy Rambo IV.

[SarEnyaDor]

I really just don't like how that would lump video games in with THINGS THAT ARE BAD!! like cigarettes and alcohol and decongestants (don't get me started on the lack of ability to treat my family's allergies)

[Beocat]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

Beocat, according to my research there's only 25 AO games out there, and most of them seem to be ancient porn games.
Perhaps games are censored in development before being rated? It'd explain why, out of hundreds of game releases a year, only 25 games have ever been given AO.

@Merin, yeah it does hurt the retailer in a way. Why should I go into a store and risk having my ID rejected (as it almost always is) when I can just go online and get the game cheaper and not be ID'd? It's a double-edged blade either way, but the method we have in the UK (I feel) is the best option. What's more damaging to a company? $40 dollars of a lost sale or a $1000 fine with possibly a reputation hit?

I think Indigo Prophecy had an AO PC version back in the day.  I would have had that one for sure if it had been console based.  I simply loved that game.  I doubt I missed much with the M version, but for my collector's wanting, I want the AO version just to have. 

[crysischaos]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

Beocat, according to my research there's only 25 AO games out there, and most of them seem to be ancient porn games.
Perhaps games are censored in development before being rated? It'd explain why, out of hundreds of game releases a year, only 25 games have ever been given AO.

The ESRB and the USA put more restriction on sexual content in a game than violence, so that makes sense.  However my understanding is most of the world puts more restriction on depiction of violence than sexual content when rating games.

[Loerwyn]

Probably. Mass Effect's only a 12 over here, whereas I think it got a relatively higher rating in the US.