221 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

ImperialOperative wrote...

No, from what I understand this law ONLY affects distributors.  It only adresses distributors of games and restricts them from selling or renting "ultra-violent" games directly to minors.

It does not adress (therefore, does not illegalize) the playing of such games by minors.  So a parent that wants their kids to play such games can still buy them for their kids if they so please.

In that case I apologize. Apparently I misunderstood the intention of the law.


Probably because I´m always thinking about my own country where politicians are trying to make a law that DOES forbid the playing violent games, and not only for minors but for everyone - for minors this is already the case. In Germany it is illegal to give People below 18 access to games like AvP or even to play them while minors can see it.

[Sloth Of Doom]

SarEnyaDor wrote...

Don't you know that parents can't possibly be expected to watch their offspring 24 hours a day?

Now you see why I'm interested in watching how this unfolds, fines have a way of making an impact on businesses.

If a parent can;t control what games are bought and playd by thier kids there is a big ****ing problem somewhere.  It isn't like the kid is hiding a dirty magazine in the garage or something, games cost a god chunk of cash and have to be played on a system inside the house.

If a parent is that ****ing oblivious to what thier kid is doing then a game is the least of thier worries.

[addiction21]

Jalem001 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Jalem001 wrote...


It's not the government's place.  Government =/= Parent.  That's the big deal. 

And it is parents voters going to the goverment to make this happen...  if you must point a finger and least point it in the right direction.

Voters?  This wasn't put to a vote by the voters.  Their representatives voted on it, yes, but I hardly doubt they voted for their Reps based on this specific law.  Hell I doubt most of them voted for their state reps based on anything other than name recognition or political party.

And even if they did:  This is not a Democracy son.  This is a Republic.  We don't follow mob rule.  Our government is ruled by laws (in theory), and those laws determine the role of our government.  The government should not be raising children and deciding which video games they can and can't watch.  

Who said anything about voting? I did not say anything about voting. I said voters. Two completely different things. Maybe I was not clear enough.
A voter even when not voting is still a voter in the eyes of their representative who wants to make them happy so next time he/she is up for reelection they cast a vote for him/heyself. When there are enough voters making noise about some issue in enough districts their representatives say to themselves "well we better do something about it since that is our job"
And that is the problem with my fellow countrymen. They are ignorant to what their local goverment is doing untill it pops up on the news or a website. As usual the other side sat on their hands and are now up in arms after it has gone thru the proper channels to become law. It should not have made it that far in the first place.


To say it is just a republic is simplifying it to an extreme. It is not a pure Republic nor is it Purely a Democracy.  To be specific it is a Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic.
Federal because we are a federation of states.
Presidential... well I would hope that is self explanatory but we do elect a president.
Constituational Republic. Now that is the tricky part. I am sure there are those that will read that and say "well it says republic so it must be a republic and nothing else"
Well your wrong.  Republic and Democracy are not polar opposites. They can and do in this country overlap. Each and every citizen is tasked with the duty to vote for their respected representatives of their district.  That is direct democracy deciding the republic representatives. THis is a goverment that relies on direct democracy to lay the foundation but uses republic ideas to run and maintain it.
Those that founded this country knew that a pure Democracy or pure Republic form of goverment is dangerous and chose to combine them. In many states a bill that is put up to the general population of citizens to vote on and is passed by the general population goes directly to a veto stage bypassing the house/senate. Any elected official can be removed by a direct democratic vote. No if, ands, or, buts.  Again state or the federal goverment can be changed or abolished... you guessed it by a general vote of the population.
In extreme cases it is the population that holds the real power but it is rarely exercised because that is the point of having representatives that we delegate that power to, to act for us in the goverment.
I agree it should be the parents and not the goverment raising children... but guess what? If the only place you make your voice heard on the subject is in a obscure internet forum that those law makers and justices will NEVER SEE then it is just my personal opinion but you have little right to complain.

I do live in the real world and am well aware it is not always like this but it is still a goverment of the people, by the people, and for the people. Where the ultimate power lays in the hands of the people. The problem is people are apathetic and lazy. That many think taking an active role in goverment is ****ing and complaining to friends, family, and in blogs. That only taking part in the big popularity contest every for years does anything at all. Even then it is a small fraction of those that can even vote and to top all that of it is a even smaller number of those that vote who are actually educated on what they are voting for and how it works.

Modifié par addiction21, 27 avril 2010 - 03:12 .

[SarEnyaDor]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

SarEnyaDor wrote...

Don't you know that parents can't possibly be expected to watch their offspring 24 hours a day?

Now you see why I'm interested in watching how this unfolds, fines have a way of making an impact on businesses.

If a parent can;t control what games are bought and playd by thier kids there is a big ****ing problem somewhere.  It isn't like the kid is hiding a dirty magazine in the garage or something, games cost a god chunk of cash and have to be played on a system inside the house.

If a parent is that ****ing oblivious to what thier kid is doing then a game is the least of thier worries.

Exactly.

[Tirigon]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

If a parent is that ****ing oblivious to what thier kid is doing then a game is the least of thier worries.

But it´s easier to blame CounterStrike than yourself.

Besides, in the newspaer the headline "CounterStrike made child shoot his friend" is much better to get attention than "Due to the parents being drunk all day a child came in contact with gangs and has committed a murder"

[exterminator_]

Tirigon wrote...

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

If a parent is that ****ing oblivious to what thier kid is doing then a game is the least of thier worries.

But it´s easier to blame CounterStrike than yourself.

Besides, in the newspaer the headline "CounterStrike made child shoot his friend" is much better to get attention than "Due to the parents being drunk all day a child came in contact with gangs and has committed a murder"

Clever heh

[Appolo90]

I honestly don't know why people reproduce anymore.



Can we have some sort of minimum IQ put in place in order to have kids?

[Tirigon]

Appolo90 wrote...

I honestly don't know why people reproduce anymore.

Can we have some sort of minimum IQ put in place in order to have kids?

Yeah, I thought that myself quite often.
Unfortunately, enforcing that would require a cruel and tyrannical government like Hitler´s, and that´s really not worth it. So we can´t do anything.
Except for Genophage maybe:devil: Where´s Mordin if you need him?!

[Dethateer]

Appolo90 wrote...

I honestly don't know why people reproduce anymore.

Can we have some sort of minimum IQ put in place in order to have kids?

Mankind would go extinct.

[exterminator_]

Tirigon wrote...

Appolo90 wrote...

I honestly don't know why people reproduce anymore.

Can we have some sort of minimum IQ put in place in order to have kids?

Yeah, I thought that myself quite often.
Unfortunately, enforcing that would require a cruel and tyrannical government like Hitler´s, and that´s really not worth it. So we can´t do anything.
Except for Genophage maybe:devil: Where´s Mordin if you need him?!

So Tirigon imagine my kids - they will be the epitome of the title "SEX KIDS" LOL

Modifié par exterminator , 27 avril 2010 - 05:11 .

[bzombo]

randumb vanguard wrote...

DrathanGervaise wrote...

The ESRB, it does nothing.

it does something... it puts a rating on games, but thats it don't expect them to do more.

it should not do more. the more censorship we allow, the more censorship that is done. the rating system gives information so parents can make informed decisions. if a parent chooses not to bother, that is their CHOICE and not the government's. there's too much big brother government going on these days. government needs to back off and let people make decisions. /end rant

[bzombo]

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.

sounds way too intrusive to me.

[bzombo]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Jalem001 wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

Seriously, what is the friggin' big deal? When I was a kid, I'd try to go to Rated R movies. Sometimes, I could get in. Other times, the guy would ask for ID and I couldn't. All this would require is the clerk to ask for ID before selling a rated M game to a kid. I already have to prove it's me when I buy beer or use my credit card. What's the difference?

OH! And to the people that keep wondering if businesses will stop carrying Mature games for "fear" that they'll get fined, GET REAL! Take an economics class for pete's sake. And do a little research. Most "gamers" are over the age of 18 anyway. If a business decided not to carry rated M games, all they'd be doing is shooting their bottom line in the foot. No intelligent corporation is going to do that. Never.....

It's not the government's place.  Government =/= Parent.  That's the big deal. 

Fallacy. The government is whatever we make it to be. We make the laws, through our Representatives, to govern us. We can choose to elect people that make it so stores can sell to anyone. We can also, as we've done, elect people that make it the law that stores cannot sell games to a person based on their age.

Whether I morally agree with you or not is beside the point. The point is that this law is no more an inconvience to the average person than tieing your shoelaces. If you don't like it, elect someone else. Or start a proposition signing, if your state allows such referendums. Either way we follow the laws as written, otherwise what is the point of society?

this is a load of garbage. whether it is only a little inconvenient is a moot point. it is wrong unless you live in a socialist/communist society that tells you how to run your life. each tiny thing is all part of a slippery slope that eventually evolves into much larger issue. anyone in a "free" society should not allow the government to decide how the people will live. the government (in the us at least) is of the people, for the people, and by the people. government is not in charge. we are. we can vote people out, but in between elections we still should ensure politicians do things the right way. being big brother is not the right way.

[bzombo]

addiction21 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Jalem001 wrote...


It's not the government's place.  Government =/= Parent.  That's the big deal. 

And it is parents going to the goverment to make this happen...  if you must point a finger and least point it in the right direction.

And why, pray tell, should everyone suffer because some dumbasses are unable to care for their children?

More hyperbole. Who is actually going to suffer? Kids that should not be getting them in the first place? The smart ones will just order online with a store bought credit card. If it is the really young children that do not work yet then this will not stop those same parents from the buying the game for them like before.

So  tell me where the 10s of millions of suffering people will be coming from? What will actually change?

it's about what you allow your government to do, not about what inconsequential suffering may happen. it's about the government taking over more and more responibility for the citizens and telling us they know better than us.

[bzombo]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

Fallacy. The government is whatever we make it to be. We make the laws, through our Representatives, to govern us. We can choose to elect people that make it so stores can sell to anyone. We can also, as we've done, elect people that make it the law that stores cannot sell games to a person based on their age.

I wonder, are you a hopeless idealist, incredibly naive or is this all sarcasm?

You're not serious are you. I live In California, the first state to put the legalization of marijuana for ALL USE (not just medicinal) on the ballot coming this November. WE, the people, through our referendum system put this on the ballot. We also voted to ban same sex marriage which is a whole other can of worms. The point is that the people have the power to affect change, if they choose to. There isn't some magical dragon that came up with the video game law. Duly elected representatives of the people fashioned this idea. If you want it changed, you can get it changed.

But my question, that still hasn't been answered, is what is the big deal with this law? You may think that it isn't the government's job to do this stuff but does that mean if I want to see a Rated R movie, the ticket guy has no responsibility or right to ask me to prove my age? Clearly my parents aren't with me (who's 16 year kid wants their parents with them at the movies anyway) so how are my parents going to do their job and stop me. They can't. They can only stop me if they are present to witness the behavior. If I understand what you are all saying the government should just butt out and let the kid in, no matter what. I don't think that's a good solution either.

Tirigon wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...
Whether I morally agree with you or not is beside the point. The point is that this law is no more an inconvience to the average person than tieing your shoelaces. If you don't like it, elect someone else. Or start a proposition signing, if your state allows such referendums. Either way we follow the laws as written, otherwise what is the point of society?

We don´t follow the laws as written, or at least we shouldn´t.

The National socialists followed written laws when they killed millions of people.
The Stalinists followed their written laws when they killed millions of people, too.

These 2 examples should show why blindly following every law is stupid.

Society doesn´t need laws anyways. The most basical, like not to harm others, should be common sense, and laws that are against common sense shouldn´t exist.

Whoa! Back up there history buff. You need a serious relearn on world history. Discrimination was written down in the law books in Germany (by a dictactor with absolute power, duly elected perhaps, but not challenged after) but not extermination. There was never a law written down about killing people in WWII Germany. Hitler's final solution was only passed down by the Fuhrer through word of mouth to only a trusted few SS and other likeminded officials. Hitler knew that his ideals were too "drastic" to be accepted by the populace so he only passed on his orders through trusted channels and never kept written evidence of his orders.

Again Stalin was a dictator with absolute power, not a democratically elected house of many people. How does that compare with a democratically elected group of officials? Your comparisons are too full of hyperbole to even be reasonable.

and the checks and balances system is in place to keep any one side from abusing their power, hence why the court will review. the lawmakers overstepped their bounds and hopefully the court will decide the law is no good and shoot it down. that is also our process at work.

[Wicked 702]

bzombo wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

Fallacy. The government is whatever we make it to be. We make the laws, through our Representatives, to govern us. We can choose to elect people that make it so stores can sell to anyone. We can also, as we've done, elect people that make it the law that stores cannot sell games to a person based on their age.

Whether I morally agree with you or not is beside the point. The point is that this law is no more an inconvience to the average person than tieing your shoelaces. If you don't like it, elect someone else. Or start a proposition signing, if your state allows such referendums. Either way we follow the laws as written, otherwise what is the point of society?

this is a load of garbage. whether it is only a little inconvenient is a moot point. it is wrong unless you live in a socialist/communist society that tells you how to run your life. each tiny thing is all part of a slippery slope that eventually evolves into much larger issue. anyone in a "free" society should not allow the government to decide how the people will live. the government (in the us at least) is of the people, for the people, and by the people. government is not in charge. we are. we can vote people out, but in between elections we still should ensure politicians do things the right way. being big brother is not the right way.

Your argument has no weight. The "government" is not doing anything with this law that will affect an adult in any way. An adult will still be able to walk into any store that sells video games and pick up whatever murder/gore/sexfest they want without question. Only minors, who do not have the same rights as adults (that's a fact by the way, minors don't even have true first amendment protection) will not get easy access.

How is the government dicating how I, as a legal adult, can run my life? For me nothing will change. Now if the law said something like adults can only buy the Mature games during certain hours or they can only buy 2 per month, we might be having a different discussion. But we're not. We're not talking about a law that affects full citizens. We're talking about a law that affects a class of people without the same rights. I'm fine with that.

Unless of course you want to give minors the right to vote, then my opinion would change.

[bzombo]

Wicked 702 wrote...

bzombo wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

Fallacy. The government is whatever we make it to be. We make the laws, through our Representatives, to govern us. We can choose to elect people that make it so stores can sell to anyone. We can also, as we've done, elect people that make it the law that stores cannot sell games to a person based on their age.

Whether I morally agree with you or not is beside the point. The point is that this law is no more an inconvience to the average person than tieing your shoelaces. If you don't like it, elect someone else. Or start a proposition signing, if your state allows such referendums. Either way we follow the laws as written, otherwise what is the point of society?

this is a load of garbage. whether it is only a little inconvenient is a moot point. it is wrong unless you live in a socialist/communist society that tells you how to run your life. each tiny thing is all part of a slippery slope that eventually evolves into much larger issue. anyone in a "free" society should not allow the government to decide how the people will live. the government (in the us at least) is of the people, for the people, and by the people. government is not in charge. we are. we can vote people out, but in between elections we still should ensure politicians do things the right way. being big brother is not the right way.

Your argument has no weight. The "government" is not doing anything with this law that will affect an adult in any way. An adult will still be able to walk into any store that sells video games and pick up whatever murder/gore/sexfest they want without question. Only minors, who do not have the same rights as adults (that's a fact by the way, minors don't even have true first amendment protection) will not get easy access.

How is the government dicating how I, as a legal adult, can run my life? For me nothing will change. Now if the law said something like adults can only buy the Mature games during certain hours or they can only buy 2 per month, we might be having a different discussion. But we're not. We're not talking about a law that affects full citizens. We're talking about a law that affects a class of people without the same rights. I'm fine with that.

Unless of course you want to give minors the right to vote, then my opinion would change.

the government is telling me what my child can or can not purchase. it should be up to me to be the parent and make those decisions. i do not need or want the government to make laws like this. the problem is what is to stop them from taking the next step? what is that step? banning games outright over a certain rating? the bottom line is if i want to let my child purchase something that is legal (not crack, heroin, bootleg items, etc) then it is my choice. parental indifference is a choice (albeit a bad one), but the government should not decide what is ok for my child. i should. 

[Wicked 702]

bzombo wrote...

the government is telling me what my child can or can not purchase. it should be up to me to be the parent and make those decisions. i do not need or want the government to make laws like this. the problem is what is to stop them from taking the next step? what is that step? banning games outright over a certain rating? the bottom line is if i want to let my child purchase something that is legal (not crack, heroin, bootleg items, etc) then it is my choice. parental indifference is a choice (albeit a bad one), but the government should not decide what is ok for my child. i should. 

So go to the store and buy the game for your kid. There's no law saying you can't do that. If you make the conscious choice that the game is ok for your kid you still have the RIGHT to get it for them. Nothing changes....

I don't see how this is any different from not letting 16 year olds into Rated R movies without their parents. Do you support removing that restriction as well? They're the same thing....

[bzombo]

Wicked 702 wrote...

bzombo wrote...

the government is telling me what my child can or can not purchase. it should be up to me to be the parent and make those decisions. i do not need or want the government to make laws like this. the problem is what is to stop them from taking the next step? what is that step? banning games outright over a certain rating? the bottom line is if i want to let my child purchase something that is legal (not crack, heroin, bootleg items, etc) then it is my choice. parental indifference is a choice (albeit a bad one), but the government should not decide what is ok for my child. i should. 

So go to the store and buy the game for your kid. There's no law saying you can't do that. If you make the conscious choice that the game is ok for your kid you still have the RIGHT to get it for them. Nothing changes....

I don't see how this is any different from not letting 16 year olds into Rated R movies without their parents. Do you support removing that restriction as well? They're the same thing....

yes i do as a matter of fact.

[Wicked 702]

bzombo wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

So go to the store and buy the game for your kid. There's no law saying you can't do that. If you make the conscious choice that the game is ok for your kid you still have the RIGHT to get it for them. Nothing changes....

I don't see how this is any different from not letting 16 year olds into Rated R movies without their parents. Do you support removing that restriction as well? They're the same thing....

yes i do as a matter of fact.

Ok, let's take this chance the compare an ideal with what's practical. Let's say that I , as a parent, do not want my 15-16 year old teenager watching Rated R movies. (This isn't far fetched actually, my parents were like this.) How am I going to stop them from seeing Rated R movies at the theatre when I'm not there? 15 and 16 year olds go lots of places without their parents. That's 100% normal. Many 16 year olds drive themselves places. What mechanism do I have, other than telling them not to see the movies and hoping they comply (yeah right), if the theatre has to let them in?

This is simply an example of where the ideal, though morally correct as you are, is simply not practical in real life.

[Loerwyn]

bzombo wrote...
sounds way too intrusive to me.

Hardly. As I've *continually* said, the average person is not affected by the change at all. We Brits have lived in this situation for many years, and we're not a bunch of paranoid grumps who fear this is an Orwe... Oh, wait.

Ahem, but on point. It's not intrusive. As it was mentioned above, minors are not subjected to the same standards and laws as an adult, and this is just another one of those laws. Like I keep saying, children cannot buy most restricted products at all on both sides of the pond, and that's for a good reason. Games like Leisure Suite Larry and Manhunt are not appropriate for minors at all, and as such we have legal ratings in place to minimise their exposure or ability to obtain these games.

The parent should be responsible and ever alert of what the child is playing/watching, and not the government. By legally enforcing the ratings from an outside company (PEGI, ESRB, BBFC etc), they help the parents make proper decisions about what their child can or cannot have. As a guideline, I suspect most parents scan the rating and don't really register it, but hopefully if you have it enforced they take more notice because it's legally restricted, therefore it has that rating for a reason and not just for kicks.

It's not about stopping kids having fun, intruding on your life or whatever you want to call it. It's about making sure parents have the power to decide what their kids have and not putting that power where it doesn't belong, i.e. the retailer.

[bzombo]

let's be honest here. few movie theaters enforce the ratings as it is. when they do, they do it poorly. that said, if my teen is going to "do it anyway", then i'd rather it be me they are defying instead of big brother. nothing is perfect. teens will do their thing no matter what, but at that point it is up to how good i have been as a parent. if they go anyway, that's between me and my child, not between my child and big brother.

[bzombo]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

bzombo wrote...
sounds way too intrusive to me.

Hardly. As I've *continually* said, the average person is not affected by the change at all. We Brits have lived in this situation for many years, and we're not a bunch of paranoid grumps who fear this is an Orwe... Oh, wait.

Ahem, but on point. It's not intrusive. As it was mentioned above, minors are not subjected to the same standards and laws as an adult, and this is just another one of those laws. Like I keep saying, children cannot buy most restricted products at all on both sides of the pond, and that's for a good reason. Games like Leisure Suite Larry and Manhunt are not appropriate for minors at all, and as such we have legal ratings in place to minimise their exposure or ability to obtain these games.

The parent should be responsible and ever alert of what the child is playing/watching, and not the government. By legally enforcing the ratings from an outside company (PEGI, ESRB, BBFC etc), they help the parents make proper decisions about what their child can or cannot have. As a guideline, I suspect most parents scan the rating and don't really register it, but hopefully if you have it enforced they take more notice because it's legally restricted, therefore it has that rating for a reason and not just for kicks.

It's not about stopping kids having fun, intruding on your life or whatever you want to call it. It's about making sure parents have the power to decide what their kids have and not putting that power where it doesn't belong, i.e. the retailer.

the point of my argument is that the parent should make the decision, not the government. parents should be involved in what their kids do. if they are not, that should be their problem and no one else's. the government should not concern itself with making decisions for parents. legally enforcing a guideline(my idea of too violent is not the same as yours) is making the choice for the parent. i do not like that. however, what england does is a whole other thing since i do not live there. all i can say is i do not agree with the premise.

[Loerwyn]

bzombo wrote...
the point of my argument is that the parent should make the decision, not the government. parents should be involved in what their kids do. if they are not, that should be their problem and no one else's. the government should not concern itself with making decisions for parents. legally enforcing a guideline(my idea of too violent is not the same as yours) is making the choice for the parent. i do not like that. however, what england does is a whole other thing since i do not live there. all i can say is i do not agree with the premise.

You're not getting it. This law changes it so that the supply of rated video games is the responsibility of the parents and makes the store not responsible in this situation. The store will only get fined if they (I believe) directly supply the games to the children.
Parents have no choice over whether something is legally enforced, that is the choice of the government. The guideline is exactly as it sounds, a guide as to what is in the game. The age ratings come in when someone is trying to buy that game. A 16 year old cannot buy an 18 rated game (It'd be M over there, perhaps?), but they can buy anything from any rating under their age. The government is not telling you what you can or cannot do. They are moving the responsibility for the supply of restricted video games to the correct party; i.e. the parents.

[Wicked 702]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

bzombo wrote...
the point of my argument is that the parent should make the decision, not the government. parents should be involved in what their kids do. if they are not, that should be their problem and no one else's. the government should not concern itself with making decisions for parents. legally enforcing a guideline(my idea of too violent is not the same as yours) is making the choice for the parent. i do not like that. however, what england does is a whole other thing since i do not live there. all i can say is i do not agree with the premise.

You're not getting it. This law changes it so that the supply of rated video games is the responsibility of the parents and makes the store not responsible in this situation. The store will only get fined if they (I believe) directly supply the games to the children.
Parents have no choice over whether something is legally enforced, that is the choice of the government. The guideline is exactly as it sounds, a guide as to what is in the game. The age ratings come in when someone is trying to buy that game. A 16 year old cannot buy an 18 rated game (It'd be M over there, perhaps?), but they can buy anything from any rating under their age. The government is not telling you what you can or cannot do. They are moving the responsibility for the supply of restricted video games to the correct party; i.e. the parents.

Well said sir. I agree 100%.