Georgia Guv Candidate Promises Video Game Legislation

September 27, 2006 -

In Georgia, Lieutenant Governor Mark Taylor is now making a bid for the top job. The Democrat is running TV spots promising to legislate video games.

It's the second ad we've seen in the last 24 hours that seems to equate the threat of violent video games with that posed by online predators. The other is from Ed Perlmutter (see following article) from Colorado.


Comments

Hi all, yuki here.

This is Why the industry needs to be activly taking legal action, shit like this. It's defamatory to the industry, based on lies and misinformation, and equates two compltely seperate issues together.

I swear if the ESA doesn't get busy I suggest we all start a campaign to get them fired and replaced with someone who gives a fuck about the industry.

PS. While I don't like his "Think of the children" bs, I do have to agree with one thing. That whole Death Peanalty for repeat child molesters thing would be a good idea if it was a public execution broadcast on tv.

Pornographic games? What games like that are sold in any store?

They are showing kids grabbing video games off the shelves like candy. (one of which is GUN.)

- Warren Lewis

Consumer responsibility is just as important as Corporate responsibility. So, be responsible consumers.

They are showing kids grabbing video games off the shelves like candy. (one of which is GUN.)

This message got hit by spam filters and thought it was spam.

- Warren Lewis

Consumer responsibility is just as important as Corporate responsibility. So, be responsible consumers.

ohhhh great... video game legislation IS becoming the new political hot button topic. Expecting Jack Thompson "press release" in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...
---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

This "demonization" of video games is increasing to the point of being absurd. I don't think it's quite as fun anymore. If I'm walking down the street with a gameboy am I going to have to explain to people that I'm NOT actually a serial rapist?

why is it half the ads I see make my blood boil...I cant even bear to watch BObby cockers senate ads here in TN,I swear all the basrad did while he was mayor was buy and sell land....

what a douche.

first amendment wins everytime.

"violent and pornographic video games"

Interesting how that connection is being made more and more. Does anyone know if any of the court challenges to violent video games used that connection yet?

Then again, is it that hard to supervise your kid? Or better yet use the vast number of programs and services that already aid in supervision?

I wonder how long it took the 1960s generation to get rock and roll in the mainstream. Video games are our equivelant in that they're new, 'scary' and different.

Yeah he's very unlikely to win. Sonny Perdu pretty much is favored to win.

Lol again with the Pronographic video games, do these people even do their homework? Or is there a handbook you get when you join the bandwaggon brigade that has common phrases used, and best targets to blame for crimes commited by minors. Was it me or did that store the two kids grabbed a copy of Gun in look like a Blockbuster?

Yeah, I was going to vote for him, til I saw this. Tis not fair, both our Guv candidates suck. The current one isn't too great, but no way I'm voting for an idiot like this.

Leaving aside the "violent and pornographic videogames" for a minute, how does he plan to "make it easier for parents to block pornographic websites"? Admirable as the sentiment is in theory, it's a technical problem, not a political one.

Oh, and whoever wrote the copy for that ad has a poor grasp of syntax. The last bit, "...and the death penalty for repeat child molesters" is missing a verb, making it seem like he actually wants to *outlaw* the death penalty for repeat child molesters, since "outlaw" is the preceding verb. Nice going.

I still want to see some of these easly availble pornagraphic videogames.

Do people who make commercials and movies just not use computers or something? Because I'm pretty sure that has yet to beep at me while text scrolled across the screen all futuristic and Matrix-y.

Oh and I *love* that we've been associated with child molesters too.

"Leaving aside the 'violent and pornographic videogames' for a minute, how does he plan to 'make it easier for parents to block pornographic websites'?"

He doesn't have to. Internet Explorer has a Content Advisor setting, coupled with the fact that services such as NetNanny exist. It doesn't get any easier to block porn on the internet than that, unless they passed that proposition that all pornographic websites should have a domain suffix of .xxx (blocking an entire suffix is the easiest thing to do when it comes to custom filters) which they didn't because they thought it would make porn more easily accessable (as if that wasn't easy enough, thanks Google).

What a nutjob. Since when can you go into a store an buy a "pornographic video game" in the first place? That'll be the day. Yes, that'll be the day, indeed... :D

Anyway, after the video game part, the "DEATH PENALTY FOR CHILD MOLESTERS!!" part shocked me. Whatever happened to the days when you told your kids not to go to creepy Mr. Smith's house and then sent them outside to play? :P Just kidding. I just don't like the death penalty very much.

The mere idea that this guy is putting together in his political ads (and hensforth in some way comparing) online sexual predators with violent video games is absolutly disgusting. A child playing GTA: SA is nowhere even near that of a child talking to somebody online, then going to meet them and being sexually molested and abused. Shit, it's not even comparable as one of then doesn't even cause harm.
Not to mention all these laws have been struck down as the 100% unconstitutional pieces of shit they are and will just flatout waste taxpayers money defending in court (as well as paying the plantiffs lawyer fees when it's struck down). I really hope this guy loses the election for Governor as playing the "protect the children", lets scapegaot the new guy in entertainment for all our kids problems bullshit is the lowest form of political manuvering and vote pandering.

As a current GA resident who works on political campaigns, I can say that this doesn't surprise me one bit. Many of the people who in Ga who equate video games with online pedophelia are the same uninformed numbnuts who still think Iraq blew up the WTC.

Sadly, Mark Taylor is the best Gubernatorial candidate that GA Dems can come up with; Cathy Cox was looking decent there for a while, but she really blew it towards the end of the pre-primary period. Both Taylor and Perdue are good ol' boys who are just telling their idiot constituencies what they want to hear; how exactly does Tayor plan to make it easier for parents to block porn sites?

Here's what I'd like to see: Mark Tayor (or perhaps a Dem with some balls) to say "The internet should be a safe haven for free speech, and parents are responsible for monitoring their childrens' online activities." A pipe dream to be sure, but it sure would be nice to hear once in a while!

"Mark Taylor will make the sale or rental of mature or adult-rated video games illegal to children 17 years or younger illegal. will apply the same standards to stores that sell violent and pornographic video games that we already apply to R-rated movies."

I got this off his election website, What Mr. Mark Taylor doesn't seem to understand is that the MPAA rating system is NOT enforced by law. It's volunatary just like the ESRB rating system. Obviously this moron has no idea what he's talking about. He should stick to the issues he understands.

Mark doesn't get it: the internet isn't evil, it's just a series of tubes.

“Mark Taylor will make the sale or rental of mature or adult-rated video games illegal to children 17 years or younger illegal. will apply the same standards to stores that sell violent and pornographic video games that we already apply to R-rated movies.”

Okay If I am not mistaken 85 % of the time an M rated game is bought by the parent. So making it illegal for children 17 years or younger to buy the game, hardly helps. And it is also unconstitutional to do so.

And I truly wonder where Mark gets his pornographic games from. In America they don't even sell those games in the stores as far as I know. When something is rated AO, it is no longer carried by most stores. Let me guess, he is referring to GTA again. GTA didn't contain pornographic images at all, not even with Hot Coffee. Since when is dryhumping pornographic? And you needed to download a mod to even see this in the first place. When parents don't want their children to do this, don't give them an M rated game. Also don't give them access to the Internet when you aren't there to monitor them. And when you don't have the time to do this, don't take any children. Don't expect the rest of the world to do the parenting for you. Our hobby shouldn't have to suffer because some parents are too lazy to parent their own children.

normally,i would support legislation to defend children from Predators,(i use that term because"Pedophile" merely refers to an adult atttracted to children,and should not be used directly as a synonym for a child-molesting criminal) but chances are,these politicians are so detached from the subject that they will pass legislation that will not only limit the internet's first amendment,but fail to defend children.

Zomg,look at the first comment here


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVeUwnjhZU8&eurl=

Hahahahah!

Well, protecting our kids from pornographic sites and videogames is good and all, but how long until they decide they must "protect" our kids (and eventually every citizen) from sites, games, or other media that promote free thought and opinion?

Wait wait I got one.

Ok I have ATV Off Road Fury 3 this game can be called a atv simulator if Jack Thompson wants to call all games that. That doesn't mean I'm going to go outside and try jumping 200 feet while doing a back flip with it. It also doesn't mean I'm going to go chasing after a tornado with my atv just to be thrown a mile away to a different part of a track.

Or the Deer Hunter games, I don't hunt animals it's just something I don't find fair and challenging. But give it to me in a game and I go off hunting for the animals with no remorse whats-so-ever.

I play SOCOM Navy Seals but that doesn't mean I'm going to go enlist in the navy seals to become one.

I Play HotShots Golf but I can't stand real Golf just because I play a game about it doesn't meen I'm going to play the real thing.

I Play AIRSOFT!!! OMG this is an outdoors game which me and all of my friends have guns that look so real that the only way to tell they arn't is buy the orange tip that the law makes them have. We play all the time shooting each other. Doing different senerios like POW, All Against All, Terroist Vs Seals, Defuse Bombs, Capture the Flag. We play these games which teach us to aim a gun and shoot the other people with tiny plastic BBs that hurt when you get shot. But we don't do it for training to take out someone with real guns, we do it because it's fun and exciting. The same reason we play GTA:VC & SA it's fun but we know it's not real.

The first commerical GP posted was the sort I'd expect someone who wants to protect the children and really knows nothing about law or philosophy to put together. This one was blatantly manipulative. Add creepy music and bad lighting to push how those there internets is dadgum evil!

I tried reading his site for specific on his proposals. It seems he wants to give government subsidies to filtering software, which seems doable but messy and uneccesary considering it's not terribly expensive anyway and I'd think anyone who could afford internet service could afford it.

He wants to ban the sale of M and AO rated games to minors. As previously mentioned, he doesn't seem to be familiar with the court cases about similar video game legislation, which have rules the science isn't nearly strong enough to justify an exception to first ammendment and that you can't give private bodies legal powers (it's a violation of separation fo powers), or even standing laws about movies.

His proposal for execution of child molestors is frighteningly vague. It's two strikes and you're out. He doesn't specify any particular crimes or categories that would qualify, so presumably any sort of offense with a minor could count. Here in Iowa, where we've recently gotten tough on sex offenders, it's become clear that lots of things will get you on the registry, including walking outside naked to get your paper. It's bad enough numerous people who commited fairly minor offenses many years ago can't get a job or live anywhere. This guy wants to execute them, too.

Somewhat off the topic of videogames, his "death penalty for repeat child molesters" is an interesting idea, but one that won't be accepted. People have enough qualms for giving the dealth penalty to brutal killers, they'll never accept it for someone who hasn't actually killed anyone. And for that matter, I'd be interested in how he defines "repeat child molesters." I'm all for strong punishment against molesters, but I'd want to be careful.

Well it comes no surprise to me that they are equating video games to porn again. Our parents and grandparents generation has been saying that about games, anime, and rock and roll for decades.

What's hillarious is a person who claims to be caring for the kids. I have not seen one elected official give a damn about our children or their educations or anything ever. The people you see giving a damn are non-profits and organizations of parents concerned about their children and trying to make up for the deficiencies in the national school system, flaws which state and government agencies have yet to ever fix. Every election these morons go around stating they'll do this and they'll do that, and then when they are elected, they blow the state surplus on things that won't benefit anyone but probably medicare people. Not to say medicare is bad, or the elderly, or such, but in retrospect, we spend more money as a nation on healthcare and old people than we do our children. I don't have numbers, but I'm sure if I looked them up they'd be close. For these idiots to think that people will vote for them because they'll fix an issue that affects 4% of the total population is retarded. How many cases do you actually see people killing people over violent media? Columbine was the last I knew with direct links.

The Internet, like the rest of the world, is perfectly safe if you are safe about it. Maybe Mother should be taking an active role in Daughter's life so then she might notice that she's been using 14 sexualy suggestive screennames on AIM to talk to strangers on the internet, arranging to meet them in the mall. Guess she won't realize the folly in that action until said stranger kidnaps Daughter and kills her. True story in Connecticut.

Ugh. More televised scaremongering to push an agenda. Reminds me of the "anti-terroism" commercials I saw on Fox on Sunday. Wish I could get a link to it, but a through search of YouTube and Google Video turned up nothing.

"When a child is on the internet..."

Parents should know what there children are doing.

"Death to Child Molestors" ....? WTF? Isn't that a bit harsh? Is he projecting a bit much? I thought castrations of sorts worked well. I guess I was incredibly wrong. Shamefully, even.

its not the governments job to ban those games

if the kids parents are too dumb to let them rent it then its not the games fault for whats in it its the parents for being dumbasses

same for the internet
if a parent doesnt know what there kid is doing then we have a major problem

Leave it to the government to decide what games children should play. Naturally this cant be left up to the parents who should probably be watching their children anyways. When it comes right down to it violent video games and the internet arent the problem, theyve always been there. Its your bad parenting and neglect that allow your kids to roam freely through the world of Liberty City and San Andreas. If I was asked whether to purchase a game entitled "Grand Theft Auto" (A felony in ALL states mind you) my last response would be "Sure timmy, but not past bedtime :3 ".

As far as the internet goes I dont think anyone should allow their child unlimited access to the internet, thats just a bad idea on the parents fault again. The internet contains way too much information you dont even want you child watching on television, why would you let them be exposed to it online?

The whole issue about our youth being corrupted stems from the already corrupt government trying to place blame on an easy target. Its just a shame they cant use their "power" to help better society.

Who cares about the ban of video games sales to children.

DEATH PENELTY FOR REPEAT CHILD MOLESTERS

HELL YES

well this is just another retard not thinking before he acts

Well, hold on now. This governor, while he does have a conservative slant, should not be slandered for doing something sensible (death penalty aside, I don't agree with state-sponsored murder).

We can all agree that children whose age is in the single digits should not play Mature games, nor should they watch pornography. The notion of a nine-year old playing 'God of War' is a little disturbing (for those who don't know, here's how God of War works: in any other game, you'd shoot down a harpy. In God of War, you jump on the harpy's back, tear out its wings, and break its spine, all the blood and gore included). Nor should a ten year-old be watching something like 'Kitty Kitty Bang Bang.'

While some say that it should be up to the parents, the parents are only human. I'm sure there are plenty of cases where they could use some help.

However, don't take me as a conservative. The older you are, the more fluid are the rules. For example, I'm not yet a major (18+), but I played Diablo 2 in all its violent glory (in fact, my parents even bought it for me) because I knew that I was mature enough to handle it when I was 15, despite the fact that it was rated mature.
In conclusion, this man should not be lambasted for trying to do the right thing within a conservative view. Besides, I don't think he's relating the two; the unifying theme in the commercial is 'Protect our Children' not 'Video Games = Child Molestors'.

Azarias. Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't said "single digit-aged minor" have parents who make those kinds of decisions? At that age, it's highly unlikely that the kid would get their hands on anything that the parents didn't put directly in their hands. And let's face it, once it gets to that point, politics has done all that it can.

It's a little thing called responsibility, it's kinda important. Yes, there are accidents, and yes, things happen that shouldn't. HOWEVER, do you honestly think that any game retailer worth anything is going to put an M-rated game like God of War in the hands of an eight year old without their parents present?

Enable parents to block pornographic websites? Stop minors from buying violent or pornographic video games? YOU CAN ALREADY DO THESE THINGS.
I know I'm not allowed to purchase R rated games at 14. Even my 18-year-old sister has been asked for ID when buying an R16 game. At school, we have filters on the computers, and they are pretty damn effective. It has never been possible for me to visit questionable websites, and believe me, I've tried. So I really don't know what he's proposing to do.

"The notion of a nine-year old playing ‘God of War’ is a little disturbing..."

Yet the notion of that same nine-year old watching a movie like Sin City doesn't bother you at all? The problem isn't just that this guy is trying to legislate games, it's that he is trying to legislate ONLY games, and not other potentially harmful forms of media like movies, TV, etc.

And before you ask, no, there is no law that says a minor can't buy an R-rated movie. The MPAA is 100% voluntary, just like the ESRB. Not only that, but a relativly recent FTC study showed that it is easier for a minor to buy an R-rated movie than an M-rated game. What do you have to say about that?

If this guy HONESTLY CARED about children, he would work on education first. Did you know that... I think it's 7? Percent of people in america can't read above a 4th grade level? And my schools budget has been cut AT LEAST 3 times. Now we can barely have an end of school party, and we had to lose some teachers. Now our class sizes are about 30-40 kids a class, and they were at MOST 20 2 years ago.

And back to video games: I play plenty of video games, and I'm not violent at all. Sometimes I get mad at people for being stupid, but then, I AM (Not trying to brag, my IQ is 181, sorry if that sounds like bragging) overly smart. I just wish people would THINK before they say something. Anyway, It isn't fair to associate Real-Life violence with video game violence. That's like saying that because I looked at a Burger King, Im gonna work there when I'm older. Ah well, can't change other people, but really?

All I'm asking you to do is THINK. Just. Think.

And people ask me why I want to move to Ohio...maybe I should start sending them links to this page.

I'm inclined to agree with JChaos on this one, it is the responsibility of the parent to raise the child, not the entertainment industry. As an individual who grew up playing video games, I have an interesting perspective on the issue at stake here: Do video games lead to violent behavior? Firstly, most of the "hardcore" gamers who would take most offense at this ad (which I do feel equates video game retailers with child molesters) grew up, like me, with systems like Sega Genesis, Nintendo, Super Nintendo, Playstation, Game boy and such. It is important to realize that violent video games are somewhat of a recent commonality, and most of my favorite games were no more violent than Sonic the Hedgehog or Donkey Kong. The Legend of Zelda series carries the weight of some fantasy violence, but no more so than anyone can see on saturday morning cartoons. This ad offends me becuase, while I currently favor titles such as Halo or God of War, such games were not exactly my style growing up. Why? I think that it is somewhat natural for a young person to be scared of extreme instances of violence as someone being gunned down or torn to bits. With my adult(ish) intellect, i am capable of drawing a line between reality and fiction, but a younger, more impressionable person may not. I remember such an age when the screams of dying marines in Starcraft made me shudder. My point (convoluted, though it may seem) is this: if children in the single-digit age bracket are demanding entertainment in the form of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City or Quake 4, obviously, their parents have failed in allowing them to be desensitized to the point at which these games no longer terrify them.

However, I do allow parents some absolution. The Federal government, in concert with major news outlets has done a phenominal job extolling the virtues of "righteous violence" (which, might I add, is subjective, Mr. President. But I digress.) that I can easily understand why a young person may have difficulty discerning what manner of violent behavior is appropriate (scarcely any) and which is not. I feel the need to point out that the nearly all forms of news media spew forth mountains of violence and grotesque violations of human decency on a daily basis. (with cnn offering us Violence On The Hour (tm)) The world is a violent place, to be sure, but I certainly don't distinguish between nightly reports of suicide bombings and escaped serial rapists, and say, the latest Hollywood action flick. Why bother? I fail to see any reason why i should spend money on a movie ticket or rental for a horror flick when i can be terrified out of my wits by the birds out my window-which according to Fox News- are going to kill me with the Avian Flu virus. There we are; I'm terrified and i didn't even have to leave the couch.

I realize that i have digressed far more than i had intended to, but the point needed to be made: don't try to blame video games for violent behavior, when there is more violence every day on the evening news; and don't blame video game retailers for parents who are too busy to raise their own children and would rather have the television do it for them.

Terminator: Just because I omit something doesn't mean I support it. For example, I didn't mention the fact that I condone the Holocaust in that little diatribe, but that doesn't mean I support it. I don't think that an eight year old should be watching Sin City.

Semicolon: Congratulations, you have responsible parents. Lucky you. Know, what should we do for those who don't, hm? Granted, legislature doesn't work in one hundred percent of all cases, but every little bit helps.

Ufosde: Remember, he's trying to get elected. Take everything he says with a grain of salt. He's addressing a hot-button issue where, if he actually does follow through on his promise, it will do some good. Maybe not a lot, but some. (On a personal note, IQ is meaningless. Isaac Asimov wrote an essay on it. Go read it.)

JChaos: You admit that accidents do happen. Well, what's wrong with trying to limit these accidents?

One has to understand that I'm not endorsing this candidate; I dislike politicians in general. However, the idea behind his promise (protecting children) is worthy of merit.

Also, I understand that laws don't work one hundred percent of the time. Despite legal limits, children under 18 are still getting ahold of cigarettes. Does that mean we should scrap the age requirements on buying cigarettes entirely? Obviously not.

Hahaha... I love the line about making it illegal to supply mature-rated content to minors.

Posting as a UK citizen... we have that kind of legistlation here for age-restricted games (and movies, videotapes/DVDs, literature, alcohol, cigarettes, gasoline/paraffin/butane, other items such as knives, solvents, spraypaint, etc) and A FAT LOT OF GOOD IT DOES TOO. Some people respect it. Most cannot give a crap, and apply their own moral code, either being more strict, or finding ways around the law in the name of leniency (in the face of what they see as overly restrictive governance).

It doesn't apply so much to games, as only a few are subject to the same type of legally binding BBFC ratings as movies/videos (those with explicit content in cutscene videos, i think?), but the highly questionable effectiveness of both voluntary game ratings so far, and long-standing, legally binding ones on other media and other goods should give this fruitcake pause for thought.

Help help! I'm being opressed! I am sick of people using videogames and the media as the scapegoat. When it comes right down to it, if the parents are too busy to watch their childrens access to the internet, or pay attention to what videogame they are buying, the parent should be smart enough to remove the problem. Password protect the computer and take the videogames away. Stop blaming everyone else for your inablillity to raise your own children properly. As for the 'death penalty for repeat child molesters', people already have a problem with killing dangerous criminals. Let alone people who haven't killed anyone. Granted, I am completely against child molesters, but this is crossing the line.

Azarias are you seriously comparing cigerettes to violent video games. That's like comparing drinking a coke to snorting cocaine.
First off Cigerettes aren't Free Speech. They don't express ideas, information, messgaes, opinions and viewpoints.
Second of all there is strong, constistant, undisputable evidence proving that cigerettes are harmful. There is no such evidence when it comes to violent video games and harm to minors. At best all the evidence shows is a weak correlation and the use of dubious and reduculous proxies (eg. hitting plastic dolls, giving noise blasts and popping balloons) to determine aggressive or violent behavior.
Thirdly the whole parents can't be around their kids 24/7 is not an excuse for government regulation in our lives. Religious parents who don't want their kids reading Harry Potter novels can't be around 24/7 to make sure their kids aren't reading them. Shouldn't we have a law barring the sale of Harry Potter novels to minors because some parents don't want their kids reading them. What about atheist or jewish or muslim parents who don't want their kids reading the Bible. Shouldn't we ban the Bible to them also. The fact of the matter is if we are going to ban the sale of materials to minors SOLELY because some parents find them unsuitable or inappropriate and they can't be around 24/7 to make sure they don't get ahold of them, we'd have to ban the sale or everything and anything out there to minors as everything out there is likely to be found unsuitable in the eyes of some parent.
Fouthly, young single digit aged kids don't go around ON THERE OWN with $50 in hand to the local video game retailer to buy the latest copy of GTA. Shit the only place single digit kids should be able to go to one thier own without an adult is around the local neiborhood (sorry spelling sucks), and no single digit aged kid should have anywhere near enough to buy a video game on them.
Fifthly, every single law of this kind has been struck down as an unconstitutional restriction on minors Free Speech rights in every single court it's gone to. By proposing this law the GOV candidate is just going to waste precious taxpayers dollars that could be going to something that's actually important and meaningful. Both on their own defence of the law in court and having to pay the plantiffs lawyer's fees when they lose. Just like Indianapolis and Illinois.

[quoted from Azarias] "Semicolon: Congratulations, you have responsible parents. Lucky you. Know, what should we do for those who don’t, hm? Granted, legislature doesn’t work in one hundred percent of all cases, but every little bit helps."

Even if this guy somehow made it easier for parents to block sites and/or stop kids from buying video games, the ones without parents responsible enough to do it now aren't going to benefit at all, are they? If they won't take simple steps to ensure their child's 'safety' now, then they aren't going to just because this man said so.

i don't think ads have ever been aired before.


Hopefully,this will force the ESA to notice and take retaliatory measures
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
quiknkoldI'm 7 years old, and my cousin(Also 7, maybe 8 at this time) tells me has Battletoads. its Summer Vacation. We play and play and play until finally, We won coop. Those were the days.09/23/2014 - 5:29pm
quiknkoldlets take a moment to share some gaming memories, shall we?09/23/2014 - 5:28pm
MechaTama31I buy stuff off the eshop because it gives me the convenience of a flashcart without the guilt.09/23/2014 - 5:03pm
Montewell thanks for the info Eisen; try that the next time i need something off the eshop09/23/2014 - 3:54pm
james_fudgere: MP, i've sent tech support a note - thank you :)09/23/2014 - 3:14pm
IanCNah that wasnt directed at you Andrew :)09/23/2014 - 3:00pm
Papa MidnightRe: SIEGE 2014 Keynote: oh dear...09/23/2014 - 2:44pm
MaskedPixelanteDear GP, something called "doubleverify" is causing some nasty browser issues on my end. Probably one of your ads.09/23/2014 - 2:36pm
Andrew EisenOh hell no. No, it took Nintendo a dog's age just to get to the point its competitors have been at for a while! (And it's still not there yet, in a lot of respects.)09/23/2014 - 2:26pm
IanCSame as PSN handles it, fi you are trying to say only nintendo do that.09/23/2014 - 2:23pm
Andrew EisenYou have to try to purchase something first. Pick a game, hit purchase and if your wallet doesn't have enough to cover it, you'll be given an option to "add exact funds" or something like that.09/23/2014 - 2:05pm
MonteI have seen no option for that on my 3DS; anytime i want to add funds it only gives me the option to add in denominations of $10, 20, 50 or 10009/23/2014 - 2:03pm
IanCWhat Andrew Wilson said. PSN is the same when you make a purchase over a certain price (£5 in the UK)09/23/2014 - 2:02pm
Andrew EisenNeither eShop charges sales tax either. At least in California.09/23/2014 - 2:00pm
Andrew EisenBoth Wii U and 3DS eShops allow you to add funds in the exact amount of whatever's in your shopping cart. If your game is $39.99, you can add exactly $39.99.09/23/2014 - 1:57pm
Infophile@Matthew Wilson: As I understand it, any regulations to force tax online would also set up an easy database for these stores to use, minimizing overhead.09/23/2014 - 1:30pm
MonteReally, the eshop just does next to nothing to make buying digitally advantagous for the customer. Its nice to have the game on my 3DS, but i can get more for less buying a physical copy at retail. And that's not even counting buying used09/23/2014 - 1:18pm
MonteIanC, The Eshop wallet system only lets you add funds in set denominations and the tax makes sure you no longer have round numbers so you ALWAYS loose money. A $39.99 game for instance requires you to add $50 instead of just $4009/23/2014 - 1:13pm
Matthew Wilsonbut thats just it those sites, even the small ones, sell all over the country.09/23/2014 - 11:12am
Neenekoeither that or it would follow the car model of today. big ticket items are taxed according to your residence, not where you buy them.09/23/2014 - 11:07am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician