GameStop Gets Tough on M-rated Game Sales

GameStop Gets Tough on M-rated Game Sales

February 11, 2007
As reported by Destructoid, leading retailer GameStop recently issued a new, no-nonsense policy to managers and sales associates (and I'm paraphrasing here):
Sell an M-rated game to an underage buyer and you and your manager are both fired... outta here... terminated, with extreme prejudice...

Harsh?

Perhaps, but ratings enforcement among specialty retailers has been lagging behind that of the big box stores, so the timing is right for something like this. Just last week GamePolitics covered another embarrassing retail sting conducted by a T.V. news team from the Washington, D.C. area. An EB Games outlet - owned by GameStop -was among the shops caught making underage sales in the news report.

Readers may recall that GameStop CEO Steve Morgan (left) participated in an ESRB ad blitz last December. The public service campaign was designed to educate parents about game ratings and, surprisingly, enjoyed the support of Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), both longtime critics of the video game industry.

Comments

Fire the employee? Harsh, but fair if they've had a warning.

Fire the manager too? Hell no. That's just asking for disgruntled employees to go out with a bang. Seriously, did anyone even stop to think this through?
"That’s just asking for disgruntled employees to go out with a bang."

Not just that. Disgruntled customers could call and file a false complaint (like, maybe, some kid who got turned away when trying to buy, and read about this online...). Or pranksters. Or busybodies like he-who-can-not-be-named could make false claims out of spite.
No kidding. I really have to wonder what they were thinking with that "and your manager" bit.
Not only when buying games. They have to have an adult with ID to trade in M rated games too. How much sense does that make? "You've already got it, but you aren't old enough to have it!"
I have to say, this is NOT what the ratings system was invented for. Use it to educate parents about the content of the game, and make rough recommendations for the ages that chould handle it. Why should the selling of M-rated games to kids be considered a failure? That line of thinking is, "We'll practice censorship so the government doesn't have to." All Gamestop is doing is engaging big-box stores in a race to the bottom. These stores should call off the age restrictions, and leave it entirely to parental discretion. The game industry, meanwhile, should make more of an effort to educate parents about the rating system, but it should be more along the lines of, "This is what is in a game with this rating," without passing value judgments on whether or not kids should be playing them. Politicians often accuse retailers of only caring about their bottom lines. I agree-they would rather sacrifice constitutional rights to free speech and take away some poor kid's job rather than face a fine under a possible law that will never hold up in court.
Fire the employee is understandable, if rather draconian. Fire the manager is just plain stupid. The fire the employee thing will dissuade employees from disregarding the age rating in the name of making a sale. The flip side is that it'll leave potential for people to be punished for honest mistakes, and vengeful customers. Firing the manager however will just start leaving them short on managers. Yes it'll get managers to stress the age ratings more in training, but managers are harder to replace than sales clerks. And the manager is going to have less control over sales than the clerk will.

Not to mention this'll leave Gamestop managers at the mercy of disgruntled employees. I mean, if you'd had enough of your job and were ready to quit, wouldn't you like a way to cost your manager his job?
I strongly suspect that the fire everyone and their dog toto too policy is a scare tactic to get the attention of the manager and the employees who might not have been taking store policy too seriously. Fire a few people, get their attentions and then, quietly, de-enforce the policy so you don't have an unreasonable amount of management churn.
@Mr. Blond. By implementing this tough new policy, GameStop is in fact ensuring that the purchase of M-rated games for children is left entirely to parental discretion. Without a policy in place that prevents minors from purchasing M-rated games the purchase decision is no longer left to the parent, it rests entirely with the child. The 18+ policies ensure that a parent or guardian (or anyone over 18) must be present to purchase the game with the child, ensuring that an adult was involved in the decision to purchase the game.

Certainly, it is possible for a child to find someone out there besides their parents to enter the store and purchase the game for them, but frankly thats a minor problem with a good solution that avoids legislation. I can't speak for the policy of firing managers, at first glance it seems like it may be a bit draconian. GameStop does however, have far more experience running retail outlets than I do, and if these measures help increase the minor denial rate, and get the legislators off the backs of the game industry I'm all for it.

Just remember, retail policies can be changed relatively quickly and easily, legislation is significantly more difficult.
Wow, fire the employees and the manager? Isn't that a little anal? I mean, honestly, thats a little to damn harsh IMO.
@magi

They are also acting as if they are forced by law to not sell them to minors and will send the wrong message to everyone that its a restricted substance to minors like pron.I know if someone walks up to me to buy a game and its say rated T and they are 9 years old (its happened) i would have no problems with selling the kid the product same goes for any game.

By acting like its a actual law it wont be long before it will become a actual law(same thing happened with seat belts years back)if anything this will cause many spite false claims resulting in innocent folks being terminated.

If you support garbage like this you are just as bad as a dictator plain and simple.
Vengeful employee anyone?
If GameStop in fact intends to enforce this policy as described, it will result in a slew of wrongful termination lawsuits from the managers. As many people have said here already, this is clearly a knee-jerk policy that doesn't take into account the multitude of ways in which it can be abused. It is up to parents to be responsible enough to ensure their kids are playing the appropriate games for their age. If they are not, they have only themselves to blame. I also find it unfair that these same managers will also be held accountable for the inevitable drop in sales of some M rated titles that this will result in.
As Mauler suggests, it's most likely hyperbole to get the attention of managers. The M-rated game sales issue is nothing new and the fact that it is getting "worse" at specialty retailers is a red flag that drastic measures need to be taken to save face. It's quite laughable that big box retailers like Target can enforce their policies, but the small boutiques like GameStop can't. This is their wake up call.
Fire the manager?

Dare them to try here in Connecticut.

There would be a lawsuit so fast, it would make your head spin. As well as a Labor Dept. complaint filed.
This bs political pandering on behalf of Steve Morgan is ridiculous. Just giving the company another excuse to axe people without proper justification to save money before quarterly results. There is no reason a store manager should be fired if one of his employees sells an M-rated game to a minor if the manager isn't even present. Typical of the company to resort to hysterics though, ever since Morgan took the helm.

I was told by an EB Manager, that his regional manager informed them that soon, the point of service software will not only soon auto-prompt for an age verification via ID of the customer, but they will also require the employee to punch in a customer's motor vehicle ID which will then be stored in the company database attached to the customer's name. The day this company thinks they can store that info just because I want to make a purchase is the day they get slammed with major lawsuits. Someone doesn't have their head screwed on properly.
Uh, don't act so shocked.

This is GameStop we're talking about, they treat all of their employees like crap, and only care about the customer's money. That's. It. You want to talk about unfair and harsh, ask me about my old GS manager when I worked there last year, and then ask me all about my own stories about being stepped on by "The Man".

@TheGreg

"Not only when buying games. They have to have an adult with ID to trade in M rated games too. How much sense does that make? “You’ve already got it, but you aren’t old enough to have it!”"

You don't know much about GameStop, do you?

That's for everyone, it has nothing to do with M-rated games, and if anyone tells you otherwise they're BSing you. GameStop's trade-ins work under pawn shop law, which means you MUST be 17 or older to make a trade-in. You're also required to fill out a section of paper with your name, address, driver's licence etc. It has nothing to do with GameStop's regulations, just what the pawn shop law is in whatever state it's located in- in which the laws are normally the same.

Keep in mind that's a LAW, not a policy.

Everyone's getting so hyped up over this... It's just like the policies a majority of movie theatre's have for the ratings, and no one's bitching about that.
This is one of thows things where it sounds good on paper. But in practice, it falls short. This policy has many loop holes that could be exploited by consumers and employees. As some of you have said, it can be used by employees to have the manager fired as an other employee takes one for the team so to speek. Then as for customers, yes, it may get parents to read the ESRB ratings on the box, but then again they might not. All this policy is really doing is just making shure that a kid has the parent pressent if they want a game. It dosn't say any thing about the parents having to understand what the ratings meen. But in my oppinion, this is just a cheep way for GameStop to cover their butts after geting "caught" in the sting.
@Yoshiko

"Everyone’s getting so hyped up over this… It’s just like the policies a majority of movie theatre’s have for the ratings, and no one’s bitching about that."

Mind listing what movie theater chains have a policy of firing both the employee and the MANAGER if an underage kid gets let into an R-rated movie?
As someone who has been a manager (not at gamestop), I am appalled that there has been no one so far speak up to defend this policy.

As a manager, you are responsible for what your employee does, and as such you are supposed to know what's going on in your store, in fact, as manager, it's your business to know what's going on in your store. If someone under you is doing something that is against corporate policy, whether or not you know about it, as their superior it is your responsibility. If you don't hold a manager accountable when their employee does something bad, then what are you supposed to hold them accountable for, a managers main job is to manage his/her employees and they are failing that if their employees are screwing up. The same goes opposite actually, if employees under a manager are doing well, then you reward the manager as well.

This policy is just common business management, and just because they phrased it like this doesn't make it any different than normal.
Oy, I guess Gamestop will be the ones inciting a chilling effect. I won't be surprised to see far less M rated games on shelves because managers are too afraid for their jobs.

And as someone said, I won't be surprised if alot of bogus complaints come in,especially in the state of Florida.
And I'll add, I know I can still shop there guilt free since I tend to be honest, and when I get carded, I pass over my card, but a huge amount of customers aren't honest. All it takes is for one employee to be considered rude, and rude is subjective, and bam, bogus complaint.
@yoda

Yes, it is the responsibility of the manager to oversee the operation of the store and its employees. However the policy, as stated here, is to fire both the manager and employee over a single incident of failure to enforce corporate policy. If the employee(s) were to repeatedly sell games to minors then yes, the management should be held accountable just as they should be if an employee were to repeatedly steal noticeable quantities from the cash drawer. Firing the management over a singular incident which he or she likely isn't even present to prevent, however, will result in a slew of wrongful termination lawsuits and encourage the sort of ineffecient and paranoid micromanagement that makes working under some managers insufferable.
@yoda:
As someone who has been a manager (not at gamestop), I am appalled that there has been no one so far speak up to defend this policy.


Don't be. See below.

As a manager, you are responsible for what your employee does, and as such you are supposed to know what’s going on in your store, in fact, as manager, it’s your business to know what’s going on in your store. If someone under you is doing something that is against corporate policy, whether or not you know about it, as their superior it is your responsibility. If you don’t hold a manager accountable when their employee does something bad, then what are you supposed to hold them accountable for, a managers main job is to manage his/her employees and they are failing that if their employees are screwing up.


The policy, as it stands, holds a manager responsible for events entirely outside of his control. For example, if an employee turns rogue and sells an 'M' rated game to a minor, the manager is terminated instantly.

While it is acceptable to hold a manager responsible for repeated mistakes, there is absolutly nothing a manager can do to avoid termination. No amount of training, or diciplinary actions can prevent employees from selling a such a game to children, whether it's a simple mistake or malice (which has plausible deniability).
Dennis, can you check the blockquote tags? They seemed to have stopped working.
I do agree that if they start to fire managers off the hip even when there is clearly no proof of them knowing about a single incident, then there are going to be problems (such as wrongful terminations, etc.) and as such i doubt gamestop will be that unreasonable in enforcing this policy, after all even if the cases are found in favor of gamestop, they will still have spent thousands and potentially lost a good manager (if, of course, that incident was not the norm), and they are out to make money above all else. However, I doubt that they will be quite that strict on this, i still think it's overall a good idea and they have probably had something similar to this for a while, just not this public, nor this well enforced (or actually at all enforced given GS's and EB's history).
This is why I only shop at stores still labeled as EB Games. Yeah, they're one and the same, but For some reason, the employees are more friendly.
An employee violates the policy once, warning.
Same employee violates the policy again, termination.

Multiple employees violating the policy, warning to Manager.
Continued violation of policy by multiple employees, terminate Manager.

That would seem reasonable if that is how Gamestop wanted to do it officially. Their Press Release isn't detailed, so there may be a more specified system that they follow.

Do all Gamestops have video survelliance? How long are recordings kept if any store does have video survelliance? I would think having such recordings would be a protection for employee and manager as well as useful evidence of violation of policy as well.

nightwng2000
NW2K Software
this is more fluster over not wanting bad press than anythign ese....I wish they would be so much effort into selling reasonably I am still annoyed they have stopped selling used PC games.
This is ridiculous that the game stores are coming down on selling games to people because of age. Age has nothing to do with it and there is nothing wrong with people of all ages playing whatever they want. I've been playing very violent video games since the 90's and back then, I was several years underage. I played many M rated games when I was underage and there is nothing wrong with it. I applaud any underage person who plays violent video games. They're appropriate for everybody.
I'm not aware of any stings or firings over kids getting into R rated movies. The analogy is a perfect one, as well. Should we be celebrating this and suggesting the same for theater employees and R-rated movies, or should we asking for a bit of sanity in our society? I'm pretty sure those are the only two options that don't indicate some sort of pointless and retarded (in the literal sense) prejudice against games.
The timing of this is interesting to me because we've been hearing a lot about how the big-name retailers like Best Buy have been nearly flawless at the point of sale. However, we've known the smaller outlets have been much less effective for months now. Anyone else think this a calculated PR move to get their image caught up with the big boys?

@Daniel:

"I played many M rated games when I was underage and there is nothing wrong with it."

I would argue that there are SEVERAL things wrong with you, many of which ARE a direct result of your complete immersion in violent games as a kid.

"I applaud any underage person who plays violent video games. They’re appropriate for everybody."

Do the world a favor. Don't reproduce.
@Daniel

Most retail stores have this policy, so obviously they disagree.

and

"No Daniel, some games are not appropriate for younger audiences. Age is usually a good indicator of development when used in the appropriate context and not treated as a set in stone guide."

Since Daniel can copy and paste posts i figure I can do it to and save some time.
Sounds pretty stupid, and sounds like something gamestop will never actually enforce. You can write a policy but it doesn't matter one bit unless its enforced. This has potential for a lot of abuse, if your an employee, as stated in another post, and you want to get back at your manager and do not care if you lose your job or not, selling an M rated game to a kid would be a good way to do it. These are 6-8$ minimum wage jobs here with disposable employees that can be replaced at any time, so it definitly has the potential for abuse.

I seriously doubt gamestop, given the extremely profit-hungry corporation that it is, would go firing a lot of managers over this. It takes time and resources to train employees and managers, and if they had to keep re-training people and keep re-training people, its going to cost them at some point along the line. Not to mention the time it takes to find someone who actually wants to be a retail manager of one of these stores.

I don't see the issue with trading in M rated games, in NY state at least you have to have a valid drivers license or some form of photo ID and be at least 18 to trade in games of any kind or have a parent with you when trading in games. I believe the 18 and over to trade in games is corporate policy (if you are under 18 you must have a parent with you to trade in games), so I do not see where there would be an issue with a kid trading in a M rated game without a parent.

The REAL issue at hand here is that parents are buying the M rated games for the kids, and NOT knowing what the M means. Kid takes grandparent into gamestop, picks out an M rated game, they pay, kid goes home with the game, seen it at least 20 times or more, happens almost every time I am in an EBgames store. Employees of gamestop make no effort to explain to the clueless parent or guardian that the game is M rated and is not suitable for children under 17 even though the parent is clearly purchasing the game specifically for the child, and the child is the one who will be playing it. I have seen tons of 6-10 year olds get their hands on GTA this way, its just too easy because nearly every parent or grandparent is uninformed, and the employees make no effort whatsoever to inform them. The stores are keeping up with the policy of not selling an M rated game to those under 17, its just that the kids are getting the game via the parents because the parents either don't know or could care less. THAT is how the M rated games are getting into the hands of kids, and anyone who believes otherwise is very naive.

The other options are minor, there aren't too many stores that will let a kid buy an M rated game and I have personally in about 6-7 years of video game shopping never seen a kid ask another person either outside of a store or inside a store to buy an M rated game for them. Sure it probably happens, but the most common way for kids to get their hands on the M rated games is through their parents. Parental responsiblity in the USA is at an all time low and is most of the time non-existant.

Teens are irrelevant, the content in most games barring a few games is nothing worse than they are experiencing in high school. Most of the time when i see a parent buying an M rated game for a kid its a kid ages 5-10. Yes, I have seen grandparents buy GTA for a 5-6 year old boy. M rated games are NOT intended for this audience, something needs to be done to stop this!

I posted this on many message boards and I am going to keep posting so everyone knows the root of this problem.
In esssence I happen to agree with Daniel on this one. I see absolutly no problem whatsoever with older kids and teenagers buying, renting or playing M rated video games.
When it comes to younger kids like those in their single age digits my opinion differs as young children do not yet have the full capability of knowing the difference between reality and fantasy, right and wrong, and/or what is or is not acceptable behaviour in real life situations.

"I would argue that there are SEVERAL things wrong with you, many of which ARE a direct result of your complete immersion in violent games as a kid."

This is just pure assumption on your part though Hayabusa75. I don't consider his constant repeating of himself in nearly every single post he makes nor his inability to get other people's responses to his posts to be the fault of him playing violent games as a kid and until their is a direct proven link you can't say that they are.
As for his unhealthly obsession with violent video games, i think this has more to do with Daniel's psyche (genetical or developmental disposition) then with violent video games scrambling his brain circuits as a child. I still think that Daniel had Asberger's Syndrome even if he claims he doesn't.
The difference between store policy and legislation is that store's create their policy based solely on the level of rating. They don't do it based on a judgement of content or appropriateness but rather a blind following of an age rated system. Should DVDs and other content follow the same rule? I don't see why not.

But legislation is designed, and openly claimed by politicians, to be based on what they feel is or is not appropriate for other people's children. They openly pass judgment on content and games, both in general and specifically.

As I've said before, it sucks to be a kid. But there are Parents who DO want stores to have such policies. And while some individuals complain about the inconvience, there are just as many who would complain about the lack of policies.

Yes, there are some Parents who make decisions that other individuals wouldn't make. I would prefer they make those decisions informed, in part, if not fully. Are all games safe for all kids? It isn't possible to make such a statement. Can anyone say that a particular game or a particular type of game is inappropriate for all kdis? No. The only person who can make an informed decision regarding what is or is not appropriate for any given child is the child's own Parent(s).

And also, as I've said before, there is the one loophole for both a store policy and formal legislation: Both rely on age. Which means the purchaser doesn't have to be a Parent, just an older "of age" person.

Frankly, I'd rather the corporations take a harsher stance over employees than risk the encouragement of legislation.

nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Dang, I wish I would've known about this before I was fired.
@Gray

"Mind listing what movie theater chains have a policy of firing both the employee and the MANAGER if an underage kid gets let into an R-rated movie?"

Be more of an ass, please.

I meant the policy of carding for R-rated movies as a whole, not this specific policy of hitting everyone an their mother with the firing stick. If you noticed, I made no mention of the "manager being fired" part of the policy in any of my post because I wasn't directing my point at that specific issue. My fault for not being clear, but since you were so "polite" to me I'll indulge you in my opinion of GameStop's policy itself.

When I worked there before the company became a fortune 500, before it went corporate, before it started sucking every single customer's dick for money, the store had the policy to card for M-rated games, unless the customer looked, at the least, 30 years of age. If a parent was buying an M-rated game for their child we made sure to tell them that it was an M-rated game, and the reasons why- Because, contrary to Daniel's idiotic "VIOLENT GAMES FOR EVERYBODY YIPPEE" younger children's minds are not developed enough to understand certain violent games. It wasn't because we HAD to, it was just a point of being moral and having ethics. There was a minimum punishment for selling a game to an underage child, usually just a slap on the wrist or a scolding. The worst punishment wasn't even from the manager but from the parents that came in to scream at you- Nay, not scream, literally blow up in your face at you.

GS went corporate. It sucked. You didn't work there as a friendly gamer helping out the rest of the gaming community, now you were just considered a corporate drone working $5.15 an hour. The policy stood, except you'd get a few warnings and if it continued you WOULD be fired. I didn't have a problem with this because I didn't like selling M-rated games to snot-nosed 13 year-olds who ran around my store like monkeys on crack. But I digress. That was the policy, it was fine.

That policy is similar to the majority of movie theatre chains. If you admit a child under the age of 17 without parental consent you would be cited for it. Enough warnings and you were given the ban-stick. That's the policy I was talking about in my earlier post, and I apologize to you personally Grey for reading me wrong.

This new policy at GameStop I do not agree with. A no-warning termination of an employee and the manager is an incorrect way to go about it, though I can gaurentee there will not be any screw ups.

Does that clear some things up for you, Gray? Do I need to type in shorter spurts for you with smaller words for you to understand?

-Sara

@Daniel

God you're a dumbass.
@Sara

"I don’t see the issue with trading in M rated games, in NY state at least you have to have a valid drivers license or some form of photo ID and be at least 18 to trade in games of any kind or have a parent with you when trading in games. I believe the 18 and over to trade in games is corporate policy (if you are under 18 you must have a parent with you to trade in games), so I do not see where there would be an issue with a kid trading in a M rated game without a parent."
...I hit the tab + enter button by accident. Another triple post ftl.

Anyway. @Sara

"I don’t see the issue with trading in M rated games, in NY state at least you have to have a valid drivers license or some form of photo ID and be at least 18 to trade in games of any kind or have a parent with you when trading in games. I believe the 18 and over to trade in games is corporate policy (if you are under 18 you must have a parent with you to trade in games), so I do not see where there would be an issue with a kid trading in a M rated game without a parent."

Again, as I said in my post specifically talking about this: Trade-ins are under PAWN SHOP LAW. Not under GameStop's corporation. PLEASE READ THIS SO YOU DON'T SOUND LIKE AN IGNORANT FUCKTARD.

Thank you.
@Bigman

I would agree with Hyabusa. However I think Daniel's personality is more responsible. I also think an immersion in comics, books, music, porn, movies, cars, or stamp collecting would have resulted in a similar disposition with him acting similarly in context with what ever his obsession is.

Daniels argumentative skills and interpretation skills appear to be almost non existent. I would agree with you that he has Asberger's though I have never know someone with it who was so... infuriating. I think however he missed some key lessons during his social development.
@Yoshiko

The only one being an ass here is you. Everyone in this thread already knows that corporate policy restricting sales to match the suggested ages like movie theaters restrict admission to match suggested ages. That's not new, whole news articles on this site have been about how well various stores are adhering to their age restriction policies. In general, people agree with such restriction, although obviously there are a few exceptions.

However, you said "Everyone’s getting so hyped up over this… It’s just like the policies a majority of movie theatre’s have for the ratings, and no one’s bitching about that."

Since the only thing everyone is getting "hyped up over" is the "fire the manager along with the employee" part, obviously people are going to think you're referring to that. Not about the age restrictions, not even about the part about firing the employee that violates the corporate policy.

And it's kind of ironic that you're yelling at Sara to read what you say, or else be an "IGNORANT ****tard" when you apparently have a problem with reading comprehension.

Ok, I suppose NOW I'm being an ass, but remember, you're the one that started the ad hominem attacks. All I did was question a statement that called for questioning due to it being outrageous and inaccurate. I suppose "This person can't properly formulate what he actually wants to say." or "This person has missed what people are getting excited about." should have occurred to me; however I tend to assume that people posses a basic level of competence until they prove otherwise.
While Daniel may not have phrased his argument very eloquently, I have to agree. You say kids just aren't mature enough to handle the content. Can you be a little more specific? What is there really to understand (well, they may not fully understand the finer aspects of complicated storylines)? To most kids, it's just mindless entertainment. The only side effects would be that they just shoot at each other with toy guns and kick at each other in play. Are you saying that younger kids who play violent games are more likely to just pick up a gun and start blowing people away? Violent behavior with the deliberate intent to seriously injure or kill someone is the only truly dangerous harm, and as seen time and again, that has never been proven. So, some kids, especially boys, are fascinated with that kind of graphic depiction of violence in entertainment. Like you weren't at 10, 11, 12, 13? Is it any more dangerous than the violent fantasies and pretend games many kids come up with and act out on their own?
@Gray

"The only one being an ass here is you. "

That's because I am one. If you have a problem with it I suggest talking it out with me, or ignoring my posts completely.

At everything else: All I can say is that I'm sorry you didn't understand what I was trying to say, and to certain other points "Touché"

While I would assume "Everyone in this thread already knows that corporate policy restricting sales to match the suggested ages like movie theaters restrict admission to match suggested ages." you'd be surprised at what little people know.

Now, I, on the other end of the spectrum, assume that everyone is like Daniel, and doesn't know his head from his ass. And I incorrectly assumed that everyone was hyped over an age-restriction policy as a whole, not just the manager part. I'm so, so very sorry for misinterpreting the buzz, let me go shoot myself to make up for it.

As for Sara, maybe I was too harsh- But after reading Daniel's crap, I don't take lightly to stupid people.

Your last line seemed to be subtly calling me incompetent. I'm sorry I don't reach your standards. I'll try harder next time. Because I care. No, I really, really do.
Though, Gray darling, I do owe you an apology. You weren't being an ass in your original post, honestly. You just rub me the wrong way.
@ Yoshiko, Brokenscope, Gray, hayabusa75, and Bigman-K

The reason why I'm very into defending violent video games and hammering my ideas is because I have been defending violent video games for years and some of the members in my family don't think I'm serious. Last spring, one of my close relatives said that I was probably one day going to be like Jack Thompson and attack violent media. I paniced and I started buying violent movies and violent games very quickly and I was upset that after all these years, some of the people in my family don't think I'm serious and they think that one day, I'm going to be like Jack Thompson and tell people not to watch violent things on a screen.

They still don't think I'm serious. That's why when Brokenscope and Hayabusa75 called me the reverse of Jack Thompson, it lifted my spirits and filled me with glee and I considered it the best compliment ever. I'm trying to prove to myself that I will never be like Jack Thompson and that the members in my family are wrong. Of course, I haven't said all the things in real life that I have said on this website. If those relatives knew half of what I have said here, they'd be furious at me.

Do you all think that I will ever be like Jack Thompson? I hope not because that means I am winning. That's a huge reason why I sound very obsessed with violent video games, although it's not the only one. I was raised around people like Jack Thompson and I was around them for years. I rebelled against the idea that everything is bad and a sin. I have been around those kind of people most of my life. I used to go to a very conservative church where they talked against pornography all the time and I was always afraid that one day, they would say something against violent media and that my video games would go in the trash, but that day never came. They almost never said anything against violent media.

It annoys me that some people think I'll be like Jack Thompson some day and tell people not to watch violent media after all the years I have defended it and all the crap I have put up with defending it even from my own family. I am nothing like Jack Thompson, but some people in my family don't get it. I have dedicated almost the last year to proving it wrong in almost all my free time. I have been in many arguments and even been given the cold shoulder sometimes because I defend violent media and that's hard when you come from a family where everything is a sin and evil.

I said screw that and I distanced myself from it and some people think I'm going to be like them again someday. If they knew what is going on in my head, they would know that it will never happen. That's why I take it as a compliment that sometimes Brokenscope and Hayabusa75 have called me the opposite of an anti-game activist. That tells me that I'm succeeding and that I will never be an anti-game activist. You all know more about me than people who know me personally and you know that I am a progame activist and that I will never be against violent media. People, who think that everthing is bad, are almost always bad. Out of all the people I have ever met like that, only two actually are as holy as they claim to be.

I think that about clears up why I'm very into defending violent media and why I'm very gung-ho about it. I'm trying to prove to myself, as well as others, that I'm not like anti-game activists. I think some people know that about me, but I can't believe that some people think I am going to be an anti-game activist some day. It will never happen and you are telling me that you take me seriously and believe that it will never happen and, for that, I say thank you. You've made this last year of my life a victory.
@Bigman-K:

"This is just pure assumption on your part though Hayabusa75. I don’t consider his constant repeating of himself in nearly every single post he makes nor his inability to get other people’s responses to his posts to be the fault of him playing violent games as a kid and until their is a direct proven link you can’t say that they are."

Hold on, you can't get on me for making assumptions (which I didn't really, I just said I could argue the point) about Daniel and then in the same breath make assumptions yourself about what I was actually talking about and also what's wrong with Daniel. We make assumptions and inferences about people we don't know everyday on this site, it's nothing new. For the record, I never made any specific claims, I just made that statement as a rebuttal. You can think Daniel has Asberger's, but for all you or I know, he might just be a run-of-the-mill idiot.

@Mr. Blond:

I understand all that, but making blanket statements that ALL games are a-ok ALL of the time for ALL ages irresponsibly ignores the fact that this is a many-layered issue.

@Yoshiko:

Easy, easy. Danielitis can affect us with varying levels of intensity.
hayabusa75
I wonder if I was ever that bad,I never had that kind of energy 0_o
Kids can buy rated R movies at many movie stores and nobody says a thing
....
.....
@Daniel

When a family member tells me that I will one day magically reverse my political ideology about the second amendment, I don't go out and buy a enough guns to supply a small group of anti government nuts in a small compound in Wyoming...(Okay i took that a little farther than i needed to.)

When a kid at school tells me that one day I'm going to go out and get shitfaced like every other "normal" student on Thursday, I don't go out and buy tons of non alcoholic beverages. I go on with my life and have a small amount of alcohol when relaxing with my friends who find sobriety a better way to be.

I mean that has to be one of the worst coping mechanism i have seen in my life, and man i have seen some bad ones(mostly mine).

Once again your post makes very little sense, it gives us almost no insight except that you can be borderline irrational in the face of adversity.

I take that back, it tells me one thing. You have trouble believing in your own personal convictions to the point, where a person can make a negative statement about them and you are forced to go do something that physically reinforces your beliefs, just to make sure you still have them.

You actually remind me of a guy who if someone called him gay, if someone did something that he felt wasn't completely straight. He had to go home and look at porn for hours just to get it into his head that he was heterosexual. He was that unconfident in his sexuality and his homophobia that he had to physically reinforce his convictions that he was straight.

You need to go reexamine yourself and your actions carefully, you need to think about what you are saying and look at how it reflects on you as a person.
You know, there always seems to be reason enough for my posts to consist entirely of analysis of Daniel's "issues" than the topic of the article I'm responding to...

I just deleted a 250-word essay on Reality For The Intellectually Impaired rather than post something tangential.

The first two comments to this article sum up my thoughts, really. So... what they said.
Well I work at Gamestop and I was told about this last week. All of the employees had to sign a contract. This is how it goes. The first time you do it, you are fired on the spot. Now if another employee does it then he is also fired, but this time along with the store manager. I am not to worried about this because everyone at the Gamestop I work at always checked ID's for younger people. But I just have to be more careful. I do not want to lose my job or make my manager lose his job either.
50-something comments is alot to root through, but I have to ask.. How will they enforce this system?
Consider this, the store Managers and the employees below them are all aware that they'll start losing their jobs if they slip up. The main issue is that M rated games should not be in the hands of young children, so obviously, none of them will be letting copies of Manhunt and Resident Evil and all of those happy games slip through the cracks.
Now, both employees and managers know their job is on the line if one of these instances occurs. So what's going to happen? Nothing. I don't forsee any employees calling down to corporate office and confessing unless it's another employee who hates the both of them. It's like calling the police to confess a murder.

Now, unless there's a big hotline number posted above the register that customers can exploit at the sake of helpless employees, I can see this as a problem, and GameStop will likely scramble for new workers all over.

The upside to all of this.. I needed a job anyways.
@ ChrowX

I always wondered that myself but the I think it depends on the parents. We probably would get some disgruntled parent come in and yell at us for giving thier kid an M-rated game, they would give us a reciept or something which has the name of the employee who sold it and that would be the end of it. Other than that I dont know, Some employees might turn someone in occasionaly but I dont know.
If there was an actual motivation for people to work at those establishments I could see this as being effective but the average sales person gets paid in peanuts and to lose that job would not be a huge hit. This is why these places already have a high turnover rate. With the lack of job security these places offer (especially now) you may as well get paid in contractor wages.
Recently, when I tried to buy an M-rated game from Gamestop, and I'm 17 years old, they said you now, since the beginning of 2007, have to be at least 18 years old to buy an M-rated game. So basically buying a M-rated game there would be just like buying an AO-rated game.
"I strongly suspect that the fire everyone and their dog toto too policy is a scare tactic to get the attention of the manager and the employees who might not have been taking store policy too seriously. "

I can't believe it took 7 posts before somebody realized this.

It is great that GameStop is finally taking some initiative. Obviously they aren't actually going to fire any managers over an employee selling an M-rated game while the manager isn't there. But if the manager is there, and knows that it happened, and still allows it... well then he's breaking company policy and deserves to be disciplined. This might mean firing, this might mean suspension, or it might just mean a stern talking-to from the boss.

You sign an employee handbook when you take a job. You can't file a wrongful termination suit if you willingly and knowingly broke the rules. Get rid of a few of the lazy clerks that don't care, and the rest of them will shape up real quick.


"...the average sales person gets paid in peanuts and to lose that job would not be a huge hit."

Many GameStop employees work there because they get to borrow games and play them for free. That alone makes it better than flipping burgers. Anyway, have you ever met anybody with a college degree that is hawking games in retail? I'm not saying they are "stupid" or anything like that (some of them are using it to pay their way through college), but it's not as easy for a kid working retail to just go out and get another job.
I understand they need to be harsh if they have any hope of the employees actually adhering to this, but firing managers doesn't seem particularly feasible.

Smaller EB/Gamestops (such as the one I worked at in college), only have two managers, sometimes just one full time manager and a couple of keyholders. Firing the manager at locations like these would basically render the store inoperable - I don't see them doing that.

There's a lot more to the job than you'd suspect, and it's not exactly quick to train a manager up. Also, having been subject to a number of bad managers during my relatively short tenure at the EB, and knowing how rare a good manager is, it'd be a shame if a good manager was fired on account of one kid screwing up or not giving a damn (which kids are apt to do).
To all who worked at Gamestop

Do you have to ask for some kind of id before ringing up the game? or does it ring up on the register that says "please check id" before printing the receipt?

also, do you/ is there the same check for movies?
[...] February 2007 Gamestop Crackdown Monday February 12th 2007, 10:43 am Filed under: Life is Grand From GamePolitics we have an article of a new crackdown, from Gamestop/EB Games, on the sale of M rated video games to minors.  While the penalty may seem harsh, this is really where the crackdown needs to take place.  The ESRB and Video game companies can put as many labels on a game as they want, in the end it is up to the retailer to enforce it.  Without the enforcement at retail, the system falls apart.  Ol’ Jack “I am gonna make you regret playing games” Thompson, can cry foul at the ratings boards and the game companies until the break of dawn, but the truth of the matter is, Parents and Retailers have been disregarding the labels.  [...]
I personally don't think that this is a bad policy. Basically, had the managers and store employees been doing their jobs and follow company policy about selling to underage buyers, especially when the industry is under such heavy watch by critics ready to tear them apart, this would have never happened.

Is it a stunt to get good publicity? Of course. Is it way too harsh? Of course. But I doubt that there will be a rash of employees getting back at their managers. This is the wake up call that they have to crack down, that they have to get tough, and they have to enforce the rules.

Now some bemoan the fact that under 18 gamers can't buy violent video games without their parents, that these stores are engaging in censorship, and I think they are missing the point of these rules completely. These policies exist so that stores have a good rapport with parents and the community. Most parents would object to their 6 year old child playing GTA, and the store is helping them out by refusing to sell the game to that child. The cries of censorship miss the point completely. It really is not in the spirit of censorship. Censorship is the outright banning of materials usually with the intention of thought control. Keeping six year olds from playing a game where they can kill a prostitute for her money after having sex with her is, well, on a different level. Plus, it's not like nobody can purchase these games. Yes, technically it might meet the definition of censorship, but the spirit is a touch different.

For those of you concerned about false complaints, keep in mind that there are usually cameras in most stores pointed at the register, that these registers print out a piece of paper containing information about the sale including the date, who did the sale, the product purchase, the price, and how the sale was completed.

And finally, for those of you concerned about honest mistakes - that's life. I worked in two stores that sold cigarettes, and if you sold to an underage customer once, you were to be fired. This is not like you are trying to make a judgment call that is tough, you are just making sure that only people who are old enough are buying M rated games. There aren't honest mistakes in this area, only disobedience of policy. Most of these stores say ID to an age where there is no mistake that they over the legal age. And if there is a gray area, then you ID anyway. And if the customer complains, well, it's store policy for both you and them. And if they aren't following policy, then you don't do the sale.

I'm sorry for the long post, but I think a lot of people here are turning this into some evil policy when it really is just a company cracking down on constant disobedience of company policy. And if you are so adverse to company policy, then you don't shop or work there.
@Jer

"To all who worked at Gamestop

Do you have to ask for some kind of id before ringing up the game? or does it ring up on the register that says “please check id” before printing the receipt?

also, do you/ is there the same check for movies? "

I believe the computer system (we were running off of something a little better than MSDoS) has been changed since I worked there. But, when I was there a message popped up on the screen when you scanned the barcode of an M-rated game into the item list saying "This is an M-rated game. Please check customer's ID. If customer is born before 2/12/89 (for example, it'd update the date everyday) then customer is 18 years of age or older" or something similar to that effect. It'd tell you to press "Y" or "N" to continue, and that was that.

I've never worked in the movie industry so I have no idea. I'd imagine they have the same sort of deal.

@ Daniel

So. You're a complete idiot with no sense of rational thinking- which means you are EXACTLY like Jack Thompson. Good to know.

@Hayabusa

I was probably a little mean. Long day at work. =\
@Yoshiko

Did that same check also occur for DVD movies rated R, or was it solely for video games?

@ anyone who worked at a movie theater,
Was there any age checks for movies Rated R?
I'm actually pretty tired of this debate, so I'm not goingto put forth any arguments; instead, I'll supply you all with a bit of information that some of you seem to be lacking:

The MPAA movie ratings (G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17) are entirely voluntary, and they always have been. And yet, they are treated as if they are law - theaters enforce them almost universally, as do, to my knowledge, retailers that sell movies. The fact is that though the MPAA system started out as a system of recommendations (like the ESRB system), it was reliable enough (like the ESRB system) and became so widely used (like the ESRB system) that it eventually became a de facto system of restrictions.

The paralells are pretty obvious. The ESRB is at this crucial stage where it transitions from being a little-known "guideline" system to a widely-known (by non-gamers, that is), trusted system for judging content, and the enforcement of age restrictions by retailers is a necessary step (as was the enforcement of film ratings by theaters for the MPAA system). As Magi said early on in this thread, the strict enforcement of ESRB ratings by retailers doesn't take responsibility away from parents, but actually forces it upon them. It requires parents to make decisions about the games their kids buy, because they have to buy the games for them, just as the MPAA system requires parents to decide what movies their kids can watch.
@Jer

Yeah, it did the same for movies.
Better fired than having to pay a 250$ fine to the gov't, OR spend time in jail.

Well, in either case you end up canned...
I happen to agree with TBone and Canth, better a Retailer take to enforcing a strong store policy than it come down from a Legislative Body. If you're too dumb to check someone's ID you SHOULD be flipping burgers.
@ Brokenscope, hayabusa75, and Yoshiko

I'm not an idiot. I just got a B+ on an english paper. It's not that I don't feel that my convictions are strong. It's that I have to practice it by running down anti-game activists. It's like studying for a test. You know the material, but without studying, you could lose it. I have to say nasty things about anti-game actvists and do at least one nasty thing a day in a video game, or I could end up like Jack Thompson. You have to do it everyday to keep your beliefs, or you are in danger of losing them.

Hey, Yoshiko, are you actually a gamer? Do you play video games? I'm seriously starting to doubt it and doubt that you're on our side. I think you said up there that people used to try to discourage people from buying Mature rated games for young people because it was the moral thing to do. What gamer would say that? If you believe it's immoral for a young person to play violent video games, then you belong on Jack Thompson's sidelines. I don't think you're a gamer at all. You sound a lot like an anti-game activst. You sound like they do, at least, it seems that way to me.
@Zippy:

Not even close, man. Not even close. =)
@Daniel
Oh so that why you post like you do. You have to be a dumb ass at least once a day otherwise you might actually start saying things that are intelligent. Well shit, that explains everything. Guys, we need to find Daniel and not let him do something stupid for a few days. We might have a contributing member to the sight, hell we could all get back to discussing the issues and not trying to explain them to Daniel.

Thats a pretty sad life to lead Daniel. You have to do something bitter and petty once a day to make sure you believe in your convictions.
... and of course i use the wrong word. Shit.

@Daniel again

There is a good movie, Its called hotel Rwanda. It is about the civil war between the Hutu's and the Tutsi in Rwanda. It goes something like this.

Paul: I am a Hutu, leave these people alone.
Hutu Militia Leader:... They are Tutsi, they are cockroaches.
Paul: They are my friends, leave them alone.
Hutu Militia: Are you sure you are a Hutu? You sound like a Tutsi traitor. I don't think you are a Hutu, why don't you shoot one of them and prove that you are a Hutu.

Not the best comparison but I think it serves it purpose.

Daniel, your attitude of your either with us or your against us is annoying.
So what if little 9 year old Timmy had his parents there buying it for them? The sales associate knows they are buying it for them. In fact, the parents say "Yes, Timmy. You are getting your copy of Grand Theft Auto IV for your birthday." Is the employee still fired?
@ Brokenscope

By doing something dirty, I mean playing a violent game everyday and running down anti-game activists everyday. If I do that, I don't think there's much chance that I'll ever be like Jack Thompson. If I absolutely do everything I can to not become what I most despise, chances are, I won't. I have to try everyday to not become what I most despise to persevere.
@Daniel

A Nietzsche you bring me such wisdom everyday.

He who fights monsters should be careful lest he himself become a monster in the process. Think on that for a while.

@Josh

They are selling it to the adult, who can give it to the child. Or the adult gives implicit permission by being present.
@ Daniel

Just because you're "booksmart" doesn't mean you're intelligent, it only contributes. When I talk about intelligence, I talk about common sense, which you lack greatly.

"Hey, Yoshiko, are you actually a gamer? Do you play video games? I’m seriously starting to doubt it and doubt that you’re on our side. I think you said up there that people used to try to discourage people from buying Mature rated games for young people because it was the moral thing to do. What gamer would say that? If you believe it’s immoral for a young person to play violent video games, then you belong on Jack Thompson’s sidelines. I don’t think you’re a gamer at all. You sound a lot like an anti-game activst. You sound like they do, at least, it seems that way to me."

I'm just going to say "lol". I can't have my own opinion? I either have to be completely for one specific topic, or be on the "other side".

That's like saying if you're a Democrat you ABSOLUTELY have to be PRO-LIFE, and if you're not PRO-LIFE then you HAVE to be a Republican. Seriously, you are the definition of being single-minded. You are so fucking selfish, locked in your own bubble thinking that only YOU are right and anyone that disagrees with your specific opinion is the devil.

You. Are. Jack Thompson.

You don't even deserve to hear my defense because you won't even bother to look at it, because after all: You're always right.

I am a gamer. I have been since I was 4, when my brother got his NES for Christmas. I watched him play Mario and DuckHunt/Clayshooters all day long. Eventually I started playing it on my own. I stopped playing for awhile, then when I moved to Arizona my friend introduced me to the Playstation, and FF7. I fell in love with RPGs. I then went back and played Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, FF1, FF3 and FF5. As the rest of the Final Fantasy series came out, I bought and played them. When FFXI came out, that became my first MMORPG. I didn't like it so much, so I stopped playing- However I did start playing World of Warcraft when it came out and I've been playing that since release. Don't believe me? Make a Horde character on the server Deathwing and I'll log in for you on my mage simply to prove it.

I've played Counterstrike (not Source, F-that), Half-life, Doom, some occasional Halo, Legend of Dragoon, Elder Scrolls series, Myst, NCAA, Tetris, Shadow of the Colossus, Indigo Prophecies, Okami, GTA, Genji, Shadow Hearts, Kingdom Hearts, almost every single fucking game on the PS2 that has 3 out of 5 stars or more I've played. Do I need to go on?

I love video games. That's why I'm going to major in Video Game Design at the University of Advanced Technology in Tempe, AZ this Fall. It's my goddamn passion, not just a fucking hobby, AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE RUINING IT FOR EVERYONE ELSE.

The difference between me and you is that I have common sense, morals, and basic linguistic skills.

Oh. Yeah.

AND I'M NOT A FUCKING LUNATIC.

Tell me, OH GREAT HISTORY MAJOR WITH A B+ ON HIS ENGLISH TEST, why the HELL should an 8 year old be playing something like Gears of War? Seriously.

You think age doesn't matter. Age is completely irrelevant to everything.

Should a 10 year-old be driving a car?

Should a 13 year-old be able to walk into a bar and order a glass of Jack and Coke on the rocks?

Should a 15 year-old be able to walk into any store, buy a pack of cigarettes and smoke their way to an early grave?

I'm not saying kids don't do the second two at that age, I know I was at 15-16ish. But not legally- That doesn't make it right.

I'm sorry that your parents failed to teach you to be human. I can only hope that you'll kill yourself in the near future to save the gene pool- Or we can just take the safety tags off of everything and let the problem solve itself.

One last thing before I go. The reason why I'm not on the anti-video game activists side is because I don't believe that violent video games cause extreme violent behavior, nor do they correctly simulate and/or train for real-life murders. They CAN affect an exception of people who are already psychologically impaired to begin with, but for the majority of people, they don't. They ALSO do have short term effects of vi