Parents Television Council Wants Video Game Legislation

January 25, 2008 -
Recent word that the Entertainment Software Association would begin making political contributions on behalf of the video game industry brought a sharp response from watchdog group the Parents Television Council.

Within days of the ESA announcement, PTC president Tim Winter issued a statement essentially threatening that his organization would target any elected official who "cashed a check" from the ESA

In an interview with Ars Technica PTC's national grassroots director Gavin McKiernan, explained that video game legislation is central to its dispute with the video game industry. The PTC supports legislation to restrict minors from purchasing games with mature content. The ESA, on the other hand, has historically (and successfully) opposed numerous attempts at such government regulation.

McKiernan told Ars Technica's Ben Kuchera:
The political issue that has the greatest likelihood of being discussed by legislators is also the one that the ESA has expended a great deal of time and money on, and that is to prevent laws that would assist parents in protecting their children from adult entertainment. The ESA's contributions will be overwhelmingly based on this issue and their stance on this issue is one that is opposed to the interests of families. 

We frequently hear from our members and parents that keeping violent video games out of their children's hands is a top priority...

McKiernan explained the PTC's perspective on game laws:
[Previous] laws have been struck down on relatively narrow premises, and the opinions have fallen into two basic lines of reasoning. The first being that the laws were too vague in their definition of what would be prohibited... The second being that some justices felt that there was not sufficient evidence at the time of the hearing to show clear harm to minors as a result of playing certain types of games...

Our members' greatest concern is with violent video games that can be purchased by children because there currently are no legal ramifications for retailers who sell 'M' or 'AO' rated games to minors.

We limit the sale of firearms, cigarettes and alcohol to minors because of their obvious detrimental effects. We have reasonable age restrictions for operating motor vehicles. We should employ similar logic and reason with other products that repeatedly have been proven to be harmful to children.

Comments

@Ken

Totally agreed, Being a new parent myself, and having grown up in the video game age I am well informed on the world around me, and will continue to be informed as my years progress.

It's these blind parents who don't want to take the time to spend to raise their children, who want to blame video games for the problems of the world.

As far as the sell of M rated video games, explain to me again how that is the video game industry's fault? Last time I checked if someone failed to ID it was because the cashier could have cared less, in which case it is the parents duty to know what their kids are doing and what they are playing, and if it is violent make sure the child/teen is ready to accept what is being seen and to know the difference from right and wrong.

Thats my rant for the day :P.

Firearms and Alcohol are only dangerous if misused.

Oh ok - so we are supposed to have video game legislation huh?

You know what? I played Video games all Fuckin' day yesterday. I didn't see any sex or violence.

Prior to bed - I go watch TV..

Seen them glorifying a guy making Meth, him killing people, then thinking he was running from the cops, going home and putting to his wife from behind.

Why the hell do these 'goodie goodie' groups have such a hard on for Video Games? TV has been - and likely always will be... WORSE.

Hypocrites.

Buckeye531 Said: "Memo to PTC
Firearms, alcohol, and cigarettes are not protected under the first amendment. Games, along with other entertainment forms, are protected uunder the first."

But, but, but...it's so UNFAIR when the constitution doesn't go my way! I bet the FOUNDING FATHERS wouldn't have stood for this!


Nekowolf Said: "Because that stuff kills. Not only the user/operator, but others as well."

What're you talking about, the video games trigger my husband's asthma ALL the TIME. Oh, wait...

I guess they lost a couple dollars off their television industry kickbacks.

Err, there are no age restrictions on buying a car or using it on private property. Only licensing to operate it it on public roads. In theory, a ten year old could walk into an auto dealer (or find an individual selling via an ad) with a stack of cash, buy a car, then have it delivered to his house. If his family's property was big enough, he could drive it around there all day.

And in most States, it's generally legal to sell/give shotguns or rifles to a minor (unless you're a Federally licensed dealer).

And their reply:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I realize you provided info on the controversy in question. What I meant to convey is that I do not know the specifics of the news report in question and would take your word on it that there had been mistakes in fox news' reporting of the game, I had read a gamepolitics article about some dubious reporting related to that game and I trust that site as a source of news.

The ESRB exists for the primary purpose of rating games to disseminate information to the public and by extension parents on the suitability of games for different age groups. The PTC does not claim to have complete knowledge of games that are released and their suitability, ESRB does. We hold the ESRB to a high standard.

I don’t understand this paragraph and therefore cant respond to it

" Certainly, your organization demands that ALL information regarding ALL transmitted media be obtain. Therefore, logically, it should follow that YOU do the same."


This comment bares no basis in reality

“PTC is obligated to make a statement, if as it claims, it abhors lies and deceit that it claims the video game industry (or other industries), individuals, or specialty news outlets”

We make no claim to be the “lie” police and do not track cable news. If we had made a statement, policy or action based on the report in question then we would certainly publicly react if the information we had been given was distorted.

Take a look at our mission statement and familiarize yourself with what we are all about here http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/takeaction/welcome.asp .

Gavin

Parents Television Council
National Grassroots Director
xxx.xxx-xxxx (nightwng2000 blocked the phone number)
The nation's most influential advocacy organization protecting children against sex, violence and profanity in entertainment

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nightwng2000
NW2K software
Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

McKiernan writes:

"We limit the sale of firearms, cigarettes and alcohol to minors because of their obvious detrimental effects. We have reasonable age restrictions for operating motor vehicles. We should employ similar logic and reason with other products that repeatedly have been proven to be harmful to children."

So, creation of legal code that directly attacks the 1st Amendment to the US Consitutution?

Yes, "we should employ similar logic and reason with other products that repeatedly have been proven to be harmful to children." We can apply this to print media, i.e, The Holy Bible. I dont think there's a soul who will defend that because of that book, millions have been put to the sword. Its not because the book itself is bad (on the contrary, its a good book of philosophy and way of living); its the psychotic nutcases that give it a bad reputation.

But both the Holy Bible and video games, are protected by the 1st Amendment (Freedom of Speech in both cases. The Holy Bible is also proected by Freedom of Religion). So, this group and its senators make laws that are 'feel good' politics at best, and they are over-turned in courts for failing to understand the US Consitution.

Hmmm... I think the PTC's signature should be redone to reflect its true nature in these politically correct times. I think it should read:

The nation’s most malevolently corrupted, morally challenged, twisted abomination of wretchedly evil meat bags posing as wickedly decrepit vile humanoids.

@Nightwng - keep at it brother.

And again, no mention of Unrated Violet/Nudity filled movies.......gotta love double standards.....

Assist parents? Since when do parents need assistance in determining what the letter T or M means. Do parents need assistance understanding the terrible concept of G and R?

Here is something nice to hear from Ars:

It was time to ask the obvious question: why focus on games? The FTC has found that children are for more likely to be able to buy R-rated movies than M-rated games, so why fight so hard for legislation on the smaller issue?


It's nice to see someone call these people out on this. Here is the PTC's response:

We frequently hear from our members and parents that keeping violent video games out of their children's hands is a top priority. And the evidence is conclusive: countless independent studies confirm that repeated exposure to graphic sexual, violent and profanity-laced video games has a harmful and long term effect on children.


Misinformation on game related studies and the fact that their members complain more about kids getting games.

The PTC are idiots and I am glad that few politicians listen to them.

More B.S. to shuffle through, never mind the fact that they had to pay Vince McMahon $3.5 million to settle WWE's defamation suit against them...

There's a huge difference between "assisting" parents and taking a choice away from parents.

Besides that, the ESA and FTC report that 90% of M-rated game sales are to parents. The NPD Group estimates M-rated games make up only 15% of all game sales. And the FTC says minors trying to purchase M-rated games are refused over half the time.

Let’s see….15% of total sales, 10% of that is 1.5% and 42% of that is 0.63% of all game sales.

Since when does 0.63% of all video game sales warrant unconstitutional legislation? Why the hell do we "need" legislation? After all, video games are protected by the First Amendment, and like I’ve been posting, if you’re going to infringe on a Constitutional right like freedom of speech based on the claim that the speech in question is “dangerous”, then you better damn well show absolute proof of that. It’s NEVER been done. There is no proof that any harm will come of anyone playing a “violent” video game.

If there is a danger so clear and so threatening to the American people that causes these self-righteous politicians to step on the First Amendment, wouldn’t any rational thinking person have to believe that the danger would have to be so obvious and clear that there would be no argument against it? Especially since you’re directly contradicting a Constitutional amendment.

We, the American people, have not been given any valid reason to believe that this abridging of our freedom of speech is necessary. There just simply isn’t any evidence at all of any danger from “violent” video games. This “protection” from “violent” video games isn’t needed or wanted for that matter, but please feel free to use everyone’s tax dollars for protection from things like a 10-foot storm surge from a Category 3 or greater hurricane or the fuselage of a 747 airplane entering the workplace or the home.

PTC,
WHERE WERE YOU?!
WHERE WERE YOU?!

FOX News knowingly and intentionally spreading misinformation, lies, and deceit to individuals and Parents regarding the video game "Mass Effect".

Your reply to FOX News for LYING TO PARENTS?

Silence.

You condemn the Gaming industry.
You condemn the ESRB.
You stereotype those who play video games.
You state how "dangerous" video games are.

But when it comes to FOX News and a supposed "expert" (Cooper Lawrence) making FALSE claims and LYING TO PARENTS, you say nothing.

Your lack of clear condemnation for THOSE acts makes your "morally superior" attitudes in the Ars Technica article seem hypocritical and an advocation, by lack of response to FOX News and Cooper Lawrence, of lying and deceiving Parents and individuals.

You are now deemed without vaule, without honor, and without ethics.

Your words no longer matter.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

@Deus

Because parents these days are illiterate assholes who would rather blame anything else to hide their bad parenting.

"Our members’ greatest concern is with violent video games that can be purchased by children because there currently are no legal ramifications for retailers who sell ‘M’ or ‘AO’ rated games to minors."

Nor are there any legal ramifications for allowing access to movies that are rated PG-13, R, or NC-17. MORON!

"We limit the sale of firearms, cigarettes and alcohol to minors because of their obvious detrimental effects."

How the heck can they compare a firearm to a video game?!

The threats of cigarettes are overstated in most case (takes up to 20 years for an affect) and alcohol is only immediately dangerous if the person tries to drive afterwards.

Ridiculous. We should limit video games because we limit guns and booze! That's a much more sensible and fair comparison than DVDs and movies which are not limited by law!

Are these people saying this to push their agenda or are they just being dense?

I don't want to start to rant on how stupid these people are. My ulcer meds are not that strong.

This breaking news just in! Stupid people want stupid laws... that is all.

The solution to children playing games meant for adults is right in the PTC's name; parents. When I worked in retail parents would regularly come in and buy GTA, Devil May Cry, or other mature themed games for younger kids. My store always made sure they knew what they were getting into, but their response to our reading the ESRB descriptors (and going into more detail if we were familiar with the game) was usually met with "It's okay, he's seen worse", or "He's already played it at his friend's house"

Comparing video games to cars does not seem to be a very valid comparison. I've never seen anyone get run over by a 360 (although I have seen people hit by a Wii, but it's not quite the same). Comparing them to movies, books, and music seems much more appropriate.

Note that my previous post was emailed to the PTC as well.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

"We limit the sale of firearms, cigarettes and alcohol to minors because of their obvious detrimental effects. We have reasonable age restrictions for operating motor vehicles. We should employ similar logic and reason with other products that repeatedly have been proven to be harmful to children."

Firearms, cigarettes, and alcohol are physical goods which are harmful to really anyone, not just minors. These have documented and studied effects (for example, guns make it easy to kill people, cigarettes make it easy to kill yourself, and alcohol can kill you too if you abuse it, plus it makes an ass out of yourself).

Driving is more responsibility then harmfulness, the government figures by the age of 16 (this varies state to state) your responsible enough to put yourself on the road where you are wielding a 2000 pound weapon on a daily basis. In most cases, this isn't true, but you understand by point. People don't want an 8 year old who can barely touch the car pedles driving a vehicle.

So, ultimately, where does the logic conclude that we should protect minors from the "evil videogame?" There is NO documented evidence that shows that playing video games causes you to kill people. I've had my fair share of exposure to "videogame violence" and I'm not a homicidal maniac, and there are millions of other people just like me.

This is just a case of "Well we tried to get the government to censor television with no success because we're stupid morons, so lets try to censor video games because they're 'different' because you use a keyboard to control it and people won't ultimately see them as the same thing."

We're at war here people. Its the war between idiots who thing censorship is the answer and sensible people who don't want the government stomping all gamers and the industry for no reason.

"We frequently hear from our members and parents that keeping violent video games out of their children’s hands is a top priority…"

Good, PTC. Now you know what to do to stop that from happening?

DON'T BUY THE DAMN GAME FOR THEM, YOU TOOLS.

"We limit the sale of firearms, cigarettes and alcohol to minors because of their obvious detrimental effects. We have reasonable age restrictions for operating motor vehicles. We should employ similar logic and reason with other products that repeatedly have been proven to be harmful to children."

Ah, there's the tiny point that they miss though. Video games have not been proven to be harmful in any way, shape or form. Sure, some studies say they raise "aggression" (with a very vague definition of aggression that could mean excitement, confidence, etc...), but I am 100% sure that if the same studies were carried out on people playing sports the exact same results would be observed.

It's very sneaky language they use there. They don't come right out and say that video games are harmful to children, but they imply it by mentioning "other products that repeatedly have been proven to be harmful to children." It's laughable, video games have never ONE been proven harmful, never mind repeatedly! As is par for the course with people like this, there are no citations, no references, no quotes, no evidence whatsoever backing up these claims of harmful effects on children, just the usual opinions spewed forth as if the sheer zeal displayed in their words makes them true.

PTC should stand for Parents Threatened by Culpability. A collection of morons who believe the government is more suited to raising and making decision for their kids than they are themselves They will blame the creators of media intended for adult consumption for their lack of responsibility in monitoring their children's activities.

"Our members’ greatest concern is with violent video games that can be purchased by children because there currently are no legal ramifications for retailers who sell ‘M’ or ‘AO’ rated games to minors.

We limit the sale of firearms, cigarettes and alcohol to minors because of their obvious detrimental effects. We have reasonable age restrictions for operating motor vehicles. We should employ similar logic and reason with other products that repeatedly have been proven to be harmful to children."

1. Uh, no. Said kids are getting their hands on M and AO games because you're not fulfilling your responsibilities as parents. Stop hiding your incompetence by pinning the blame on a set of ratings that are clearly emblazoned on each box!

2. "firearms, cigarettes and alcohol to minors because of their obvious detrimental effects."

That's because these objects have a very direct physical effect on the user. As far as I can tell, research into gaming has (at best) found a causal link between violent gaming and aggressive behavior. Nothing direct, and certainly nothing physical.

On a side note, it's YOUR half-baked notions of turning us into a Nanny-state that are making me more aggressive, not the games!

"We should employ similar logic and reason with other products that repeatedly have been proven to be harmful to children."

Too bad a link between real-life violence and videogames hasn't been proven.

"....the ESA has expended a great deal of time and money on, and that is to prevent laws that would assist parents in protecting their children from adult entertainment."

No, they're spending money on keeping politicians from using the 1st Amendment like toilet paper. These laws wouldn't "assist" parents in protecting their kids, it would give the parents' responsibility to the government.

You lazy fucks already have a resource to "protect" your children from these games: The fucking ESRB. Sounds like you people don't actually want to protect your kids, you want the fucking government to do it.

And what Twin-Skies said is completely true: It's not the videogames that are making me aggressive, it's your fucking ignorance.

Smoking - Kills you
Alcohol - Kills you
Guns - Kills you
Games - ?

One of these things is not like the others...

"We should employ similar logic and reason with other products that repeatedly have been proven to be harmful to children."

Apparently the PTC is a little fuzzy on the meaning of the word "proven", they seem to have it mixed up with "alleged".

GRRRR why can't people figure out that AO games are banned in America and no one will sell them.

Wow seriously i wish i had so much money i could throw it away in sad at best lawsuites.

Look at games...now look at smoking guns and alcohol. Kids get their hands of these every single day one is not illegal can you guess which? (ill give you a hint its the one that dosent kill you and those around you)

And how the hell do videogames fall under television because thats all their council is suposed to be messing with, but as long as they feel like tackling things outside their little group then couldn't these ptc idiots try to increase the amount of security on the others on their little list, know killers that kids get a hold of...no i guess that would have a possitive effect on the community so they cant be doing that.

"Cheater87 Says:
GRRRR why can’t people figure out that AO games are banned in America and no one will sell them."

I think they know, and it's their idea for them not to be sold...

Is it just me or did they transcribe a Jack Thompson speech for this?

In any case, I won't comment on the nature of it, plenty have done that already. What I will say is that anyone with half a brain can see this is a bunch of bullshot. The problem is that panicky people do not use even a quarter of their brain, so thanks to scaremongerers, it's unlikely that people who believe this will listen to logic, reason or common funking sense.
(Trying to cut down swearing for new years resolution)

Memo to PTC
Firearms, alcohol, and cigarettes are not protected under the first amendment. Games, along with other entertainment forms, are protected uunder the first. Game publishers have the right to develop a game no matter how violent it is and putting a sales restriction law on that hinders that right, and that violates the first amendment. The first amendment that you do not care about.

I would rather the government work on laws that prevent firearms being put into the hands of people who shouldn't have them rather then something as simple as parents just being parents and making sure their kids don't end up playing video games that they shouldn't.

"We frequently hear from our members and parents that keeping violent video games out of their children’s hands is a top priority…"

So do it yourselves. Jeez.

"We limit the sale of firearms, cigarettes and alcohol to minors because of their obvious detrimental effects. We have reasonable age restrictions for operating motor vehicles. We should employ similar logic and reason with other products that repeatedly have been proven to be harmful to children."

This sums up what PTC thinks about games pretty nicely. Videogames contain carcinogens and cause widespread death!!! They think that games are a menace to society that hold parents hostage and so on. The PTC would like to think that the constitution doesn't exist in this case. If they can put interactive media into the same category as tobacco, only then do we have something to fear.

The PTC acts just like Leland Yee and his multiple attempts to censor video games...

Hilarity

In one breath they state that one of the reason that the laws have failed is due to the fact that the government has not found sufficient evidence to indicate harm to minors. And in another breath they imply that video games have been proven to be as harmful as alcohol and cigarettes. Amusing.

We limit the sale of firearms, cigarettes and alcohol to minors because of their obvious detrimental effects. We have reasonable age restrictions for operating motor vehicles. We should employ similar logic and reason with other products that repeatedly have been proven to be harmful to children.


The problem in this case being that games are not among the products that have been proven to be harmful to children even once, let alone repeated.

Let me bring up an example.

You build an army all at the control of a single man. Should he go down, the rest of the army goes down with it. That's basically what they are doing, imo, with legislation as that single man. There's a reason they fail and are bound to continue to do so. Because the very argument they employ is unstable down to the very center.

And, I love this particular line(s): "We limit the sale of firearms, cigarettes and alcohol to minors because of their obvious detrimental effects. We have reasonable age restrictions for operating motor vehicles."

Because that stuff kills. Not only the user/operator, but others as well. Aside from managing to beat someone to death with a game case, you can't kill with a video game. But firearms, cigarettes, alcohol, and motor vehicles can be quite lethal with relative ease. But video games, no.

It's a simple matter of organization. We should form a group called the Patriotic Eagles Freedom Alliance for Family, Apple Pie, and Puppies. With a name like that we can make up our own studies too, and lawmakers would still like to get their picture taken with us.

We are suprised? I am not suprised.

Oh, and:
Our members’ greatest concern is with violent video games that can be purchased by children because there currently are no legal ramifications for retailers who sell ‘M’ or ‘AO’ rated games to minors.


Of course there's not any legal ramifications, just like there aren't any legal ramifications if a theater lets your ten year old buy tickets to a PG-13 or R rated movie. All ramifications are economic in that it pisses off customers and causes them to A) make you pay for time, effort, and possibly a refund, in dealing with complaints, and B) causes them to go elsewhere.

In related news:

The PTC is full of a bunch of litigious douchebags who don't understand the meaning of "equal protection"

"We should employ similar logic and reason with other products that repeatedly have been proven to be harmful to children."

Parents have repeatedly been proven to be harmful to children through beatings and abuse, yet parents aren't banned.

There is not a single credible report that video games, violent or otherwise, do any harm to children whatsoever, and in some cases proven to actually help by developing their motor skills, manual dexterity and cognitive recognition.

But you don't need me to say that...

"The second being that some justices felt that there was not sufficient evidence at the time of the hearing to show clear harm to minors as a result of playing certain types of games…"

SEE! YOU JUST SAID IT YOURSELF! LACK OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW CLEAR HARM TO MINORS! Judas Priest, were these idiots all born with extra chromosomes or did they pick them up somewhere along the way in life?

"We limit the sale of firearms, cigarettes and alcohol... operating motor vehicles... harmful to children."

By that logic, you seem to feel then that it's ok for a parent to give their kids firearms, alcohol, and tobacco, and let them drive around town, because clearly THOSE rules are only about preventing the kids from doing those things without parental involvement.

And while we're at it, let's ban kids from buying books, movies, or looking at televisions that can be seen through windows.

But I guess it's easier to just attack the flavour of the day, and pretend that you've already won the fight against movies and books. Even though you lost miserably...
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

I'm sure this has been explained a couple times, but allow me to add my voice to the chorus.

Firearms, alcohol, and cigarettes all have obvious and harmful physical effects on the users and bystanders. Guns can easily kill or maim. Obviously, you don't want a five year old to get his hands on one and hurt himself or others. Alcohol can effect your judgment, motor skills, and, in excessively large quantities, result in death (alcohol poisoning). Cigarettes affect your general health and can cause cancer. We don't want minors dealing with these more do to lack of experience and maturity than because they are dangerous. Otherwise, we'd ban them.

And there's a reason we have age requirements to operate motor vehicles. Children lack the knowledge, maturity, or understanding to properly operate a car on a daily basis. As I was told when I earned my license, "Driving is a privilege, not a right." However, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression are rights. That's the difference.

Their argument, methinks, is that there IS, in fact, enough scientific evidence to support legislation, and that legislation has failed judicially because either the judge applied the law too narrowly or the science wasn't available until after the court case.
The flaw, of course, is in assuming that when your view disagrees with someone else's your own view is always correct. PTC: You think the science supports it. The judges do not. Is it possible, then, that you are wrong? That the science does not support legislation? And that all the efforts you make in chasing legislation could be better spent on, say, educating parents and doing things that will actually make a difference?

@jabrock

"By that logic, you seem to feel then that it’s ok for a parent to give their kids firearms, alcohol, and tobacco, and let them drive around town, because clearly THOSE rules are only about preventing the kids from doing those things without parental involvement."

Actually, if the parents see fit, I say yes. My dad letting me drive before I was supposed to taught me how. I've also been using firearms since before my teens. Both highly supervised activities. Granted, I lived in the woods in Northern MN, that's kind of the norm.

But yes, we are supposed to be a free country. The same laws that should prevent the PTC from getting their crap should also allow all of what you described above.

Lets go from the premise that guns are dangerous and bad for kids, much like many people do with video games. What do you do? Try to conceal them, don't mention them to kids? Or do you introduce it to them yourself so you can explain how they work, what they do, and what danger there might be with them.

A decade ago back in high school, I went to a party where a teenager found a gun (.22 revolver) hidden under the girls bed. Before anyone could stop him, he managed to shoot himself in the head with it because he was treating it like a small kid with a cool new toy. Something I would never consider doing, since I was taught about them from an early age and respected the potential for danger.

I guess I'd prefer to introduce kids to things and educate them when they are mature enough to handle them, rather than just pretend they don't exist and try to get someone else to legislate them into the uneducated underground.

Anything to not actually have to parent your own children, huh?

You can't get cancer from a video game. You can't shoot someone with a video game. No one has ever wrapped their car around a tree while under the influence of a video game.

Why isn't anyone making a fuss over DVD sales? I suppose it's because films are considered art, and video games are just Satan's plaything. Of course!
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Have you visited a video game arcade in the last year?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenIf it's got an area dedicated to arcade machines, I'd say it counts. Arcade machine in your house though, nope.08/20/2014 - 12:16pm
ZenDoes it count if you have actual arcade machines in your house?08/20/2014 - 12:01pm
E. Zachary KnightWith the current poll, I guess it all depends on how one defines "arcade". If Chuck E Cheese or similar multipurpose businesses count, then that is a yes for me.08/20/2014 - 11:59am
ZenLet the ax fall Sleaker...lessons MUST be learned...08/20/2014 - 11:44am
Andrew EisenNote to Shout boxers: if it's not a current GP story or something currently being discussed in the Shout box, please provide a link to what you're referring to or at least some context so we know what you're talking about and can discuss it with you.08/20/2014 - 11:44am
Sleaker*prepares fluffy kitten for execution as no link has been forthcoming*08/20/2014 - 11:14am
ZenMasked, guessing you are talking about the Wii game which was later ported to 360/PS3. I never played it..but I did grab the sweet gold Classic Controller from it to finish my Gold Wii controller set lol.08/20/2014 - 11:06am
Andrew EisenOnce again, MaskedPixelante, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Are you talking about the Wii remake in 2010? The PS3/360 enhanced port of the remake in 2011? Something new? Please, for the love of fluffy kittens, provide a damn link.08/20/2014 - 9:57am
MaskedPixelanteSo, if I finish this game Activision claims is the GoldenEye remake, but looks suspiciously like a rejected CoD game, do I get the REAL GoldenEye remake?08/20/2014 - 8:37am
Papa MidnightWii U Games finding Solidarity with PC Gamers :(08/19/2014 - 6:09pm
Zenbuy all of the bad DLC before they even showed the main content everyone was waiting for. I paid for it, I wanted it, and I got tossed aside.08/19/2014 - 4:10pm
ZenIanC: Yep, both Call of Duty games did the same thing holding back all DLC and then releasing the day one map 2 YEARS later out of the blue. Why play what they won't support. Warner Bros canceled their DLC after promising it because Wii U owners didn't08/19/2014 - 4:09pm
Andrew EisenShe's the developer of Depression Quest. It's an interesting game (although I wouldn't call it fun) and you can check it out for free at depressionquest.com.08/19/2014 - 2:48pm
Sleakerwhat's all this Zoe quinn stuff all over and should I even bother looking it up?08/19/2014 - 2:37pm
IanCExactly Zen. The third one had random delays to the DLC and they just came out seemingly at random with no warning, and the 4th they didn't even bother.08/19/2014 - 2:31pm
ZenI may have bought both AC games on Wii U, but WHY would anyone be expected to get the game when they came out MONTHS before release that they were skipping DLC and ignoring the game? They poisoned the market on themselves then blamed Nintendo players.08/19/2014 - 1:27pm
Papa MidnightIn review, that's fair, Andrew. I just tend to take Gawker articles with a lot of salt, and skepticism.08/19/2014 - 12:07pm
Matthew WilsonFor one has a English speaking support team for devs. Devs have said any questions they have, were translated in to Japanese. then back in to English. 08/19/2014 - 11:41am
Adam802they need to realize the "wii-fad" era is pretty much over and start rebooting some old great franchises like they are doing with star fox08/19/2014 - 11:39am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician