It's only relevant in that it shows that perhaps those "rats" fleeing the "sinking ship" have left prematurely.

Let's skip the "Unconstitutional" argument.

From now on - what with the recent Federal Trade Commision results - let's go with "Vestigial" or "Useless" or "Wasteful" or "Solves a non-existant problem" legislation.

I agree with that guy, destroying the values your country was founded on to help give some failing parents and politicians some sense of empowerment is not worth it.

[...] wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptMichael Gallagher (left), CEO of the Entertainment Software Association, which represents a number of US video game publishers, has commented on a bill introduced in Congress earlier this week. The Video Games Rating Enforcement Act, proposed by Reps. Lee Terry (R-NE) and Jim Matheson (D-UT) would require retailers to conduct ID checks on buyers of games featuring mature content. Of the measure, Gallager said: The [ESA] shares Reps. Matheson and Terry’s goal of ensuring children are playing parent-approved computer and video games. That is why the ESA consistently works with parent groups, encouraging caregivers to check each game’s ESRB rating and content descriptors—a system three-quarters of parents rely on regularly according to the Federal Trade Commission. We also urge parents to make use of the parental controls available on all new games consoles.  [...]

-continued (wtf happened?)

"they dont know betta"

I'm not saying this is true for all parents and kids, and i have actually had run ins with kids who were mature past their age. But honestly, we already have enough nanny states in the world. Lets not make ours one as well.

ESA Boss Slams Video Game Ratings Bill as Companies Flee His Sinking Ship.

Yes, being resolute in the face of impending legislation while your major members are leaving your organization does tend to undermine your stance now, doesn't it?

I'd be more interested to know if Mr. Gallagher plans to to lobby against this legislation or what other organizations like the VGVN and ECA plan to do about it.

@ Altair

Seems highly relevant to me.

The worst part is that the fine for selling M-rated video games, which many people only think is harmful, is $5k.

Whereas if you sell a minor cigarettes or alcohol, which have proven, demonstrable health effects (cancer, emphysema, etc. in the case of cigs, liver damage and motor skill impairment if you drink too much alcohol), you are fined less than $5k.

Try more like if Hillary becomes president you won't be able to buy ANY video games any more. :(

@Altair: Yeah Rhade is kinda right. This seems pretty relivant because the ESA is usually pretty quiet on things. Now that it seems to be loosing members now they start to speak out. They should of been doing this all along. Why do we consumers have to defend our games?

Well i guess that now that companies abandon them they are trying to show everyone they still got the balls. I'm still glad they said something though...

@Chad,

I agree wholeheartedly with this. It seems any time they try to pass a law that would restrict someone's access to something, the holy scripture of the constitution is trotted out. I fail to see how this in any way is unconstitutional. If a lawyer who specializes in constitutional issues shows up, please speak up. As I said in another post, it's sad that we have to pass laws requiring retailers to do what they should be doing in the first place, but that's what happens when you put the almighty dollar ahead of being a good corporate citizen.

All you people whining about this are not looking at the plus side. The CCA took the bullseye off the comic book industry and parents and politicians started looking for something else to blame. The video game industry needs a similar deflection tactic. The ESRB ratings system hasn't done it, this might be the ticket to get people looking in other directions (like maybe they'll finally figure out the common thread between the 50s and today is bad parenting... one can hope).

I'd be interesting in knowing the amount of fees the ESA collects (or collected) from its members (or former members). If, as reported, Activision grossed $3 billion last year and we assume the ESA was charging them as little as .5% of gross, that's enough money right there to buy and own the entire House of Representatives with a couple of Senators thrown in for good measure. How come they can't block a bill?

@SpiralGray: A lot of people also say that the CCA nearly killed the comics industry during the 50's and 60's. What's your point?

Maybe we can get EA involved, have them install some ID reader on their games that "phones home" your ID to make sure you are you. Good idea yes?

/sarcasm

@Benji
I was thinking more like rules along the lines of "No game shall contain titles with titles using such inflammatory words as 'auto' 'theft' 'hunt' 'man' or 'grand'." Then if R* stuck around throw in "tennis" and "table" for good measure. Maybe if we try hard enough we could get the Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles in the good ol' USA at last!

see i dont have a problem with this IF....

they impose the same restrictions (id checks and fines etc) on movies, games , books & music all equally.

THe system isnt really that bad of an idea. But when you single out one medium over others with no justification then its BS.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. It seems any time they try to pass a law that would restrict someone’s access to something, the holy scripture of the constitution is trotted out.

The Constitution is basically holy. If you don't understand that, you're either not a US citizen, or you shouldn't be one.

I fail to see how this in any way is unconstitutional.

You fail at reading then. It breaks several amendments, that's the term of unconstitutional.

As I said in another post, it’s sad that we have to pass laws requiring retailers to do what they should be doing in the first place, but that’s what happens when you put the almighty dollar ahead of being a good corporate citizen.

It isn't sad that we have to do it. It is sad that its being attempted to be passed to hope to look good in the face of the ignorant public based off of speculation and fear.
Good corporate citizen? There's no such thing, please quit trying to joke.
These politicians would sell you down the river if it made them a dollar at your expense. Don't talk about "good corporate citizens".




All you people whining about this are not looking at the plus side.
There is no plus side.


The CCA took the bullseye off the comic book industry and parents and politicians started looking for something else to blame.

At the expense of that medium basically going to crap? That's not a plus.

The video game industry needs a similar deflection tactic. The ESRB ratings system hasn’t done it, this might be the ticket to get people looking in other directions (like maybe they’ll finally figure out the common thread between the 50s and today is bad parenting… one can hope).

Passing a law to hope things work doesn't do ****. Look at how they treated the FTC findings, they scoffed at them. The most likely situation will just involve other forms of dealing and untaxed money being passed. A really bad scenario would be a fresh employee buying the game for himself and this'll fine the retailer or himself.

This doesn't even involve the enforcement. Police officers being forced to stay staring at a register to not stop something harmful like cigarettes from getting to kids but a damn game with cartoon violence on it?

The word "adult content" is overly vague, and in the minds of the PTC waggling to hit someone can be labeled as "adult content" because of the violence being simulated. Do you understand how screwed up it be if a kid bought a Wii and Wii sports is said to have adult content because of the Mii variations or the violence in Wii boxing?

Seek and ye shall find:

In 2004--the most recent year the ESA has filed its tax-exempt status form with the Internal Revenue Service--E3 brought in almost $16 million, with $1.7 million coming from ratings and $980,000 from membership dues. All told, the ESA brought in about $19.8 million for the year.

In Miami it is against the law for a man to be seen publicly in a strapless gown

*cancels my trip to Miami*

I don't see what the big problem is with ID checks for M-Rated titles. For an industry body to argue against it plays into people like Jack Thompson's hands by appearing to suggest that the industry is afraid of losing revenue from kids purchasing M-Rated games.

@ JC

Well stated. :)

@ ~the1jeffy

Exactly. No system is perfect. The FTC study is showing phenomenal results. Passing a law to try and enforce the same will be horrible. It would be somewhere along the lines of passing a law that says all rain shall run into bodies of water. Less is more when it comes to law.

If you really want to be green then scaling back the laws makes a lot of sense. A lot less paperwork. :)

"It’s putting power back in the hands of parents in a world where any kid can ride their bike out to the nearest store, buy something, and go home without their parents knowing at all."

Where do they get the money to do this? Hmmm? Hand your kid 60 bucks, and you've just ceded parental responsibility. A parent has EVERY tool, power and authority to monitor the games their kids play already.

Pornography exists across all media types, so your argument is null from the start, but I'll humor it. Pornographic video games are already regulated under current law, so again, there is no need for additional laws. The argument is about whether this current bill is needed and/or unconstitutional, not about the state of media laws in general.

"Additionally, your ideas about the “foundation of our freedom” are complete fictions. Many things which are not proven to pose a danger to children are already banned."

I've already addressed the, "Other things are inffectually banned, so why not one more?" point. Fiction? How so. Especially under the light that any supposed harm to children is utter fiction. You really have no counter to this.

Putting power back into the hands of parents? No, this law just tries to do their job for them - which simply adds to the cycle of laziness that pervades the modern parental state.

"[This law] has nothing to do with danger, real or imaginary."

Yes, it has everything to do with it, and your insistance to the contrary means you have little grasp on how and why laws exist, how our legal system works, and the basis of the constitutional law which protects video games and mixes this attempt to regulate them.

If something poses no danger, then there is no reason to pass a law to regulate it.

wrong thread

Wtf is wrong with it being illegal to sell games to minors? I'm from New Zealand wear the retailer gets a $10,000 fine for selling a game to an underage person, I'm an avid video gamer and love the GTA series, but these games shouldn't be in the hands of children unless their parents decide they are mature enough for them

The New Zealand rating system is a universal system for games, movies and TV program's, and is not a voluntary system, our ratings are as follows:
G = General
PG = Parental guidance necessary
M = Mature ages 16+
R16 = ages 16+
R18 = ages 18+

Plus our rating system is stricter than the ESRB rating system, we actually get games banned (manhunt, postal etc). The GTA games fall into the R18 category