Mark Methenitis Offers Alternate Scenarios For Govt. Regulation of Games

So far, every single law seeking to restrict the sale of violent video games has been struck down by the federal courts; it would seem that such legislation is a losing proposition.  So how else might the government try to regulate our favorite pastime?  Writing for Joystiq, lawyer and gamer Mark Methenitis offers two possible scenarios which censorcrats might seek to employ.

The first is to impose content restrictions – not on the type of violence that can be shown but on the type of stories that can be told or the types of characters presented. The idea here would be to ensure that games are politically correct so as not to offend anyone and prevent flaps over perceived racism in games like Resident Evil 5, Left 4 Dead 2, or Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood.  Of course, this still boils down to regulating speech so it’s not likely to be any more successful in the courts than restricting violent content has been.

The second is an idea presented by Jack Thompson during his debate with Methenitis at SGC09 earlier this month. Thompson speculated that the Obama administration might address America’s obesity issues by regulating our play time. But how? The government can’t just march into your home and turn off your Xbox. While there is no indication that Obama is planning any such thing, Methenitis explains how such a scenario might work:

When the government wants you to stop doing something, they tax it. Alcohol is taxed. Tobacco is taxed. Certain kinds of less-fuel efficient cars are taxed. In short, the theory is "fewer people buy things at a higher cost." And it’s something that can be levied against both retail sales and digital downloads.

Taxing games is not a new idea but with the economy the way it is, now seems like the absolute worst time to try it.  Still, you never know. Methenitis:

It’s always difficult to predict what the government may or may not do, or how the courts may or may not rule. The system, however, relies on the vigilance of the public to ensure that our rights are not infringed….

-Reporting from San Diego, GamePolitics Correspondent Andrew Eisen

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    bracomadar says:

    The only reason the government wants people to be healthy is so they can tax them…death tax aside of course.  The game developers really need to make more anti-government games.  Stop messing with game plots that revolve around doing crimes and focus more on games that promote freeing people from oppressive Orwellian governments.  Show worlds in which there is too much government control over people’s personal lives.  Nobody likes the government right now.  If the game is good, a lot of people would buy stuff like that.  Government is the new Nazi as far as bad guys go. 

    PSN: bracomadar

  2. 0
    JDKJ says:

    I’m thoroughly confused. There is (a) the power to levy taxes under the "tax and spend" clause and (b) the power to regulate the instrumentalities of and goods in interstate commerce under the "commerce" clause. I thought we were talking only about (a). 

    And, in defense of Mr. Eisen, he clearly states that it is the well-known idiot and all-round crazy person, Jack Thompson, who speculates that the Obama administration might link obesity to videogames as a means to a regulatory end (or "end run"). Indeed, Mr. Eisen notes that there is no indication that the Obama administration is planning any such thing. If it is "disingenuous" to suggest that the "Obama could do this," then the only person guilty of disingenuity would be Jack Thompson. And for that, we should forgive him. He really doesn’t know any other way of being but disingenuous.

  3. 0
    hachiko says:

    Morrison and Lopez are not dead.  Just because something is sold in the several states doesn’t mean it can be regulated under the commerce clause, regardless of the finding.  While the court has been extremely deferential recently in Raich it is likely that the deference is more related to the subject and facts of the case not the commerce clause and finding in general.

    Either way, it is disengenuous to say that "Obama could do this" when what is really being said is "the democratic party could do this."  It only serves to stir up the public and create hype, because Obama can say he wants the legislature to do something, but he cant directly regulate games like the article implies.

    To Methenitis’ credit, he accurately talks about the government imposing regulations, not the obama administration.  However, he seems to not fully understand the purpose of taxing "sins" or what economists call negative externalities.  It isn’t as simple as "tax it so that fewer people do it."  That seems to be an inaccurate representation of such taxes.  The ideal when taxing things like cigarettes and alcohol is that these things cost society and government money (example:   Lung cancer treatment being paid for by medicare).  The idea behind the cigarette tax, then, is to pay for the medical costs that the government ends up paying associated with the good.  

  4. 0
    JDKJ says:

    I’ve always thought, cynic that I am, that the requirement of Congressional findings works much the same way that the process of grand jury indictment works. To paraphrase the old saying about state attorneys and grand juries, Congress, if it really wanted to, could find that a ham sandwich is in fact a cheese sandwich.

    And when the party in control of the White House also controls both chambers of the Congress, it’s a little naive to suggest that the White House can’t influence the course of Congress’ legislative efforts. Obviously, it can’t in every case. But, just as obviously, it can in some cases. 

  5. 0
    JDKJ says:

    I don’t know of any rule that says if you tax one class of media, then all similar media must also be taxed. That may be true if it was a content-based speech restriction. To restrict one type of speech but not other types of similar speech is violative of the Equal Protection Clause. But it’s not a speech restriction. It’s a tax. Who said you also have to tax books, movies, comics. etc., if you tax videogames?

  6. 0
    hachiko says:

    It’s disconcerting that the commenting on this post went off topic on the first post and stayed off topic for a good half of the thread. 

    Aside from that that, I would say either the claims made are irresponsible or the way they were informed were irresponsible.

    I don’t see "Obama" could impose a tax on games, even in his wildest dreams, because there is no appropriate agency to do so, and further, it isn’t even clear if an administrative agency can impose a tax (but perhaps a fee).

    In short, the obama administration has no way to regulate our play time, or even price of games in a more general sense.  That would HAVE to be congress, and it would have to be after a ways and means finding under the necessary and proper clause, with regards to regulating healthcare, which would be unlikely, at least because there isn’t any information that support a finding that video games make you obese, other than pop culture stereotypes.  

    Regulating game content based on something like Heart of Atlanta would also be unlikely (which seems like it has to be the premise of the regulations in general) because even if games have a disparate represenation of some people, that doesn’t mean it has a disparate effect on the economy, which seems like what would be required to regulate video games under the commerce clause.  Plus this is unlikely to overcome the first amendment hurdles that it has.  

    This whole article is a red herring, and it seemed like it’s just baiting the conservative right into a frenzy. 


  7. 0
    axiomatic says:

    If they do this to games then it must also be done to books, movies, comics, and TV. Good luck with that. The only reason this is even being discussed is that there are barely any games lobbyists. With games they’re not messing with some politicians gravy train.

  8. 0
    nefermore says:


    They could also decide to do a serious study on game content.   I look at the past criticisms and the arguments are pretty generalized so a lot of people blow them off.   If some group really dug into the games and wrote about violent content in detail they might just have an argument the public would pay attention to.  Issues such as sexual violence, pedophilia and cruelty to harmless animals might even find their way into the subject, not to mention attacks on police, public buildings and officials, prostitution, ect, ect. 

    So far though we just hear games are violent and the counter is that young boys are are already aggressive due to growing up and hormonal frustrations.   Many of us already know that this is no longer true regarding everyone who plays the games but I do not think the general public yet does.




  9. 0
    ded2me says:

    You know what IS unconstitutional? Forcing business owners to not allow smoking in their establishments.  And it is happening.  If you don’t want to be around smokers, don’t go to the places that allow the smokers inside. Right?  If you don’t like video games. Don’t play them.  So sick of this nanny state we live in.

  10. 0
    digdug says:

     I really dont think you can depend on the courts. All it takes is one law upheld by the supreme court and then states will pass whatever laws they want, whatever laws that can get upheld by their state courts. And thats 50 chances then to have censorship of games. Some states would censor, some states wouldnt. 

    Imo theres already 4 votes on the supreme court now to allow states to decide censorship laws of games themselves. Thats the 4 conservatives that are on the court now. And there may even be a couple of the liberals that would join them: Breyer I think might, and its hard to tell how Sotomayor might vote. Games is a relatively new medium; the supreme court will have to deal with them sometime.

    I dont think we have to worry about the federal gov’t much though. I think even the conservatives on the court would overturn a law that censored video games by the federal gov’t.

    I really think sin taxes of artistic content are unlikely. Political correctness is more of a threat. But I think both conservatives and most liberals would oppose that. Liberals using ratings to try to make poltically incorrect content M rated could be a problem in the future though.

  11. 0
    Roh02 says:

    taxing stuff some people think is bad it lets the goverment get extra money while still being able to say its for the greater good.

    greedy little fu … actually I wont finish that phrase.

  12. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Becuse like with bullets you limit the ammount of the popualce that had access to it in a unreasonable manner.


    I am a criminal because I purchase media,I am a criminal because I use media, I am a criminal because I chose to own media..We shall remain criminals until Corporate stay’s outside our bedrooms..

  13. 0
    JDKJ says:

    I’d imagine it could be made, as I imagine it’s not much the winning argument. If the tax is imposed on the audience-consumer, how is the speaker-manufacturer’s right to speak being chilled? 

  14. 0
    JDKJ says:

    Despite the intuitive response that limiting access to otherwise protected speech by way of imposing prohibitive taxes is unconstitutional, it isn’t. You’d think it would or should be, but it isn’t. Technically, the speech isn’t being restricted, it’s merely being taxed. You’re still free to access the speech, provided you’re willing to pay the tax.  

  15. 0
    wintermute says:

    They’re taxing the living hell out of tobacco, but just how many people have quit and kept off tobacco?  Most people have just bought their tobacco product of choice in bulk before the taxes went up.  Taxing people into quitting, no matter what they’re trying to get people to stop doing, or whatever the reason for it, only hurts people more than helps.

    To start, you’re not going to get everyone to quit just by raising the taxes, because no matter how much the cost, people will still do what they’ve always been doing.  To use tobacco again, I’m a casual cigar smoker, and I’ve seen the cost of my cigars just go up and up and up, but that hasen’t stopped me from grabbing a couple cigars when I have the cash, and smoke them occasionally.  And you’re not going to get the hardcore smokers to stop either.  So, you just tax people into oblivion because they’re doing something you don’t like.  And what about all the employees at the companies who make tobacco products?  Let’s say taxes go high enough that most people quit using tobacco, you’re forcing a lot of workers, mostly blue collar workers, out of their jobs.  So now you’ve got even more people with little to no money in an already bad economy.

    On top of that, what are you really fixing in first place?  When you take away something that a person’s addicted to WITHOUT helping them to overcome the addiction itself, they’re just going to find something else to fill in the gap from the previous addiction.  You have to help the person overcome not just the physical addictoin, but the mental one as well.

    There’s also the question of constitutionality.  The idea of "we can’t exactly make it illegal, becuase there’s driving reason to, so we’ll just tax people to the point of not doing it" isn’t too consitutionaly sound.  A ban is a ban is a ban, weather it’s direct by making it illegal, or indirect by taxing it to death.

    Lastly, where’s the proof, where’s the unquestionable studies that prove that A) kids are getting flat out addicted to videogames, and B) that that addiction is a major factor in childhood obesity?  The only proof that I’ve seen from any of these studies, or the special interest groups that blame videogames for everything, is that some parents are so completely incapable of raising and rearing their own children, and so dependent on the goverment and other forces to do the work for them, that their kids should be taken from them.

  16. 0
    PHX Corp says:

    People are Already starting to get Disenfranchised by obama that’s pretty much the first sign

    the second sign has already happened aswell(Tea(Taxed enough already) party protests of increasing taxes and future taxes(If your Wondering what it is it was the surger act, Currency act and the Tea Tax act)

    The third Sign is govt trying to repress the people(for us it may not happen but, then again)

    For anyones case I do not want to end up in trouble with the govt period

    Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

  17. 0

    I believe because, like with McDonald’s and other fastfood places they’re considered services and that’s what you’re paying tax on. Some states/counties/cities already have "junk food" taxes and this is something that shouldn’t have any involvement with on the federal level. I’m sure there are other states that charge sales tax on all food but I’m feeling to lazy to look.

  18. 0
    Shahab says:

    This is the second thread in a row where you’ve gone on about Obama and health care. This is, not

    You and that NeoKafka or whatever his name is should pedle your conservative politics elsewhere and stick to the topics at hand. This is coming from someone with largely conservative views.


    Anyway… neither of those things will ever happen. If anything, with the growth of the industry as a whole they’ll receive tax breaks, just to keep the money in whatever jurisdiction/country. We’re talking about quite a big pie for people to take a slice of. I doubt we’d ever reach the point where we would see a "sin tax" on video games.

  19. 0
    hayabusa75 says:

    I believe, in CA at least, you can only tax food items that have been prepared so they’re ready to eat.  So, if you buy a whole rotisserie chicken from the grocery store, you pay tax on that.  But if you buy a few cuts of raw chicken you don’t get taxed.  There may be further stipulations; I’m not an expert on the subject, though.

    "De minimus non curat lex"

  20. 0
    Zerodash says:

    Oh, you got me.  Everyone opposed to this is just a crazy conservative.  Good job keeping everything polarized.  Let me direct you to my friend- he’s made of straw and you can generalize at him all you want.

  21. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    So that’s why the ‘three cheeseburger a day’ diet was such a failure.

    Seriously though, I love when you see these people who all they eat is junkfood and they complain that they’re 300 pounds.

    Having said that, I don’t think the government should have the power to force them to change, any more than I think I should have to pay for their healthcare.

  22. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    And differentiate what you eat. I mean, in reality, everything is good for you on some level ,the key is moderation, which evidently the government trusts no one to do.

  23. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    I think we’re finding that ‘necessary’ food items can’t be taxed.  The suggestion is that fast food and food deemed ‘unhealthy’ CAN be taxed, because it creates a burden on the taxed.

    Of course, this raises the whole issue of ‘what is and isn’t necessary’ and ‘what is and isn’t healthy’.  Some believe meat is unhealthy; will that be taxed?  How about tofu; will that be taxed?  The whole thing is ridiculous and reeks of a social agenda, an agenda which, no doubt, video games WILL be a part of.  The only question, once they begin taxing certain foods, is WHEN.

    I find the whole thing ridiculous.  You can eat fast food and still be healthy if you spend time working out.

  24. 0
    Zerodash says:

    Probably because its the big issue right now in American politics. Like it or love it, this health overhaul will give the government more power over the individual than ever before- to say nothing about how American tax practices are going to change. 

    A post-healthcare government will be irreversible and end up with higher taxes and less individual freedom for every citizen.  The questions come down to whether its worth it or not.

    This is one of the most profound restructuring of the American government and economy in history- of course it will come up in every discussion.


    Videogames and fatty foods taxes are just the beginning.  Demolition Man is coming true.

  25. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    I thought food items coudln’t be taxed.

    And of course it will be ,they’ll keep hacking at our freedoms under such a guise until there’s nothing left.

  26. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    In this case, its very relevant; what else would they tax video games based on?  The CDC recently suggested that because Soda and fast food leads to obesity, those things be taxed.  I don’t doubt that they’d suggest the same thing about video games after the other two dried up, and suggest that VIDEO GAMES are responsible for the remaining obesity in this country.

  27. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    True. The so valled "Home of the free" is rapidly becoming what it fought so hard to get away from two centuries ago. WIth how much the founding fathers must be rolling in their graves, may as well make them the basis of the green energy plans.

  28. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Of course it’s what Thompson had in mind; the man is dumber than a lemming.  I’m just saying, I can’t see them saying they’ll tax it at 110% or something like that.  Of course, with the agenda that’s running in the government now, it probably wouldn’t be too big a surprise.

  29. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    Gracious me, that’s the longest signature I’ve ever seen.

    Anyway, the comment was not directed solely at you, you just happened to be the last reply.


    Andrew Eisen

  30. 0
    F__ked up says:

    Then could you stop Austin_Lewis from his tirade of tangents what have very little to do with the topic at hand?

    Lately when I read gamepolitics the comments section related to anything Obama or Government has been filled with nothing but current politics (lately health care) and very little to do with the topic at hand.


    I am a critical thinker not a dumb ass inbred conservative or a jackass liberal

    Pedophiles are the new Nazi / Communist. Labeling someone a Pedophile will get them blacklisted even though there is no evidence.

    Murder is not a crime when done in self defense, a time of war, or when done by court order (death penalty). People cry murder when fetus are aborted. How about when the mother could die? The mother is 13 years old? The mother was raped? The child is a product of incest? Is foster care really the best answer for children who’s parents cant take of them? How many children actually end up in foster care when their parents are dead beats?

    A 14 year old is child when they have sex but is an adult when they commit murder?

  31. 0
    F__ked up says:

    The F-22 is definitely a superior air fighter. Capable out maneuvering all previous generations of fighters. It is highly regarded as the superior air fighter in today’s day and age. It dominates all other air fighters in todays day and age. It is such a great air fighter we have 187 F-22 on order already.

    After all the $44,000 maintenance cost per 1 hour of flight and the recent international date line bug. But the $350 million price tag is perfect price for this recession. After all that is a drop in the bucket compared to health care reform.

    Its perfect for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where the enemies have squadron of air fighters of their own. The F-22 is dominating Afghanistan and Iraq forces where they are using advance vehicle and their assortment of air fighters not guerrella warfare tactics that make the F-22 useless. NOT

    I am a critical thinker not a dumb ass inbred conservative or a jackass liberal

    Pedophiles are the new Nazi / Communist. Labeling someone a Pedophile will get them blacklisted even though there is no evidence.

    Murder is not a crime when done in self defense, a time of war, or when done by court order (death penalty). People cry murder when fetus are aborted. How about when the mother could die? The mother is 13 years old? The mother was raped? The child is a product of incest? Is foster care really the best answer for children who’s parents cant take of them? How many children actually end up in foster care when their parents are dead beats?

    A 14 year old is child when they have sex but is an adult when they commit murder?

  32. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    We don’t really have air superiority right now.  Japan and Israel both have comparable aircraft, as do certain EU countries and Russia.  China is only slightly behind us.  That F22 would have left all of them in the dust. 

    As for generation of the aircraft, it is broken down thusly:

    Generation 1: Me262 and F86.  Basically, JET fighter planes from 1940 to 50

    Generation 2: Mid 50s to early 60s.  IR, RF, SARH, BVR technologies produced.  Mig-19 and Mig-21, along with F-9, F-11, F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106 are produced.

    Generation 3: 60s to 70s(ish).  Improved ECMs and production of the Laser Guided Bomb (LGB).  Mig-23, Mig-25, F-4 are produced.  F-4 goes on to kick ass in Vietnam.

    Generation 4:  70s to mid/late 90’s.  E-M theory is behind many fighter designs.  FLCS, FADEC, HOTAS, HUD, MFD, RF-AAM, RST.  Also, the AIM 54 Phoenix missile.  Here, we begin to see many of the commonplace features of fighters today.  Huge leaps in Radar technologies, which makes the F-14 Tomcat a nearly unbeatable fighter craft.  Mig 29 and Mig 31, SU 27 and SU 33, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18 introduced. 

    Generation 4.5: 90s to now.  RAM introduced.  Dassault Rafale, Mig 29K, Mig 29M, Mig 35, Su 32/24. Su 30M, SU 35, F-15E, F-16E/F, F/A-18E/F produced.  Basically, old models or based on old models with newer technologies.  No real leap in designs. 

    The reason we have a 4.5 generation is the cold war.  At the end, spending on new fighter craft dropped considerably, seeing as we no longer needed a plane capable of spanking Soviet aircraft (which are falling behind these days). 

    The EUROFIGHTER is a 4.5 generation craft.  In comparison, the F22 is a fifth generation craft.  Unlike the F-35 JSF, which had been a partnered design (US shared the cost and risk with 7 other countries in making it, thus keeping costs lower), the F22 would have been all us, with NONE being sold outside our borders.  The F22 is also more than capable of demolishing the F-35 JSF.

    The F22 was the best choice, but Gates stupidly ignored it.

  33. 0
    Roh02 says:

    what I meant about the f22 was that it was handled badly yeah its a great aircraft but the budget went waaaaay beyond what was intended. and then AFTER they finish they cut funding. not to mention even without it america still has air superiority.

    as for the euro fighter its decent enough its smooth in high G turns has some stealth capabilities built in performs well in the roll it was designed for and is apparently a 4.5 generation aircraft whatever that means. but again it went way over budget and isnt all needed all that much.

    the research and production of these aircraft couldve been done much better and in a more relaxed cost effective manner but THEY HAD to have them RIGHT NOW and threw a ton of money at them.

  34. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    That’s what I was getting at. It scared hte industry to where artists and publishers were too scared toeven touch upon certain themes.

  35. 0
    Zerodash says:

    Monetarily, the investors boom of the 90’s did damage comics.  However, as a creative medium, comics are still in a rut because of the code. 

  36. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    All the more reason we need a flat consumption tax(all services and goods) , stop taxing employment and  property(thats right ban all government local or federal tax on property) instead tax vehicles based on gas millage. Then split the tax to the city(25%) county(10%)state(10%)fed(5%) thats roughly 55%  consumer tax, but as low as 35% could work. Further balance the system by allowing poor sectors to draw up to 15% of neighboring sectors tax revenue so they can take care of thier people.

    Pass the burden of "government" back to the localities (city and counties) and let states worry only about heading state infrastructure plans,legal restrictions and laws again and let the fed concentrate on nation wideinfrastructureing planing(they work with states who work with citys and counties to plan out infrastructure strategies, the localties city/county/state handle all the money needs as they get the most money), national laws, and national protection again.

    The federal government is to far removed from the common man to be in their business on a day to day scale to many greedy bastards and bleeding heart wimps will just scuttle it all for the sake of their own limited vision.

    As for censoring games what better system can you have than retailers, parents and console makers? (well retailers and consumers really….)


    I am a criminal because I purchase media,I am a criminal because I use media, I am a criminal because I chose to own media..We shall remain criminals until Corporate stay’s outside our bedrooms..

  37. 0
    Roh02 says:

    nah if their tried for a "electronic media tax" they would have alot more opposition than just from the games industry they see games as an easy target. its far too fair to be even considered (sarcasme).

  38. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    Well, taxing IS an option, since Video Games are a luxury, but once again, I’d be more comfortable seeing a ‘Electronic Media Tax’, than a ‘Game Tax’, since Videos would also fall under that category, but not books, which I’ve always felt shouldn’t be taxable (despite the fact that I think the UK charges VAT on them).

  39. 0
    beemoh says:

    >The first is to impose content restrictions – not on the type of violence that can be shown but on the type of stories that can be told or the types of characters presented.

    So the Comics Code, then, that worked so well for that artform?

    Oh, wait, it ruined it completely for half a century, didn’t it? My mistake.


  40. 0
    Magic says:

    I believe each person effectively pays 50p per year for the royal family which apparently goes a long way in helping our tourism (I read a statistic that 95% of visitors to England only go to London which has most of the royal family aspects, presumably). I don’t think that’s such a bad deal.

  41. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    The F22 would have basically guaranteed Air Superiority to our military for 5 to 10 years.  The fact that we scrapped it for the JSF, which China has comparable technology to, is moronic.  Especially after we already spent the money to research it.

    The Euro Fighter was mediocre from conception; Lockheed Martin’s F22 was anything but.

  42. 0
    Roh02 says:

    they tax pretty much everything and the stuff they dont tax they are trying to make taxes for its going to get to a point that theres more tax to pay than you actually earn. seriosly do they have to tax peoples pass times and hobbies as if life wasnt hard enough to pay for allready.

    dont get me wrong I understand the need for tax to pay for road maintenance and health care and all that. but they waste so much money on useless bills and getting releceted and on military crap (f22 or euro fighter anyone?) or whatever to the point where you wonder why we dont call for a whole new government.

    and as for royalty here in england exactly why are we paying them to live like royalty (heh) when they pretty much do nothing these days. you could save alot of lives easily with the money they get from us to live like that.

  43. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Well, they’re talking about taxing junk food and cola to help pay for the new healthcare bills, now with 90% more bullshit (apparently, you won’t be able to keep your old insurance or your doctor, by the way), and so I would believe that games would be next on the list.  Hell, they already tax cigarettes and alcohol, and it seems like a lot of people in the current ruling party think that games are in the same vein.

    Things that would suck: A tax based on how long you were on the internet, a tax based on how many systems you have, a tax based on how much you download/upload to the internet, etc.

  44. 0
    Roh02 says:

    unfortunatly the reason tax on games has failed before (to my knowledge) is that the games industry isnt taken seriosly people in charge dont think its mature or dont recognise the money it makes. and as such dont see it as a source of cash.

    probleme is the fact that games are protected under free speach has come under alot of fire lately and those trying to keep it protected. have been using the whole games as art that their mature and make alot of money stuff to do it.

    that could spell some tax trouble.

  45. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    I was under the impression that New York has introduced a bill that would restrict games in some way based on racial stereotypes. As far as I remember, that bill has gone nowhere.

    AS for taxing games, it has been proposed before and I doubt that it will ever happen.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  46. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Depending on the tax, it probably wouldn’t hurt the industry all that much.  It would just be a further inconvenience to the gaming populace.  Unless it’s like the new taxes in NYC on alcohol and cigarettes, in which case the industry might really be in trouble.

  47. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    The first idea won’t work for the reasons stated, and it’ll start those ethnic groups bitching AGAIN, but this time about how they aren’t represented in those games at all.

    As for the second, well, it’s proposed by Thompson, so he already cursed it to failure, but he and others would almost imediately begin adding to it if it got passed. And the only reason Thompson hopes for it is he wants the industry badly hurt

Leave a Reply