Submitted by Terminator44 - January 30, 2007 at 4:14 pm -050075.49.13.131
@rammsoldat, kurisu, and others
"there was an american kid hurling abuse at me on gears of war the other day and i kept thinking to myself “how has he gotten a M rated game”. "
Well, since we don't know the kid, I don't think either of us will ever find out. However, the most likely explaination is that his parents bought it for them, as is the case for most minors who own M-rated games. These stats from the ESA's website seems to confirm this:
"Ninety-three percent of people who make the actual purchase of computer games and 83% of people who make the actual purchase of video games are 18 years of age or older. The average age of the game buyer is 40 years old."
Considering that, I don't think the example you cited makes a very good case for outlawing the sale of M-rated games to minors. The parents will likely buy the games for their children anyway, either out of laziness or a lack of understanding of the games rating system. As has been said over and over again, education, not legislation, is the key to helping parents decide which games are and are not appropiate for THEIR children.
Now, rammsoldat, if the "penalty on retailers" you want entails a voluntary set of guidlines for the retail industry, I'd be okay with that (thought it would probably never work, considering how competitive retailers are these days). But if you're talking about getting the government and the force of law involved, then that won't fly in the U.S., as you can tell from the string of defeats that such bills have suffered. This is because these laws violate the 1st Amendment, which does apply to minors, as established by the courts in the famous Indianapolis bill. I don't want the government regulating content just to shut up one or two trolls on Live.
And that brings me to Iliad's point: What the eff does the behavior of certain 12-year-olds on Live have to do with game legislation? I know it's an issue that affects many of us, and one we like the complain about. Really, though, what would any of this legislation BS do to deter them? As I pointed out above, it's not these kids getting the games, it's their parents. Besides, for every one 12-year old punk I have to deal with on XBL, I've had to deal with five who sound in their late teens or early adulthood ;).
Posted 07/24/08 at 08:48am E. Zachary Knight: @ lunatic, What you see is what you get. Once a comment gets pushed off it is gone forever.
Posted 07/24/08 at 07:39am sortableturnip: Best...comments...ever: http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2008/07/06/jack-needs-your-help.aspx?pg=5&view=threaded
Posted 07/24/08 at 05:42am sortableturnip: Alteffor: I 2nd that motion. GP you should have a special section for all of JT's correspondence to you
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:13pm GRIZZAM PRIME: Lunatic: Nope. Ever fading if I'm not mistaken.
Posted 07/23/08 at 08:05pm LuNaTiC: is there a way to view old shouts? sorry if its a noob question.
Posted 07/23/08 at 07:07pm gamepolitics: momma didn't raise no sock puppet
Posted 07/23/08 at 06:15pm Rodrigo Ybáñez García: Jack is a repressed man. Don´t be surprised...
Posted 07/23/08 at 06:07pm GryphonOsiris: So Jack admitted paying for gay porn... all I can say is wow... just wow...
Posted 07/23/08 at 05:09pm lumi: to the case, and he's been on 60 minutes once!
Posted 07/23/08 at 05:09pm lumi: GP, you should mention you'll be filing a legal injunction against him if he doesn't comply. Phoenix Wright will be attached
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:32pm Alteffor: You should add a section to the site for anything Jack CC's to you. It's always entertaining to read the stuff he writes.
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:31pm Matriculated: Does anyone know when the Supreme Court reaches their decission?
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:04pm Freyar: I demand to see this letter! (Not that I have any grounds to demand on.)
Posted 07/23/08 at 02:53pm gamepolitics: JT called me a "sock puppet" in an e-mail to Hal Halpin... i gave him 24 hours to retract it, LOL
Posted 07/23/08 at 02:46pm Haggard: Might want to take a look at what Anthony Horowitz wrote about GTA IV in the Telegraph, article seems to have been taken down
Posted 07/23/08 at 01:05pm Silencets: Beutiful. I always did wonder about Jacko Wacko
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:24am Matriculated: So Jack (an anti-gay activist) PAYED for gay porn
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:22am Matriculated: [i]...and purchased membership.[/i]
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:21am Matriculated: [i] few months later, as part of his ongoing campaign against Kent, Thompson followed links to gay porn on Kent's website[/i]
Posted 07/23/08 at 07:40am sortableturnip: Jack's at it again: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2008/07/jack_thompson_faces_permanent.php
"there was an american kid hurling abuse at me on gears of war the other day and i kept thinking to myself “how has he gotten a M rated game”. "
Well, since we don't know the kid, I don't think either of us will ever find out. However, the most likely explaination is that his parents bought it for them, as is the case for most minors who own M-rated games. These stats from the ESA's website seems to confirm this:
"Ninety-three percent of people who make the actual purchase of computer games and 83% of people who make the actual purchase of video games are 18 years of age or older. The average age of the game buyer is 40 years old."
Considering that, I don't think the example you cited makes a very good case for outlawing the sale of M-rated games to minors. The parents will likely buy the games for their children anyway, either out of laziness or a lack of understanding of the games rating system. As has been said over and over again, education, not legislation, is the key to helping parents decide which games are and are not appropiate for THEIR children.
Now, rammsoldat, if the "penalty on retailers" you want entails a voluntary set of guidlines for the retail industry, I'd be okay with that (thought it would probably never work, considering how competitive retailers are these days). But if you're talking about getting the government and the force of law involved, then that won't fly in the U.S., as you can tell from the string of defeats that such bills have suffered. This is because these laws violate the 1st Amendment, which does apply to minors, as established by the courts in the famous Indianapolis bill. I don't want the government regulating content just to shut up one or two trolls on Live.
And that brings me to Iliad's point: What the eff does the behavior of certain 12-year-olds on Live have to do with game legislation? I know it's an issue that affects many of us, and one we like the complain about. Really, though, what would any of this legislation BS do to deter them? As I pointed out above, it's not these kids getting the games, it's their parents. Besides, for every one 12-year old punk I have to deal with on XBL, I've had to deal with five who sound in their late teens or early adulthood ;).