[quote]But in the United States, it’s Congress’s role to create laws and legislation, and Utah Democrat Jim Matheson has done just that. With the 113th United States Congress freshly sworn-in, the legislative maelstrom has begun unabated with H.R. 287, entitled the “Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act”.
At first glance, this may seem confusing since the ESRB has been rating games in the United States for nearly two decades. However, the ESRB is entirely voluntary and self-regulating; this legislation, in essence, would make the ESRB the law of the land. “It shall be unlawful for any person to ship or otherwise distribute in interstate commerce, or to sell or rent, a video game that does not contain a rating label, in a clear and conspicuous location on the outside packaging of the video game, containing an age-based content rating determined by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board.”
[...]
Specifically, “It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or rent, or attempt to sell or rent (1) any video game containing a content rating of “Adults Only”… to any person under the age of 18; or (2) any video game containing content rating of “Mature”… to any person under the age of 17.”
Breaking this proposed law wouldn’t result in a criminal charge; rather, it would result in a civil penalty of upwards of $5,000 per transgression.[/quote] [url=http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/01/17/violent-games-legislation-introduced-to-us-congress?abthid=50f86be3cab6cfb906000059]Read the full story, fresh off the press.[/url]
I would like to point out that children under 17 can still play M rated games, they just can't buy them.
-
Edited by The Avenger: 1/19/2013 10:05:05 AMWell I'll be 17 in a week so this won't affect me much. In fact, it would not affect me at all as my country doesn't enforce a rating system on video games. But the comfort of knowing that I can legally play M rated games...
-
So now a game has to get rated to get made? What about indie developers? Do they have to pay the ESRB to rate their game?
-
[quote]I would like to point out that children under 17 can still play M rated games, they just can't buy them.[/quote]GOOD!
-
Great, less Halo 4 fanboys who can't appreciate marvelous gameplay and abandon just about any game within a month.
-
It's always been like that, at least here in Ireland. I don't think they should do much more really.
-
Edited by Goatman: 1/18/2013 3:12:23 AMgood. less 12 year olds on xbl... Is what I would like to say, but considering the parents will just buy it for them, all they're really doing is making the esrb government approved. actually, this is a good thing because people won't be able to blame video games anymore.
-
[quote]I would like to point out that children under 17 can still play M rated games, they just can't buy them.[/quote] Hasn't this been the case already? This law will just bring it to a federal level, right?
-
Eh. it's reasonable, but unnecessary. Besides, this won't change a damn thing.
-
This is good. I have absolutely no problem with this. I mean, Gamestop already enforces the ESRB like the business depends on it. And if the ESRB is the law of the land, what will change? Smaller retail chains refusing to sell children their cawadoody? This works entirely in my favor and I approve of it completely
-
Call of Duty won't make me go deaf playing it if this really happens. Same with Halo 4.
-
Oh, that sucks. MOOOOOOM!! CAN WE GO TO GAMESTOP?
-
Oh look, more ridiculous regulation and government intrusion. It's amazing to me that in this day and age that people are ok with the government regulating every single part of their damn life. Why cannot a parent take more responsibility?
-
I'm actually Ok with this. Better than video games having their own tax like what Massachusetts was/is trying to do. But yah how are they going to regulate online games and even selling via Ebay or Craigslist?
-
What about online games? Do those need to be rated as well?
-
The first part I'm okay with, but the second part is what I don't like. So what if I sell a M rated game to some 16 year old on Ebay? And his parents get pissed. Would I in any way shape or form be liable? I would like to think not.
-
Edited by tlgCallum: 1/18/2013 4:02:24 PMOkey-doke, let's come at this from a legal perspective. In the words of the Dude, "this isn't a first amendment thing". This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. What this has to do with is regulating what is appropriate for minors to be viewing. All I'm seeing in the comments are minors who are grumpy because they'll no longer be able to buy games that are not necessarily appropriate for them. My advice? Get over it. Hell, maybe you shouldn't be viewing that content. Now, both film and music have ratings sytem that theoretically prevent minors from accessing adults-only content, and this will be no different. The government are not using videogames as a scapegoat for anything; the fact that the gaming industry has gone so long without a proper institutionalised system of age ratings should indicate that the government have actually not even looked at videogames closely enough over the past thirty years for it to become an area warranting legislation. The relatively recent growth of gaming as an industry and entertainment medium has caused a massive uptake in videogames by younger audiences. This naturally necessitates a legislative code of conduct that will properly regulate the sale of adults-only videogames to minors. While this might not work in practice, it's a step in the right direction for legitimising videogames as both an entertainment medium and an art form, as the majority of people still don't take them seriously. Let me put that on a new paragraph: "[b]While this might not work in practice, it's a step in the right direction for legitimising videogames as both an entertainment medium and an art form.[/b]" The idea of opposing this kind of legislation is ridiculous. It is a simple fact that there is content that is inappropriate for minors to be viewing. This ranges from sexual content, to violence, to drug use, and it's not because videogames affect behaviour (although the jury is still out on that one), or because minors are more impressionable than adults (although they actually are). It's simply because minors have a low emotional maturity, and sometimes intellectual maturity, and should not be presented with the images presented in say, the excessively-violent BlOps2. Don't -blam!- with me here, I've played BlOps2, and it's horrendously violent. I'm not usually affected by that stuff in games or film, but it was just ridiculous: guys caught in bear traps and then shot to death? An almost constant stream of throat-stabbing? It's a simply fact that the vast majority of minors are not at the point that they should be exposed to that. Preparing for intense flaming from under-18s in 3... 2... 1...
-
Finally, about time they made people do stuff they were supposed to in the first place.
-
Just rename it to AVGAFLAP. Anti Violent Games Act For Lazy Ass Parents.
-
So they're just going to enforce what they already have harder? How many kids do they think walk into Wal Mart and buy Far Cry 3? Parents buy the games for their kids.
-
How would they find out if someone were buying a game for there little brother or selling it to their next door neighbor who wasn't old enough.
-
It doesn't matter, there's been several attempts at this now, they're never carried and barely even considered, it will not happen, it will never happen. Of course I live in the UK where this is pretty much the case and it makes absolutely no difference, people will get their hands on content they wish to consume one way or another, the only way to regulate it is through education, "Cracking down" only leads to more hype behind the media.
-
Edited by Spartan Ken 15: 1/17/2013 10:33:59 PMEben though I am 18, I still think this is stupid and takes away freedom from younger people. The government shouldn't be deciding things like this, there is no need for this.
-
BUUULLLLLLLLL SHIIIIIITTTTTTT Clearly the government's responsibility to control what I do in my free time.
-
Even on the unlikely chance this passes pass decisions by the Supreme court would have any case brought to it cause the law to be nullified.
-
I love how the government always blames violent video games but not violent movies. Remember Aurora where the guy was literally dressed up as the Joker and said he was inspired by the Joker from the Dark Knight? Is the government saying he played too much Arkham Asylum or something?
-
Edited by Miiji: 1/18/2013 4:49:53 AMSo anyone that isn't 17 will probably a) Ask someone older than them to purchase the game. b) Pirate it off the internet. c) Buy it from Steam with a fake birth-date. I am glad that America is looking ahead once more, but please, put someone that knows about modern issues relative to entertainment software to handle this matter not some bureaucratic pen-pusher.