Sale of violent games as a moral issue.

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2003-01-22 02:22pm

This link was recently passed to me by a friend:

http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/15/comment ... /index.htm

Opinions?

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2003-01-22 02:36pm

There's no question that stores need to do a better job policing themselves when it comes to the sale and rental of "M"-rated games. Children are getting their hands on mature titles too easily, thanks in part to the teens that typically work the registers. (There's no quicker road to popularity than giving your peers access to something verboten.)

My personal opinions are this is nothing but a scapegoating attempt, and will to little more than limit diwindling First Amendant rights. There are already laws in place to protect children/teens from these games, and they are as the should be...Up to the parent's discresion. In order for a teen to have a video card, he must have a bank account. Which usually requires and adult. Therefore, most teens underage are usually renting off their parent's accounts. The parents should be monitoring what they are renting for their children. It is, after all, their responsiblity to raise the kids, not the Video Game Industries. If they are buying and renting these games for their kids, then it is their own fault.

And I seriously disagree that games are to blame for violent crimes, etc they way they are beening portrayed here:

Baca's original bill solely targeted retailers. This year's version, though, might widen its net and include Cyber Cafes, though no final decision has been made on that. (Over the past year, there have been occasional acts of violence at these cafes in California, including one incident where two teens suffered gunshot wounds.)

Of course, they don't list the circumstances of the shooting. Just because it was in a Game Cafe means it was game related? One guy was probably cybering with the other...until they realized they were both guys...And in a fit of jealous man-love-hating twist, killed each other.

For that matter, there were two killed who shot up a school two years ago. Therefore, School should be banned. Religion has killed more and been more violent than anything else, therefore it should be banned. Using their train of logic, eventually everything would be banned!

The obvious solution is to hire adults to work those registers. The pay scale for such a job is a lot less than many adults are willing to work for, though. This leaves retailers facing two less than appealing choices: Substantially raise salaries while sales remain flat or take the risk of violating the law.

Strawman. All employees in retail stores are subject to the rules of violating the sale to minors laws. Whether they are 18 or not is irrelevant. Furthermore, most of the sales people I have seen in retail stores int he electronic's departments or in game-specific stores are adults already! Are they trying to suggest that their age has something to do with whether or not their personal inclination to follow a law? Personally, it would be my opinon that a younger person (less than 18) would be less-inclined to break this law due to the fact that they are making far less than someone over 18 does, and therefore cannot afford it. (IE, young-less job experience, lesser pay. older, more job exp, promotions, etc, more likely to be able to afford.)

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2003-01-22 02:40pm

More things to tear apart:

Some stores tried an unusual approach when the controversial dud "BMX XXX" went on sale, putting the game behind the counter, with everything except the title covered by a thick piece of black plastic (picture Playboy magazine behind a convenience store counter). The game flopped, but it wasn't because of that plastic. Aside from a few curiosity seekers, gamers scoffed at this title.

Generalizing. The title isn't the only reason why gamers didn't buy the game. Perhaps the educated gamers, which many are these days, read that the game is just a pure pile of shit. It's controls, features, etc are on the level or worse than Tony Hawk 2 in comparable areas of feature according to Video Game magazines, websites, reviews, and the gaming channel G4tv. Another reason why they may have scoffed at it? It's be rated ridiculously hard. And the PS2 version was already censored. Since the highest percentage of gamers own a PS2, it's not surprising that this would put a dent in the intrest of PS2 owners towards this game.

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2003-01-22 02:42pm

Better parental supervision is unquestionably required, but we're not seeing a lot of progress on that front. Too many guardians cling to the belief that games haven't progressed beyond Pac Man and Mario, and thus take little to no interest in what their children are playing. Others vilify all M-rated games, not realizing there's a world of difference between titles like "Postal" (where you kill indiscriminately) and the "Thief" games (where stealth is encouraged and you face repercussions for killing).

Thank you for saying that it's the parent's job, and they aren't doing it. Concession accepted.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-01-22 02:44pm

It's kind of a cop out to blame the games, I'd consider it bad parenting. I have a 7yo niece and i sure as hell wouldn't let her play some of the games i play. I have let her play UT 2K2 but i turned the gore off and even that was touchy.

Is it the games to blame or is it the parents wo practice violence in the home and keep their own arsenal in their homes?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-01-22 03:32pm

Not once in this article does he suggest that parents actually be responsible for what their kids are playing. Sheesh.

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2003-01-22 03:43pm

Yes he does, once. But then turns it around and makes it look like it isn't their fault. See my last post above.

Slayen · Post by **Slayen** » 2003-01-22 03:53pm

Lord_Xerxes wrote:Yes he does, once. But then turns it around and makes it look like it isn't their fault. See my last post above.

I've read this thing back to front and it seems, to me anyway, that the point he's trying to make is that it isn't any one groups fault.

Oh, and and a little FYI, games are generally refered to as titles by reviewers and such.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-22 03:54pm

In the end, it's the parent's responsibility to make sure that they know what their kids are seeing, playing, and doing, but I would like to see the companies that sell games assume much tighter restrictions on the sale of game to minors, as well as movie theatres with the sale of movie tickets for R rated movies and the like.

The basic in and out of this is that my parents knew what I was doing often before I did. They knew what I was into and they knew when I was getting into trouble. But they NEVER knew about my hidden porn stash (which wasn't in the house), and they certainly didn't know when I started having sex. My point is that while parents have a responsibility to keep up with their kids, kids can and will do everything in their power to deke out their parents and keep the 'bad stuff' hidden for as long as they can. Granted, kids almost always get caught in the end, but the parent is still there with a kid who's already DONE something you didn't want them to do and gotten away with it.

Reducing the initial exposure to overly violent games isn't entirely the store manager's job, but store managers can certainly do their part and not sell Soldier of Fortune to a thirteen year old.

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2003-01-22 04:04pm

Lagmonster wrote:In the end, it's the parent's responsibility to make sure that they know what their kids are seeing, playing, and doing, but I would like to see the companies that sell games assume much tighter restrictions on the sale of game to minors, as well as movie theatres with the sale of movie tickets for R rated movies and the like.

The basic in and out of this is that my parents knew what I was doing often before I did. They knew what I was into and they knew when I was getting into trouble. But they NEVER knew about my hidden porn stash (which wasn't in the house), and they certainly didn't know when I started having sex. My point is that while parents have a responsibility to keep up with their kids, kids can and will do everything in their power to deke out their parents and keep the 'bad stuff' hidden for as long as they can. Granted, kids almost always get caught in the end, but the parent is still there with a kid who's already DONE something you didn't want them to do and gotten away with it.

Reducing the initial exposure to overly violent games isn't entirely the store manager's job, but store managers can certainly do their part and not sell Soldier of Fortune to a thirteen year old.

Well said. But to my knowledge, they do random inspections of this sort of thing, like they do with sale of tobacco to stores that sell that. For instance, my roomate (formerly the Electronic's Department Manager at a local Kmart before he switched jobs) informed me that the store's policies on this issue are tighter than a virgin cunt. I believe he told me something like a shocking 5,000 dollar fine to the company/store and/or associate involved if caught in a sting, and the possibility of termination.

That's even steeper than the tobacco fines you get for stings in teh convience store I work at. 1,500 for the first offense. 3,000 for the second and when you have 2 or more, your tobacco sales liscence (store) can be revoked. In our store, the owner decides whether he or the associate will pay the fine.