As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Thompson makes nice?
liquidlogan
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
"Thompson offers olive branch to ESA, ESRB" from GameSpot
Thompson here really seems to be trying to bully the industry (though he has no real authority to be doing so in my estimation). Nevertheless, I don't think his desire in this case, though I'm certain this is likely the tip of the iceberg if he succeeds, is not altogether unreasonable in this situation in theory.
An agreement whereby game publishers and distributors have a private contract with game publishers to keep them out of legal trouble makes a lot of sense. The problem is I'm not sure its feasible. I mean, what if one clerk screws up and sells, say, GTA to a 16 year old by accident. I highly doubt that any publisher would threaten to yank its games off store shelves, let alone do it.
Overall, I think this is merely a ploy by Jack so that he can show that hey, I was reasonable, and its you pixelantes who are refusing to safeguard America's children. I tried to reach out to you, but if you want war, you'll get war, type bullshit.
So is Jack making nice or is this just some ploy for his next move?
Thompson offers olive branch to ESA, ESRB
Antigame activist suggests compromise with game industry which he says will eliminate the need for legislation and legal battles.
By Brendan Sinclair, GameSpot
Posted Jan 8, 2007 11:49 am PT
In the past, Florida attorney Jack Thompson has shown little interest in compromising when it comes to his efforts to keep violent games from being made, released, or sold to minors. Today, however, the controversial lawyer appears to be willing to bury the hatchet with the industry, and has proposed an agreement that he said would put an end to his efforts to have laws passed regulating the industry.
In a letter addressed to outgoing Entertainment Software Association president Doug Lowenstein and Entertainment Software Rating Board president Patricia Vance (and forwarded to GameSpot), Thompson suggested that the industry simply tell retailers that if they sell games rated M for Mature to minors, publishers won't ship them games to sell in the first place.
"All that is needed for the industry to get federal and state governments and activists like me off your back is to craft a written industry policy whereby all ESA members direct retailers to stop selling Mature-rated games to anyone under 17," Thompson wrote. "By private agreement rather than by legislation, if such sales occur, upon a factual showing on a case by case basis, then escalating commercial sanctions will be visited upon the offending retailer(s) by all ESRB members."
In his letter, Thompson notes that such an approach hasn't been tried before, but that it would "avoid the need for any future legislation or fights over legislation."
"It's your choice," Thompson wrote. "Let's get this done before it is too late for you all to avoid the legislation that nobody should want but which will, by necessity, come."
Thompson hasn't declared a cease fire as he waits for the industry's response, however. In his letter, he claimed to have helped an Eastern US state draft a new gaming bill just last week. While a Louisiana bill Thompson helped draft was recently overturned, he said this time it would be different, "because these people, unlike in Louisiana, know what they are doing and are prepared to prove to the court, unlike in Louisiana, that these games are harmful."
Representatives with the ESA and the ESRB did not immediately return GameSpot's requests for comment.
Thompson here really seems to be trying to bully the industry (though he has no real authority to be doing so in my estimation). Nevertheless, I don't think his desire in this case, though I'm certain this is likely the tip of the iceberg if he succeeds, is not altogether unreasonable in this situation in theory.
An agreement whereby game publishers and distributors have a private contract with game publishers to keep them out of legal trouble makes a lot of sense. The problem is I'm not sure its feasible. I mean, what if one clerk screws up and sells, say, GTA to a 16 year old by accident. I highly doubt that any publisher would threaten to yank its games off store shelves, let alone do it.
Overall, I think this is merely a ploy by Jack so that he can show that hey, I was reasonable, and its you pixelantes who are refusing to safeguard America's children. I tried to reach out to you, but if you want war, you'll get war, type bullshit.
So is Jack making nice or is this just some ploy for his next move?
liquidlogan on
0
Posts
But that's not to say, from a completely neutral point of view, that it's a bad idea. But again, a publisher would have to be fucking stupid to agree to that.
More than likely, jack is just gonna turn around and say "See?! They're EVIL!" when publishers say no to this.
If a bar serves alcohol to minors, they lose their liquor licence. If a 7-11 sells cigarettes to minors, they get a huge fine. Why not this?
Because playing M rated games isn't illegal dumbass.
Most retailers do this anyway.
edit: beat'd
Because, while alcohol and cigarettes have obvious and measurable negative effects, it's really an opinion as to whether or not video games are "bad for you."
The difference here is that video games are not really on the same level at all as alcohol or cigarettes, really.
Edit: Beat'd like 15 times
I agree completely that it's a reasonable request, but it will never happen.
Basically because the retail environment for games is almost the exact opposite from liquor. Game retail is dominated by big chain stores who have much more power. Publishers would be much more scared of having their games pulled from the shelf than the store would be from losing the titles.
Whereas with liquor, if one bar doesn't have any alcohol as a penalty, you can usually just go down the street to a different one. And we're talking just one bar usually, not a chain of a thousand stores across the country.
I am completely for stopping the sale of M rated games to minors, though I think even if this were to happen, Thompson would use it as foot in the door.
Edit: Well, Beat'd, but my reasons were different.
SSBB: 2921-8745-1438
Diamond: 2320-2615-4086
The perfect response would be "Hahaha fuck you."
Because only AO games are illegal to sell to anyone under 18. And anyone under 18 is going to be living with their parents or legal guardian, so the legislation accomplishes nothing. Simply require stores to accept returns of M rated games by parents for a full cash back refund, and there is no situation to address.
What about to parents getting them for their kids?
Thank you for telling the entire world how to raise their children!
If the parent wants to buy it for their kids, then who cares. It's like movies, if you drop a 14-year-old kid off at the movies with some friends, they shouldn't just be able to walk into Sin City.
If the parent wants to buy them the tickets first and send them on their way, then whatever, they cant come running complaining that entertainment is corrupting their youth.
edit:
I'd say there's quite a bit of difference between stopping the sales of violent games to kids and telling parents how to raise their children.
SSBB: 2921-8745-1438
Diamond: 2320-2615-4086
You know every major video game retailer already does this voluntarily? Did you know it's also voluntary at a movie theatre? A movie theatre could let 5 year olds into Sin City if they wanted too.
Scrumtrulescent has the right idea, I think.
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
It's only voluntary in the loosest definition of the word. If theaters across the country just started allowing kids into R rated movies, the uproar would be enormous.
As for video game retailers, last I heard enforcement was pretty lax. Either way, it still doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be sold to minors, which was all that was said. Thompsons method is obviously completely impractical. Whether enforcement is voluntary or mandated, it doesnt change the fundamental idea.
Personally I think it needs to be brought closer to the movie industry, where it's voluntary yet everyone still does it, cause I don't think we're quite there yet.
SSBB: 2921-8745-1438
Diamond: 2320-2615-4086
Here's a compromise, Microsoft, you give me a million dollars and I'll stop stealing bricks from your campus one by one. Deal? Deal.
Nope, that's why he has to keep making threats. It's the only thing that keeps him at the forefront of the issue.
SSBB: 2921-8745-1438
Diamond: 2320-2615-4086
Also, if an unsupervised kid has $70 in his pocket there are much worse things he could be buying with it than video games. If a kid has unsupervised time on a machine with internet access playing violent games is not the worse thing he could be doing.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
AO games are not illegal to sell to children. It's usually against company policy to do so, and some chains (like Wal-Mart,Blockbuster) refuse to sell them in the first place.
I recommend this practice, although the US'd need a better film ratings system to pull it off first.
Unless I'm wrong, the only console game to ever be rated AO was the first edition of GTA: San Andreas (the validity iof which is a completely different argument), so it wouldn't really matter anyway.
Speaking of which, I kind of want to create a new game that heralds back to the mascot platformer era, basically it would be something along the lines of Barney's Hide and Seek in 3D with a few jumping puzzles, and release it. It'll even have an edutainment side.
So you see a game on the shelves that has a cuddly cover with flowers and smiles all over it rated E for everyone with a five star rating blurb from Parents Magazine.
Later I'll post a patch on the 'torrents that inserts a scene of graphic hardcore furry porn, changes the background music to rythmic moans and slap-splorch-slap noises, and changes the models so that the main character and all NPCs are nude, fully aroused, and have realistic depictions of herpes and gigantic genital warts. Then I will offer retailers reissue versions with Goatse on the cover (with the AO rating symbol placed right in the middle of his gaping asshole) in exchange for their original copies.
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
Also, retailers do card people for M rated games. However, it's like anything else... if the person looks 17, or has someone with them that is 17, then there's nothing the retailer can do.
Interesting story, which is related. On friday morning, a guy came in and bought Gears of War. Good times, it was 11am... I took his money, and he pre-ordered Lost Planet too. Awesome, boss is happy.
4 hours later, mommy calls. The person was apparently 15. She's mad we sold a mature rated game to him. When I pointed out that he looked 17, and it was at 11am when school was in session, she informed me that was none of my business and that his skipping class was no big deal. Gears, though? Bad bad bad.
So yea.. not sure where I'm going with this, other than people possibly needing a license to reproduce...
I think you're probably right here.
1. it will legitimize his claims
2. it will make it easier for him to bring civil suits against places like EB/GS and Walmart.
I do not think children under 17 should be buying these games without parental permission.
i however also see why you could or would leave that up to the retailer. We are supposed to follow the guidelines at EBstops, as it is store policy to follow the ratings guidelines, i know the computer always prompts us to ask the birth date if its M or R rated.
There really is no need for a law for something like this. Retailers agree to ID all sales of M rated games. They advertise this and make parents/customers happy. Everyone profits... unless sales to minors are really that big of a factor... are they?