Fun Supreme Court Arguments

[Dorvan]

Edit: /end derail

Good, now we can get back to our regularly scheduled nationalistic pissing contest.

Oh wait, that *wasn't* the topic of the thread? Hm....


Bringing it full circle, I am curious what those in favor of the California law have to say about the current rating system, and why they think it's inadequate for parents to do their job.

[rodos]

My entire point is this:

If all of the major video game retailers refuse to stock the controversial games, which they will, then developers will stop making the games. Contrary to what we, as gamers, would like to believe, developers don't make games and publishers don't publish games because they're labors of love. They develop and publish games because they are profitable. Take away that profit and you take away their willingness to spend millions developing, marketing, and publishing games that aren't going to be stocked on any shelves.

This is kinda what I was getting at too. However, there's a few complications.

First up, the current GameStop policy pretty much shows that games are not equal to movies. Stocking adult-rated games is not having too detrimental an effect on their over-all sales figures (or they would stop doing it). Not too many people boycotting the store because it sells "immoral" games. So, government restriction on the sale of these games would probably not have much effect on sales figures, and hence production.

What would be a problem is if the retailer has to run the risk of being taken to court over the games being sold. Many retailers would not take this risk and we would, as someone said, all end up on Hello Kitty Island. It's uncertainty, and risk that are a problem, not regulation in itself.

This is exactly the situation the judge is trying to prevent. You can't create a law saying "This is illegal" without saying what "this" is. Either California has to appoint a standard body (governmental or independent) which gives a legally-binding rating to all games, or they have to give up on the enforcement policy. Given the political sensitivity of censorship as an issue in the USA, I suspect California will just back down if the decision in this case goes against them.

There are, unfortunately, a couple of serious drawbacks to enforcing a standard rating body. First is the costs of classification, which can be significant for small/independent developers. The the is the potential delays, which can be significant for any publisher, particularly in a fast-moving market like mobile apps. Remember how long it took Blizzard to get WotLK approved in China?

The cost factor can really be a big one, even if the cost of classification is small on the scale of large media distribution. We had a bit of a controversy in this state recently over this. It used to be that if the police raided a DVD shop and found unclassified DVDs which they suspected would be refused classification (e.g. hardcore porn), they had to submit them for classification at the public expense in order to prosecute. The new law puts the onus back on the store owner to have the material classified if they want to avoid prosecution. This can be seen a reversal of the presumption of innocence (the burden of proof is usually on the State in criminal matters), and also a significant financial burden on the retailer, since the cost of classification of a title is several times (10-20x) the retail cost of a single DVD.

[Sabindeus]

My entire point is this:

If all of the major video game retailers refuse to stock the controversial games, which they will, then developers will stop making the games. Contrary to what we, as gamers, would like to believe, developers don't make games and publishers don't publish games because they're labors of love. They develop and publish games because they are profitable. Take away that profit and you take away their willingness to spend millions developing, marketing, and publishing games that aren't going to be stocked on any shelves.

This is kinda what I was getting at too. However, there's a few complications.

First up, the current GameStop policy pretty much shows that games are not equal to movies. Stocking adult-rated games is not having too detrimental an effect on their over-all sales figures (or they would stop doing it). Not too many people boycotting the store because it sells "immoral" games. So, government restriction on the sale of these games would probably not have much effect on sales figures, and hence production.

Wal-Mart does not stock Adult Only games. They sell more video games than GameStop. That's the segment the game industry is really afraid of with this law. If they stopped stocking M titles too, then an M rating would be a death sentence and everything continues exactly as you said.

[Aubade]

GameStop DOES stock Adult Only games.... We have them in the back room, we just don't display them.

EDIT: Nevermind, we don't. I was thinking of this M rated Anime game that has boobs on the front.

[Fivelives]

Edit: /end derail

Good, now we can get back to our regularly scheduled nationalistic pissing contest.

Oh wait, that *wasn't* the topic of the thread? Hm....


Bringing it full circle, I am curious what those in favor of the California law have to say about the current rating system, and why they think it's inadequate for parents to do their job.

I would be surprised to find anyone on this forum that's really pro-legislation here. There was one person moderately for it on page 1 or 2, and Knaughty is bordering on it (I think).

[knaughty]

Every single game you've mentioned is legally for sale, on the shelf, in Australia.

Not that I want to get into this argument, but this jumped out at me as incorrect. The games he mentioned are definitely not for sale on shelves in Australia. Instead, you have similar games with the same names, which have been modified from their original design to make them fit the "MA-15" rating. Notably Left 4 Dead 2 and its blood splatter effect, which does not exist in the Australian/German/etc. release of the game. You can't claim that the game is the same when stuff like that has to be changed before they will sell it.

I wasn't aware they'd been tweaked for the Australian market. It's certainly possible.

That said: Same name, same developer, publisher and distributor. Same premise and general graphics. Same co-op & multiplayer servers. No splatter effect.... (and other similar changes for other games, I'd assume).

(1) It's the same game, with the graphics settings tweaked on the CD.
(2) It's clearly not a lot of work to comply, or the publishers wouldn't bother. The Australian market is probably roughly the same size as California, maybe smaller. We're big enough to get a custom version - CA would be as well.

I would be surprised to find anyone on this forum that's really pro-legislation here. There was one person moderately for it on page 1 or 2, and Knaughty is bordering on it (I think).

It would be more accurate to say that in practice I don't think that government mandated rating systems are a big deal. Certainly the Australian experience is largely problem free, in my opinion (see end of post for a couple of caveats).

Getting a game or film rated costs hundreds of dollars in Australia. Maybe a grand? Tweaks required to cope with rating requirements are small enough that you can build a version for Australia.

A rating system is not the same as censorship, and can be pretty useful to parents.

Speaking as a parent, I find the rating system helpful, though in my case I'm interested in the difference between PG (which scares my toddler) and G (which still does occasionally - the sharks in Finding Nemo and the combine harvester in Cars are both at his upper limit for scary things). I can't tell the difference between G and PG by reading the blurb - I need a rating system I can trust. As my kids get older, it will be useful to be able to work out if "Car Racing Extreme" is a MA15+ gore-fest or a slightly hard-core version of Mario Kart.

Things that work well in the Australian system:
• Independent ratings board supported, but not controlled by the Government.
• Standardised and easy to understand ratings across film, TV and games.
• (Reasonably) cheap and fast to get things rated.
•
Problems:
• No "R" (18+) rating currently available for games.
• "Refused classification" - if something's so bad the classification board refuses to give a rating, it's effectively censored / banned.
• Political interference by the minister. Shouldn't happen, but has in a couple of cases.

[Fivelives]

The problem is that the US is full of retailers that already won't sell a game that would merit an "R" rating, which would do worse than "effectively" ban them. If retailers won't sell it, developers won't make it. Thus instead of arguing about localization censoring the games just wouldn't be made at all. One of the major problems with America is that when we do something, we overdo it.

Look at the recent changes made to the new Medal of Honor game vis a vis the Taliban if you need proof or evidence about what happens when even a SMALL segment of retailers won't sell a major game. Instead of "sticking to their guns", the developers caved and renamed the Taliban to "Opposing Force" because military installations banned the game sales on base.

[Passionario]

<Australia is awesome, etc.>

I'll pack my bags and emigrate to Australia the moment you find a way to fix that carcinogenic ozone hole of death above your continent.

[fuzzygeek]

Bringing it full circle, I am curious what those in favor of the California law have to say about the current rating system, and why they think it's inadequate for parents to do their job.

Anything that seems like a good idea must be encoded into the law.

[Sabindeus]

Every single game you've mentioned is legally for sale, on the shelf, in Australia.

Not that I want to get into this argument, but this jumped out at me as incorrect. The games he mentioned are definitely not for sale on shelves in Australia. Instead, you have similar games with the same names, which have been modified from their original design to make them fit the "MA-15" rating. Notably Left 4 Dead 2 and its blood splatter effect, which does not exist in the Australian/German/etc. release of the game. You can't claim that the game is the same when stuff like that has to be changed before they will sell it.

I wasn't aware they'd been tweaked for the Australian market. It's certainly possible.

That said: Same name, same developer, publisher and distributor. Same premise and general graphics. Same co-op & multiplayer servers. No splatter effect.... (and other similar changes for other games, I'd assume).

(1) It's the same game, with the graphics settings tweaked on the CD.
(2) It's clearly not a lot of work to comply, or the publishers wouldn't bother. The Australian market is probably roughly the same size as California, maybe smaller. We're big enough to get a custom version - CA would be as well.

You're essentially legitimizing censorship with this argument.

[Dorvan]

Bringing it full circle, I am curious what those in favor of the California law have to say about the current rating system, and why they think it's inadequate for parents to do their job.

Anything that seems like a good idea must be encoded into the law.

Wait, is this a serious statement? I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic.

[Fivelives]

Oh, and saying "California can get their own specially localized copy" isn't taking certain aspects of American culture into consideration.

What California does, more often than not, the rest of the country does as well. They're already considering this same issue in Texas, and other states. I'm pretty sure that unless the Supreme Court knocks this law down with prejudice, then other states will just keep trying (and California will almost definitely try again).

[Thalia]

Oh, and saying "California can get their own specially localized copy" isn't taking certain aspects of American culture into consideration.

What California does, more often than not, the rest of the country does as well. They're already considering this same issue in Texas, and other states. I'm pretty sure that unless the Supreme Court knocks this law down with prejudice, then other states will just keep trying (and California will almost definitely try again).

I hope this is really not true, considering the shit hole California has dug for itself...any state following most of California's examples would not be very smart.

I'm so happy I left that state..grew up there 25 years. I miss my family, but I sure as hell don't miss the overpopulation, 115 degree weather, high taxes, ridiculous real estate, and want-to-blow-my-brains-out traffic on the 5 freeway.

/end rant.

Funny I still go there 4-5 times a year cuz i miss my family and friends, and after 3-4 days i can't wait to get the hell out of there.

[Flex]

I hope this is really not true, considering the shit hole California has dug for itself...any state following most of California's examples would not be very smart.

It is more that California is such a large consumer they can set how things will happen going forward when they make a big purchase, same with Texas and the recent issue with their revamping of their state history curriculum. What a large state decides should be in the text books often times gets pushed onto other states. Just apply that to other things.

[Thalia]

I hope this is really not true, considering the shit hole California has dug for itself...any state following most of California's examples would not be very smart.

It is more that California is such a large consumer they can set how things will happen going forward when they make a big purchase, same with Texas and the recent issue with their revamping of their state history curriculum. What a large state decides should be in the text books often times gets pushed onto other states. Just apply that to other things.

Ah.

ya i think California has over 40 million people living there out of the about 400 million U.S. population...so like 10% of the entire country's consumers.