Here’s a chart some like to use as evidence violent video games do not cause violent behavior until at least after 2004.
The chart makes a powerful statement.
As video game sales have increased, violent crime has actually decreased.
The connection between to two is obvious. As game consoles are worth more, fewer acts of crime are necessary. A violent criminal can support his drug habit for up to a month on a single PS3, where before nearly seven PS2s were required. Blu-ray saves lives.
Furthermore, when a violent criminal steals a violent game, obviously he’ll play it! With a violent game, he commits no more crimes ’til defeating the final boss. Game designers know this.
Half-Life’s ridiculous jumping-puzzle second-half could keep a neighborhood crime-free for weeks. God of War didn’t have a rotating-bladed-logs level because the designers were dicks: that level resulted in five-times the crime reduction it’d have provided otherwise.
By comparison, games for toddlers and girls result in an immediate return to crime. Duh.
However, even when absurdly used in defense of violent games, such arguments are a strawman. ‘Do violent games entertain violent criminals?’ Of course! ‘Is there only so much time in the day?’ Why, yes. Can you rob a liquor store during a cut-scene in Resident Evil 4? Hell, no.
But those are not the questions.
Do violent games lead to violent behavior? is the question. And just to make clear what should be obvious, this means after playing them. Obviously while playing, the violent gamer is less likely to inflict harm on others.
The science journal, Times Online, via a professional journalists reported the conclusions of researchers way back in 2005.
Kevin Kieffer, one of the researchers, said that players of violent video games “tend to imitate the moves that they just acted out in the game they played”.
Read that again: Gamers tend to imitate - present tense - what they did in the game - past tense -they just played - as opposed to some other game.
The pro-violence game amateur-bloggers, naturally, ignore such research. They can cherry-pick data and twist statistics while ignoring any source of conflicting input to the conclusion they’ve decided a) priorly to reach, and then publish their “findings” on the internet without any editorial control whatsoever.
Example, here’s another chart correlating video games with violence:
Notice how the above data shows only six games released between ‘96 and ‘04? Clearly, the author of the above must have cherry-picked data. In this case I’d guess only Mac game releases were included, while the bulk of video games are actually sold for non-Macintosh platforms.
Indeed, there have been so many variables at play that demonstrating the link between violent games and punk teenagers has proven to be as difficult, even by honest researchers. Confounding the debate with strawman arguments, amateur pro-violence evangelicals posing as publishers, and professional-looking charts created with freely available Open Source software (such as OpenOffice), the pro-violence gangs have made that difficult task, impossible.
Until now.
Months ago, before this blog’s recent “data re-org”, I’d written a piece about the near-future of MMO’s.
The Near Future of MMOs:
Summary: It’s all Pirates.
Baby, the near-future is now.
Pirates of the Burning Sea
World of Pirates
Pirates of the Caribbean
Voyage Century Online
Puzzle Pirates
Additionally, even before many of those were released, an old game called World of Warcraft hid a pirate clan (with one pirate so brassy as to deny their piracy, even after being cyber-photographed in the act). Granted, it’s not a “pirate mmo” specifically, but back in those days, WoW had six-times as many paying subscribers as had ever even seen Second Life.
Speaking of which - and how can we discuss MMO’s without a reference to Second Life? - consider this: Assuming almost everyone logging in within the past 60 days was a pirate, there may be as many as 1.6 million pirates in Second Life, alone.
Though that is not an unreasonable assumption, considering well over 7 million residents of Second Life are “missing persons”, last seen months or even years ago, of course it is not the number which is significant (so all you SL-haters, please don’t spam my comments quibbling over the exact numbers!). The significance of this fact is I’m talking about Second Life.
More specifically, I’m talking about pirates in Second Life, and in all other MMOs (which is an acronym meaning “a game like Second Life”).
Now finally, with all games being Pirate MMO’s, we’re free of any confounding factors.
A rare opportunity presents itself, with so few variables in play:
All the games are Pirate MMOs. So what about real-world piracy? Well, guess what?
Source:Terror On High Seas: Growing Threat Of Pirates |Sky News|World News
The correlation (which is just a fancy way of saying “the proof one thing is caused by another”) between Pirate MMOs and Piracy is obvious and indisputable.
Even the statistics which previously mere confirmed the connection between people who commit violent crimes, and they like violent games, reinforce this conclusion. When violent criminals are out to sea, fewer crimes are committed on land, QED (that’s Latin for “duh”).
Finally, we can put the “debate” to rest. This is no longer merely a “theory” (which scientifically, means “guess”). It’s not even a mere “fact”.
It’s fact times truth: an indisputable fact.
If your children play video games, they will become pirates.
Related articles:
February 28, 2007 - In a recent issue of the American Sociological Association’s Context magazine, sociologist Karen Sternheimer put some heavy doubt into the theories that videogame violence directly result in real-world violence. Sternheimer claims that there is no such correlation, and that the reality might be exactly the opposite.
Lair Dev Wants More Sex, Drugs, Rock ‘N Roll In Games
Factor 5’s Julian Eggebrecht opened the GC Developers Conference with a bold keynote titled “No Sex, No Drugs and Little Rock & Roll” in which he expressed his concern over the self-enforced ratings system on video games, specifically certain events surrounding “bizarre” ESRB decisions.
New York Times: Courts Block Laws on Video Game Violence
Citing the Constitution’s protection of free speech, federal judges have rejected attempts to regulate video games in eight cities and states since 2001. The judge in a ninth place, Oklahoma, has temporarily blocked a law pending a final decision. No such laws have been upheld.
RSS Feed
24 Comments
Hell, why do we even need parents at all? Eh?
After reading what the bill was actually about, I’ve got to disagree with you here, Jeff. (And likely a great many others involved in gaming) They are talking about depraved and overly cruel violence with no redeeming qualities.
Look, the young do need guidance. This is almost undebatable. The “proof”, if you’ll accept it, reveals itself from things like Elephants that kill Rhinos in Africa to inner city youths. The lack of that guidance can have violent repercussions. And the reasons for the drop in violent crime is the direct result of a great many people’s effort in dealing with this lack of guidance.
And who ever said that all kids who buy games are getting any guidance at all?
You went from that “Nigger Read a Book” video to this, and seemed to miss the whole point?
They are talking about depraved and overly cruel violence with no redeeming qualities.
Which game is that?
Bonus: related post.
Bonus snark:
We must act now, before it is too late!
Join Parents Against Pirates. All of us together will be a political powerhouse, voting based on a politician’s Pirate Game platform alone, regardless of their position on any other issue. Why not? If there’s something to debate about on an important issue, it’s almost always so complicated that I really don’t know, you know? Both sides make some good points, behind the front-line screeching lunatics that prevent reasonable people making contact and establishing an acceptable compromise, but I know I don’t want anyone’s kid to become a pirate. This way, we will have a voice that politicians cannot ignore, no matter how batshit crazy we are!
Please urge your congressional representative to legislate in favor of a pirate-free world.
Now, despite this proof, some people are just stupid, and they will ignore the evidence and dispute the indisputable fact - which is just ignorant - that pirate video games turn kids into pirates.
So we need to strategize if we’re to succeed in banning pirate games, which as I’ve said, are all video games.
First, if we come right out and say we want to ban games in order to protect their kids, they’ll just tell us to let them decide for themselves whether they believe the videogame-to-pirate link. They’ll say they want to raise their own kids based on their own decision, and that I should do the same.
Curr Ice Tea!, if our kids were all we were worried about, then we wouldn’t need PAP! It’s their kids we’ve got to save. If those parents don’t believe us, then we’ll just have to trick them.
We’ll say we want to empower parents to raise their own kids, rather than being honest and up-front about our objective, which is to ban games. You’d think they wouldn’t fall for that.
You’d think they’d realize, “Hey, if they really think this will turn my kid into a pirate, why would they settle for a warning label? Are they really thinking, Damn! THESE TURN KIDS INTO PIRATES. Stickers must be attached!, or are they starting a series of baby-steps, each of which seemingly trivial, all the way up to the ban they really want.”
But nope, you’d be wrong. They never realize any such thing. ‘Fall for it every time.
So we’ll say:
Parents must be given the information they need to make intelligent choices regarding their children’s future!
We must insist that the ESRB update their antiquated ratings-system to add specific warnings for Pirate content.
We must require every MMO be labeled with a warning sticker so that parents understand: the game will cause their child to become a pirate.
We must demand a recall and re-rating of MMOs which failed to disclose their piracy content, and additionally punish those developers to send the message that undisclosed piracy will not be tolerated!
Ar: Pirate language.
Arr: Exposure to pirate themes.
Arrr: The player engages in piracy.
To recap:
First, we’ll just ask for voluntary compliance from the industry in labeling the content of their games.
Even though we already don’t allow our own kids to play any video games, we’ll say this is not an attempt to raise other people’s kids, but rather just a helping hand for parents. We’ll say parents deserve to know how much of the things that I don’t want my kids exposed to are in the games they buy for their kids.
What is the industry going to say, that parents don’t deserve that info? They’ll start labeling.
First thing after that, of course, is to insist the retailers adhere to an age-tiered ban. Ar titles will basically mean 16 years or older - regardless what we suggest is appropriate, because that’s the earliest most kids will have an ID. That only leaves Arr titles for 17 or older, Arrr for 18 and up.
Problem being we only have three years to work with, here. Though ideally, Arrr would be for 21 and over, we’re probably going to have to wait ’til there are fewer people engaged in real-world combat in the Middle East who are younger than that.
Baby steps!
Next, having established that Piracy is clearly harmful to children - why else would there be warning labels? - we can approach the retail industry with our grass-roots movement and demand the triple-r Arrr titles not be anywhere near our children.
Most simple won’t carry such games rather than deal with the hassle of an adult counter. Those that do, we can then approach with our grass-roots movement and inquire as to how they can claim to be for American Family Shopping, while maintaining an adult-only smut-rack, right there in the store.
This will put pressure on developers to mind how much Piracy they put in their games.
Remember that “ban” we couldn’t possibly have gotten had we approached the public openly and honestly, asking them to ban video games based on our belief that Piracy in video games is harmful to children?
Well by this stage, we’re practically there already. Even before a single law has been passed.
But all those victories are merely stage one! We shouldn’t stop there.
The final battle will be with the stores that still sell Arrr games. Those need to be pushed all the way into the sorts of shops that only perverts visit. Or at least the sorts of shops that regular folk only visit when in a perverted mood.
That will be tough, but we can’t start on Ar games ’til it’s been done.
Although even they will enforce the ban of sales to minors that our kook army forced them to, “voluntarily“, the fight to get Arrr titles off their shelves may indeed involve some legislation.
Let’s just hope, for the sake of our children, that our opponents are unable to summon one of those “activist judges”. Their urge to interpret the U.S. Constitution as some sort of right for others to communicate ideas that offend me could stop us cold.
Even if I say those ideas are dangerous (surely to children, at least. Hell, look how weak they are? You can kill ‘em with a good shake).
Even if I cite previous ruling such as, “Better safe than sorry” or truths such as “If you’re right, nothing happens. If I am right, children become pirates!”
Even carefully explaining that anything short of a ban (or whatever our current babystep) would leave those ideas exposed to the children of stupid parents - not only stupid for disagreeing with me, for taking the chance they aren’t wrong, but also because everyone knows that everyone else is an unfit parent.
Some of those judges will ignore all the facts, all those compelling arguments, and decide that Freedom of Speech is worth more than what they consider “an unsupported opinion”, that some children may become pirates due to piracy in video games.
Then we - Parents Against Piracy - might have to settle for only those victories previously achieved, usually by demanding one group to voluntarily force another group to comply with our wishes.
But damn. Even that’s not too shabby!
Allllrighty, a more thoughtful reply.
Though I’ll confess, some of what you wrote leaves me a little confused. I may have some questions.
Quoting lots, so as to reply in-line:
I don’t understand that response, honestly. I think you should be your kid’s parent, and my downstairs neighbor ought to be her kid’s parent. I’m not saying the kids ought to be parent-free, just that you shouldn’t try to raise my neighbor’s kid, nor vice versa.
Nor should I impose upon everyone’s rights, even if I’m willing to waive my own personally, on a hunch that it’ll help.
But specifically, I find the argument that rating systems “allow parents to make informed decisions” to be dishonest.
The belief that you aren’t raising your kid right and therefore my neighbor’s opinions ought to be enforced as law… well at least when people say that they are being honest. I just disagree with their perception of the world. I think the vast majority of parents are doing just fine, and it isn’t worth stomping on everyone’s rights to impost regulations which we’re just guessing might produce a benefit more valuable than the rights we’re surrendering.
If I believed a majority of parents were doing a terrible job, then I might be of a different opinion there… But I don’t believe that.
Even if I did believe that, this isn’t what I would do.
What they want to do requires a constitutional amendment. They know they can’t get one, because there’s insufficient y haven’t produced enough evidence to convince a large majority that the video-game to violence connection is so strong, so obvious, and so damaging, as to be worth surrendering a little freedom.
But I’m not offended that some folk feel that the case has been made and the trade-off is worthwhile. I disagree with that, but I’m not offended that some people are of a different opinion. Rather, I am offended at the dishonesty employed by the people who refuse to accept that since the majority of people disagree with them, they don’t get their way.
I’m offended that they just go ahead and try to get what they want anyway, and especially when they do it dishonestly.
Well, I wasn’t really referring to one particular bill.
California, Minnesota, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Washington, and Missouri have all passed unconstitutional laws, had them overturned in court, and one or two of those appealed the ruling only to spend another million or so losing the appeal. This is all money pulled from other state programs.
Naturally, since I don’t really believe a link between games and violence has been established, I don’t think it’s worth the millions they’ve diverted from government programs which really do make a difference, and probably most for the very kids they think a videogame ban would help most.
Canceling the after-school program to enforce a rating system on video-games just seems dumb to me. Let alone when the law is tossed-out anyway: Movies, music, and comic books have a voluntary rating system and books will NEVER have a rating system, for all the same reasons that nothing else should either.
No question. Where we might disagree, is I don’t think these laws provide guidance.
There are lots of better things to do than this.
Maybe I’m being cynical. It just seems that some politicians have to know that money would be better spent on less popular, less glamorous, but proven effective programs. Instead, they’re actually taking money from those programs to butt heads with the 1st Amendment, armed with no more than the previous failed assaults.
Doing that in pursuit of something they don’t even know will make a difference is daft.
My opinions, about a law restricting 1st Amendment rights with regard to videogames (and honestly, anything else):
One, it’ll only help if it isn’t overturned, and it most likely will be.
Two, it’ll only help if there is a causal link, which hasn’t been established and may never be.
Three, it’ll only help kids with insufficient guidance, ’cause kids whose parents are doing their job don’t need it.
Four, it will cost a lot of money, probably just for the failed attempt at passing it, which comes straight from other programs.
Five, if it passes, it restricts 1st Amendment rights - without establishing there’s a compelling enough reason to do so.
That’s why I’m against it.
I can respect other folks will have other opinions.
But I can’t respect the dishonest approach to getting what they want.
I disagree this would provide guidance.
I think it’s just an attempt to restrict everyone’s 1st amendment rights.
…by a lot of dishonest people.
Apparently.
This is a lot of fun and I have no idea what the view of the article-writer is - congrats!
I will just make a quick point.
Most people spend their entire lives imitating others like sheep, just go to a car racing meet and watch the car park, when everyone is leaving…
It doesn’t make them into racing drivers, but it does make them speed!
Bah! Hiding violence and sex in the guise as art is one thing (and yes, it can be art, or not). Promoting it to kids is another thing all together.
Yes, let the majority rule. But the gaming industry is headed for a huge backlash if you guys don’t square up and be more responsible. It won’t come from any sensational news reports of violent deaths, just from the opinions and appalled reactions from the majority. Yes, sometimes people pass laws based on their personal reactions. And I’m afraid that the gaming industry is going to cause an overreaction, to the detriment of itself.
And, no, most parents and others who agree with me don’t think overly violent games will cause a kid to go out and shoot someone. What we are concerned with is the mean streak it can bring forwards in a young mind, and the problems that can cause.
Rights? Jeff, there are laws that tell you to educate your kids, laws that tell you to be responsible for them in many other ways (alcohol, driving, etc.). For most parents, this isn’t a problem, and they still agree with these laws.
First amendment rights? I’m not for outlawing the making of any games, nor the selling of them to adults. Just where minors are involved.
Proof? Yeah, unfortunately, the links are week, and the proof would only come with exhaustive research, after the fact. You have to rely on common sense to see it. You disagree, I know. One mans common sense is another mans trash, I guess.
Seven times now, the courts have made it pretty clear that these laws are transgressing on 1st amendment rights. You’re trying to blow that off as though it isn’t so, but c’mon now. Seven times. Eight or nine counting the appeals. Are you just pretending that you can’t see that, or do you really not get it?
We’re already more censored than any other media - without any laws having been passed at all. That’s what rating systems do. As I happen to think the bill of rights are good for all of society - including our children - this leads me to the conclusion that censorship is BAD, even for kids. I’d rather not have any censorship at all so my kids can grow up into a free society. Others want censorship to protect their kids, even though it costs their kids freedom for the rest of their lives.
We’re being irresponsible by agreeing to this bullshit ratings system in the first place.
Your concern about “the mean streak a violent game can cause” is not worth one DROP of freedom. Frankly, I wish the game industry would fight more. We ought to be raising hell. You don’t have the right to gag me.
I really don’t see the connection between video games and piracy. I’ll admit that there are many pirate themed games out there, but there’s many more that have nothing to do with pirates. Just because kids play pirate video games doesn’t mean it’s going to have any affect on their lifestyle. That “fact” as you call it, is far from indesputable. Just because you’d like to think that it’s an absolute truth doesn’t mean that it is one. So you should stop thinking that you’re an expert on the connection between video games and the real world. People have the power to make thier own desions, and I think the only thing video games have to do with anything people do is that people think it will be easier to get away with it if they can use the influence of video games as an excuse for their actions.
I personally don’t have the right to gag you, but as to the rest of it, we’ll see. How many kids “played” this ?
Self regulation isn’t going to work all the time. And as things that are very disturbing to people mount up, it’s going to make the gaming industry look very bad. And you want to fight for no regulation at all? It’s only going to lead to a bad ending.
Freedom? We are not totally free to do whatever we want. And you should be glad of that, since it’s laws that protect your property and well being, as well as your rights.
And to top it all off, you, Mr. Freedom, you are saying that my little 12 year old (if I had kids that young) should be able to buy an extreme game like this without my consent, and unless I catch him at it I lose the control that is my right, to some idiot who wants to not only make money off it, but wants to make social statements I don’t agree with…..to my kids. So this is very much a double edged sword.
Oh I get it. But the constitution does gets amended, and it seems another one is needed.
No you aren’t. The games industry isn’t any more censored that the movie, print, or internet media. The fact your industry is trying so hard to push the envelope might make it appear that way to you. The other industries are being a hell of allot more cooperative in this regard. You should be too.
Oh I get it. But the constitution does gets amended, and it seems another one is needed.
That’s my point: what they want to do requires an amendment to the constitution, but rather than doing that, they keep trying to “get around it”. That dishonesty irks me way more than the fact that I disagree with what they want to do.
I’d feel the same way if I agreed with them. Hot Coffee didn’t offend me. But Rockstar’s sneaking it in, denying they did it, claiming that it was all a mod, really ticked me off. ‘Cause that was a big fat lie. I’m not defending that.
Regarding the content itself: That wasn’t violence, and had nothing to do with passing a law to ban the sale of violent games to minors.
Also, a man having consensual sex with his girlfriend in one game does not strike me as justification for censoring the entire medium. How many movies and books were released that same year with FAR more depictions of sex were released without anyone batting an eye? Some of those were absolute crap, with no redeeming qualities. We accept that as the price of freedom.
Do you also want to censor movies and books?
Or if censor is too strong a word:
Do you want all games, comics, movies, books, and music to be run through government regulators and labeled prior to publication?
On the question of whether we’re more censored already: On of the reasons Hot Coffee was such a sensation is because you just don’t see that sort of thing in video games. You see it in movies, etc. all the time. We gag ourselves constantly for the sake of avoiding an AO rating, since WalMart won’t sell those. No other medium self-imposes “teen-appropriate” content. The music industry will make a ‘clean’ version for WalMart, but release the original version as well. When we sanitize a game, it’s the only version available.
Two, Hot Coffee had nothing to do with violence. There are already laws in place covering obscenity. It’s already a crime to sell hardcore porn to kids, regardless of the medium.
These laws are going after video-games specifically - not any other medium - over the topic of violence - which is not recognized by the law as being the equivalent of nasty sex.
Three, Hot Coffee got them in a heck of a lot of trouble, cost them millions, was pulled from store shelves, re-labeled AO (where AO games are sold), recalled from most stores, resulted in fines, and now they are under a sort of ‘probation’ that promises they will be destroyed for any future violation.
And that’s without any of these laws being passed, over sexual content, for a game being labeled 17+ that should have been labeled 18+!
Where’s the justification for any legislation at all? That is, what benefit will it provide? It’s like passing a special city ordinance to ban speeds in excess of 200 mph after one incident, in which the perpetrator nearly died. Not a bad law, but what’s the point?
If you’re going to amend the constitution to restrict one of our basic rights, don’t you think the reason ought to be a little more compelling than “we need to ensure that if that happens again, there will be consequences” when there already were consequences.
What more could have been done? Seriously. To use one of the laws as an example - a $25 fine on underage kids buying games labeled ‘M’ (which is already voluntarily enforced pretty well) - what good would that really do?
Not to mention, again and again, but I will anyway: that had nothing to do with a ban on the sale of violent games to kids.
Your 12 year old should not be able to buy books, games, or movies which contain content that you do not feel is appropriate for your child. But that’s up to you to enforce.
If I don’t want my kid watching movies that glorify hunting animals for sport, for example, it’s up to me to take care of that. And even if it would be a help to me as a parent - requiring all media be vetted through government regulators and labeled, then through “voluntary” or “mandatory” compliance only sold to adults when rated H - no matter how strongly I feel that sport hunting is bad, and no matter how strongly I believe that sport hunting in media may result in a broader acceptance of sport hunting, and no matter how concerned I am about all the kids whose parents let their kids watch hunting-oriented entertainment…
…I just don’t have the right to impose my will like that on other people. Not without a constitutional amendment.
Now if realizing all that, I tried to bullshit my way into having my will imposed on everyone without a constitutional amendment (’cause maybe I realize: that’s never gonna happen), well then that’s me being deceitful.
Ok, now imagine that everything is already voluntarily labeled according to hunting content and retailers already enforce the ban that I want: Surely even if you thought I had justification for wanting to pass a law before, do you think an amendment to the constitution is called for?
How about if there’s a school shooting, and before anyone knows anything about it, I pop out blaming sport hunting? Does that justify amending the constitution, or is that just me being dishonest?
Currently, (apart from obscenity, which is already covered by current laws) we have to be able to say ‘Speaking THIS directly leads to THAT’ in order to restrict someone’s 1st amendment rights. Yelling FIRE! in a crowded movie theater, etc.
Even if violent video games do as you believe - foster a mean-streak which increases the tolerance for violent behavior in certain kids, or whatever - even then it fails to have the direct connection required to justify restricting 1st Amendment rights.
You’re mocking, calling me “Mr.Freedom” - but freedom is important to you, too, right? We all decide where we think the line ought to be drawn between freedom and security, and I can respect that you have a difference of opinion where this should be drawn, but I don’t believe for one second that freedom means nothing to you and that you’d sacrifice all your child’s freedom forever just to make the world the tiniest bit safer for them.
So we can be in disagreement over how much safer this sort of law would make our kids and whether that’s worth the amount of freedom (ours and theirs) we’re surrendering, but you don’t need to mock me.
Most of the anti-game pundits are being dishonest there: claiming there’s a enough of a link even though they know there’s not. Probably the only one being honest about that is Jack Thompson. I disagree with him, but he seems pretty genuine in his belief that video games cause direct and immediate damage.
Others confess they don’t see direct and immediate danger, but then propose to regulate them as though there were (knowing that isn’t legal).
Note: Your 12 year old can go to any public library and obtain, free of charge, from the government, thanks to tax payers dollars, unlabeled books with far more objectionable material than you’ll find in any video-game - without even downloading secret codes from the internet - without your consent.
We have always accepted that censorship presents a greater risk.
So there are very few restrictions on books. If we recognize games as speech, they should be afforded the exact same level of protection: and games have already been recognized by the courts as speech.
Movies had to be recognized by the courts as speech, and so protected by the 1st amendment, too. These days most people wouldn’t imagine not considering them speech, but there was a time…
…and still, they self-impose a ratings system and voluntarily comply with it. There’s no law imposed on them. No one’s even trying to do that.
Those seven attempts to censor video games were aimed solely and squarely at video games alone.
The other industries are being more cooperative? With what? The gaming industry is already doing what they do: voluntarily complying with self-imposed restrictions on sales to minors. But the gaming industry rates content the way the movie industry did in the 50’s. When’s the last time you saw a movie that didn’t throw-in a breast-shot? If a game does that, it might as well go whole-hog, ’cause that’s an instant AO rating, the equivalent of RATED-XXX.
WalMart sells R movies, but not AO games. We don’t even have a rating equivalent to ‘X’, let alone ‘NC-17′. What they’d consider PG is a rated-T for us.
And retailers enforce the age-restrictions on video games as well as they do for movies - so there not being ‘more cooperative’ there.
Otherwise, what are they cooperating with, video-game censorship? The movie industry isn’t being targeting with these laws, would fight them just like the game industry is, and likewise for music.
The BOOK industry hasn’t even been asked to impose the sort of “voluntary” censorship we have agreed to. If they were, they’d fight that tooth and nail. Politicians proposing video-game censorship are seen as good guys, but if they proposed the same for books, you can bet they’d get tossed-out on their butts.
I think whatever the rules are for books, so should they be for all media. Others believe movies or games are more immersing and so different rules should be applied. Difference of opinion, personally nothing has ever immersed me as much as book.
Anyway…
It’s not that I feel your 12 year old should be able to buy media of any sort without your consent, but this:
a) Regulations will not improve compliance beyond the voluntary restrictions already in place - so there’s no benefit to passing them.
b) Regulations are a form of censorship, which we should NEVER do when there’s no benefit from doing it.
c) Politicians are wasting a bunch of money grand-standing - most of them are lawyers, they already know their restrictions are unconstitutional.
d) I should be able to say anything via video-game that I am allowed to say via novel.
…or to put it another way…
d) restrictions to speech should be applied to all speech, not just video games (nor just movies, nor just comic books).
e) even “voluntary” restrictions result in censorship. Every game developer finds their “constitutionally protected freedom of speech” squashed by retailers’ “voluntary compliance” with something that couldn’t live a day as a law.
Oh, and one more:
f) The people in the game industry who say they are defending free speech, but only fight for it when there’s money to be made and voluntarily surrender it when there’s not, aren’t doing me any favors, either.
How about one rating: “Rated 1st Amendment. USA! USA!” Think WalMart would carry that?
Trackback: GNMParents | The Hottest Of The Hot? You Decide!
As you can see, this essay has been nominated by our readers for Hot Stuff Of the Week over at our site, GNMParents. Congrats, and good luck in the voting! (and I’m not supposed to influence the voting, but I will say that we love video games in our house, violent or otherwise, and we also manage to be a no-hitting family. So I hear ya.
My whole point about the Grand Theft Auto thing is that, no matter what the rest of you do, there can always be someone who tries to get around the rules. Especially if those rules carry no legal weight. If they do it with sex, they can certainly do it with violence. And yes, there most definitely is a difference. And that difference can lead to some very ugly things in the future, unless you folks in the industry attack it now.
How would you feel to find someone put out a game that had execution style killings, graphic and all, for points? Would that be ok to sell without restrictions to minors? And I don’t want to hear about WalMart, nor any other retailers who voluntarily restrict sales. That doesn’t necessarily cover all the availability. Besides, as Grand Theft Auto has shown, you don’t know what they might hide in any game, making it available through “leaked” passwords or utilities.
If Grand Theft Auto was hit as you say, that’s news to me. But how do they do that without laws to back them up? Or are people’s rights being trampled again? There’s something not quite right in your argument there. But I’ll not concede that this really prevents future misuse. The guys who did that, on a personal level, may or may not have any stake in the company to lose in future incidences. If not, they may do things to make a name for themselves, for future things. Who needs stores anymore? Without laws and regulations, people like that are free to “blackmarket”, so to speak.
You see this all as a waste of money only because you don’t agree with it. As far as the system goes, this is how it works. There are always legal battles waged over things like this, and until the judges strike it down as unconstitutional, in effect, it isn’t. You may believe that it is, but I don’t. There’s the battle that has to be worked through and taken to the courts. It’s with dismay that I see judges, mainly based on the previous ruling by a judge who believes that selling babies on the open market is a better way that adoption and in legalizing drugs, Judge Richard Posner, falling in line with your opinion. But then, some judges are giving great leniency to baby rapers and terrorists too. I won’t concede the fight. I’ll live with the rulings while I have to, but I won’t agree.
I wasn’t mocking you with the “Mr. Freedom” thing. I was trying to make a point that you are basing your argument on freedom, yet none of us has total freedom. And we all generally agree with most of the laws that restrict our behavior, because these laws usually are about the “as long as you don’t hurt someone else” ideal. Most of us also generally agree with the laws that require us to “do our part”, such as paying taxes so we have roads and schools, or a great many other things.
So the question again boils down to doing harm. You want proof. You want a direct line on a map. That’s not available. And it’s not because there’s been any real effort to find out. There’s been very little effort and those have been weak. But reason tells me that a steady diet of extreme violence without redeeming qualities can form a young mind. Reason tells me that these young minds need guidance, but it is far too often not available to them. Why anyone would disagree with this leads me to believe that you (and they) are more concerned with seeing it in print than thinking it through.
By the way, for anyone who didn’t get my original reference to elephants and inner city kids, I’ll explain.
In a national park in Africa, they found that young bull elephants were killing rhinoceros. This is an aberration to their normal behavior. They then realized that the elephant herds were lacking in older bulls due to the culling of the herds to prevent their getting too big. They usually culled the largest and oldest animals. So, realizing that this seems wrong, and I might add without any direct linear proof, they imported some older bulls into the herd. And the incidents of rhinoceros killings slowed down a great deal (if it didn’t stop altogether by now). Their thinking was that it was very similar to inner city youth gangs where father figures are missing. And this too is another realization that was based on thought, rather than a direct proven line on a graph. In inner cities, great effort has been given to supporting older, ex gang men, who have returned to help the youth to a better way of life. A non-violent way. This also seems to be working and is generally given credit as one of the reasons for the reduction in violent crime. So, will kids anywhere who lack guidance, whether because the parents aren’t around or don’t have time, or even just don’t care, will these kids be affected by a steady stream of not just violence, but extremely graphic violence? I think they can be, and many of them will be, if they are exposed to it constantly such as in video games that lock up their attentions for large chunks of time. And this affects us all if these kids start down the path of aggressive behavior.
Jeff, you want proof. All I can give you is reason. You want no laws and even no rules. I want more than rules, but laws. Our society is going to have to deal with this, obviously. We’ll see where it goes.
It seems to me that you don’t know much about the current situation.
Whellllll gee, I guess that’s that then, right?
To be honest, I don’t feel like I’m doing a very good job communicating my point. And though I’ve been trying to respond to yours, I’ve been left feeling like I must have responded to something other than what you were saying, because the conversational thread I’m expecting to see just isn’t there.
You used Hot Coffee as an example. I tried to explain how that fiasco demonstrated that voluntary compliance worked VERY well. You meant it as an example of people breaking the rules. Talking in different directions.
And we’re having multiple conversations.
I’ll try again, just sticking one thing at a time.
You’re saying that without a law, there’s no consequence for violations like Hot Coffee: sneaking AO content into an M-rated game.
You’re breaking the law when you label an AO game as M.
Retailers cannot sell an AO game which is rated M.
Magazines cannot run your advertising which says your AO game is rated M.
There are laws against all that.
Oh, and Sony and MS won’t license an AO title: so you have to recall, recode, and re-do games for those platforms; while praying they don’t sue you before you’ve even gotten to the “broken law” part.
“Sneaking” AO content into a game that’s been labeled ‘M’ invokes the wrath of the FTC, under existing laws we’ve already got that apply to everyone: you cannot advertise one thing and sell another.
Now… obviously, I don’t think a new law specifically for video games is necessary.
There are checks in place that do a better job than most of the laws the politicians have tried to pass (especially as they get watered-down in attempts to pass through constitutional filters). Compliance is “voluntary” only in the sense that if you don’t want to sell your game anywhere, you don’t have to comply. So it’s not voluntary, really: certainly not on a scale as would produce “a steady diet of violence.”
So I’m not so much saying “We don’t need a law barring games from doing that” as I’m saying, “We already have laws against that.”
Compliance with the age-restrictions is already as good as I think we’d get from a law. Really better than we’d get from some of those laws, and more consistently enforced, I’d wager.
One law fined the purchaser $25, for example. Kids are notorious risk-takers, and why would Best Buy comply with that law? With what we have now, the retailer is the one enforcing the age restriction, and they’re doing a good job it.
Here’s a recent FTC report (and remember when you said other industries were complying and the game industry wasn’t? Not so!):
The FTC report applauds the game industry’s ”significant progress” in limiting retail sales of M-rated products to underage buyers, while noting that movie and music retailers made only “modest progress” in this area.
I’d say you got the impression the game industry was being uncooperative because we’re getting so much press of fighting these anti-game laws.
That’s just not the reality of the situation.
So I’m not so much saying “We don’t need a law barring games from doing that” as I’m saying, “We already have laws against that.”
Before moving on, let’s stick to this topic.
What would we get - what specific result - with a game-specific law mandating age restrictions?
Ok, I’ll try a point by point.
“You’re saying that without a law, there’s no consequence for violations like Hot Coffee: sneaking AO content into an M-rated game.”
Well, I’m separating the company from the guy(s) who actually do it. The company pays the legal price. The guy(s) might get fired if they just work for the company, and this might be acceptable to them if they have future plans. As in a banner add: “Buy online the new game ‘Violence Supreme’ direct from the guys who brought you (violent version of Hot Coffee). Spill their guts!”.
“You’re breaking the law when you label an AO game as M.
Retailers cannot sell an AO game which is rated M.
Magazines cannot run your advertising which says your AO game is rated M.”
No you are not. You are breaking a contract with the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), and that’s assuming you have a contract with them. There are no laws, and this is why it’s called “voluntary”. You are subject, if you are a partner, only to the finds, as a company, that they alone set.
Here is the list of their retail partners in the US:
Best Buy
Blockbuster Video
Circuit City
GameStop/EB Games
Hastings Entertainment
KB Toys
Movie Gallery/Hollywood Video/Game Crazy
Sears/Kmart
Shopko
Target
Trans World Entertainment
Toys “R” Us
Wal-Mart
And that’s it!
So “Uday and Qusay’s Gaming Emporium” has absolutely no restrictions on what they can or can’t sell.
““Sneaking” AO content into a game that’s been labeled ‘M’ invokes the wrath of the FTC, under existing laws we’ve already got that apply to everyone: you cannot advertise one thing and sell another.”
Ok, then this is how they nailed the Hot Coffee thing. Lesson learned? Don’t false advertise.
Instead, release unrated games because you don’t belong to the ESRB. Kind of like movies, eh?
“I’d say you got the impression the game industry was being uncooperative because we’re getting so much press of fighting these anti-game laws.
That’s just not the reality of the situation.”
No, it’s not an impression at all, and is in fact a reality. Besides fighting any efforts to regulate the gaming industry…
“An advertiser cannot force anyone to publish its marketing pitches. And yet that’s what video-game makers demand of the Regional Transportation District: They claim that refusing to promote their products violates their free-speech rights.
This is nonsense, of course. Even though RTD is a public agency, the First Amendment has - or should have - nothing to do with this beef.
Advertising is a contractual arrangement between a willing seller (in this case, RTD) and a willing buyer (the game makers). Should either party balk at a proposed ad campaign, the alternatives are to negotiate or walk away, not march to the courthouse.
Unfortunately, the gamers won this battle, for now. RTD’s board avoided a threatened lawsuit and let them continue to purchase ads on transit vehicles.
But on principle, RTD should have the right to decide what advertising materials it accepts and rejects - just like sign companies, broadcasters, magazine publishers and yes, newspaper owners.
The dispute erupted when local representatives of conservative parents’ groups complained about ads that were posted on light-rail trains last fall for the ultra-violent Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories. They urged the RTD board to formally reject any ad for a video game with the rating “mature” or “adults only.”
Rocky Mountain News
“What would we get - what specific result - with a game-specific law mandating age restrictions?”
Coverage. I don’t know that any laws need to be game specific, but I haven’t delved into the other medias.
But there is a difference. In other medias, no one is “playing” the actions out. They may see it, read about it, whatever, but they themselves aren’t “doing it”, even if it is virtual. I don’t know if this difference matters really, but I tend to think it would.
Oh, and a note on this:
“You’re breaking the law when you label an AO game as M.
Retailers cannot sell an AO game which is rated M.
Magazines cannot run your advertising which says your AO game is rated M.”
Whatever the game is rated is what it’s rated. So, if your point is actually that you can’t change the rating, yeah, you’re right.
This still leaves me a bit confused on the Hot Coffee thing. I don’t see any laws broken except on the contractual end of things.
It was advertised and sold as a rated M game, but the undisclosed content meant that it actually contained AO content (and therefore, was an AO-game with an M rating).
Contractual obligations are legally enforceable, so it’s not as if that “doesn’t count”.
You can’t change the rating to AO: retailers won’t sell it, console manufacturers won’t license it, and print advertising can’t just magically update itself somehow.
If you put buttermilk in a regular milk carton, ship it off to stores, advertise it, etc. and then a couple weeks later say, “Oh yeah. That’s buttermilk”… It’s like that. You can’t “just change the rating”. It wasn’t regular milk before and now it’s buttermilk. It’s been buttermilk the whole time, regardless what you labeled it (And if you labeled it as something else, you broke the law).
We do not need milk-specific labeling laws to address that possibility.
I for one, do not care for buttermilk. But what if kids drank some buttermilk then went out and punched someone?
Indeed! That is why even retailers who stock the ‘worse than R’ Unrated version of Saw III, will not stock buttermilk.
Individuals are responsible for everything that Evil Corporations do. The company gets fined, the people get sacked. At most a company could sue their former employee for costing them $24 million, but they aren’t going to get their $24 million out of him and don’t want to drag their dirty laundry into open court regardless.
NONE of the laws we’re talking about - the 9 that have been struck down already - even suggested what you are talking about now. Some fined the seller and some fined the buyer. None addressed what is essentially false-advertising (putting adult content in a game labeled otherwise).
Honestly, I don’t even know what to say about that. If that’s what you’ve been talking about all this time, no wonder I felt like there was a disconnect!
“You’re breaking the law when you label an AO game as M.
Retailers cannot sell an AO game which is rated M.
Magazines cannot run your advertising which says your AO game is rated M.”
No you are not. You are breaking a contract with the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), and that’s assuming you have a contract with them.
What I meant was, if you put one thing in a box that says something else is in that box, you’re basically “false advertising” to distributors, retailers, maybe even the publisher if they weren’t aware of it, any agencies through which you’ve purchased advertising, etc. And across State lines, which makes it a federal case.
Wouldn’t matter if you released the game yourself, only sold it on your website, and didn’t get it rated: if you say it doesn’t have any sex acts in it, but it does… that’s against the law.
That’s why the FTC put the smackdown on Rockstar.
As well it should be. You have to demonstrate it’s in the best interest of society as a whole to impose censorship at any level. That is, “Is this a problem? Is this problem so big that it’s worth bringing down the hammer? Is the hammer the only tool we can use to do this?”
Since the vast majority of games are sold at places which don’t even stock AO games, no AO games are made for game consoles, most children play console games, most games are sold to adults, there’s better evidence violent games cause no harm than there is that they do, and and sinse the crime statistics which don’t support claims of a video games fueled epidemic of violent youths…
Just what does it take?
That’s why it’s been blocked nine times - not because the judges are baby-raping terrorists keen on twisting young minds on a steady diet of violence.
Except you don’t have to watch unrated movies on your PC, and retailers will actually stock unrated movies.
One, it’s a Good Thing they have been fighting laws that infringe on our rights. They haven’t fought a single constitutional law.
And why in the heck would the movie industry fight regulation the gaming industry? I mean, even if they could, which they can’t. Neither can the cowboy boot industry.
That doesn’t make them “more cooperative”. It just makes them next.
If it does, then good. If they allow advertising of other “adult” media but single-out games for exclusion, then they should be fought.
Because it is a public agency, they don’t get to decide who gets to speak. The government doesn’t get to wrap unconstitutional laws in ‘agency regulations’.
Do you think it would be legal for them to allow Columbia Pictures to advertise, but not Disney? Well… it wouldn’t be, and don’t imagine for one second that Disney would “cooperate” when faced with that injustice.
They’re terribly considered ‘free speech’ as well.
You don’t get to swing the Big Hammer on a hunch that it’ll fix a problem which no one has even seen.
‘Good thing, too. Sounds like you wouldn’t hesitate to give up all sorts of rights.
Unfortunitly the corrilation between video games and declining violent crimes is not as obvious as it my seem. The reality is that crime is the product of hundreds of different sources and causess. This study is great to fight against those that over simplified crime stating” that video games make kids criminals” It is likely that games help people releave their stress. I know after a long day of school and studing gta3, does the trick for me, but I am not violent to begin with. This is a serious issue for us gamers to adress the reality is that no amount of evident against games being bad will have an effect if that evidence does not reach those that doubt it. The people against video games are going to the conservative voters who don’t have exposer to video games on any real level. These people need to be brought into the loop. The must be informed or they will vote in politicians that pass laws resticting our rights to video games. There are a lot a smart people out there fighting for video games, but we could use one more. Talk to someone to day about video games.
2 Trackbacks
[...] though the methodology is a little suspect (and tongue in cheek), Jeff Freeman’s juxtaposition of two graphs — video game sales and violent crimes — on mythicalblog.com actually raises a fair [...]
[...] Stuff blogs - too bad only one can win… This week, it’s Jeff Freeman’s essay on video game violence. Way to go, [...]