Yeah, I seen that yesterday and had to address some of the misconceptions about ESRB ratings and how a 12 year old can legally play the game. (Read my comment on the video for more info on that)
Still, despite the devs not knowing the people claiming the other player's heinous acts and verbal abuse and banning said players without evidence, the customers did admit that they did it. So I guess both customer and developer is in the wrong?
I dunno, messed up situation all around if you ask me. The devs shouldn't ban anyone willy-nilly if there's no evidence, but the player whos calling the girls whores and making sexual remarks to a minor shouldn't think that just because it's a M rated game, minors wouldn't be on there. I personally think minors shouldn't play M rated games, but that's not my call-- it's the parents call.... and it's also not the dev's fault.
The minors shouldn't be playing a mature game, period. This is where the fault lies, if it can't be sold to them in the stores, then they need to deal with the consequences of playing it, period. Not sure why anyone else would be at fault here.
The minors shouldn't be playing a mature game, period. This is where the fault lies, if it can't be sold to them in the stores, then they need to deal with the consequences of playing it, period. Not sure why anyone else would be at fault here.
If those kids can't watch the original Friday the 13th movie from 1980 because it's too violent/sexual, why should they be able to play the new game?
Because it's not illegal. For some reason, the MPAA is a bit more strict in terms on how it should be viewed (It's actually voluntary to set these rules in a retail enviroment), despite the fact that it shares similar goals to resist government censorship and defend their First Amendment rights like the ESRB does.
Still, it's up to the parents to weather or not minors are allowed to play mature games... never the devs. Nobody should blame a dev that they really didn't know a minor was in-game solely because the game was rated M. Developers do all they can by giving it a rating, informing customers what the game is before they buy it, but it's not used as a restrictive law after the fact.
If parents and grandparents weren't idiots and actually did their jobs this wouldn't be an issue. Parents should be held legally responsible for their kids playing games rated over their age just like if they gave their kids smokes or porn. It's sad that we have to use the courts to force parents to do their jobs but that's the world we live in.
If parents and grandparents weren't idiots and actually did their jobs this wouldn't be an issue. Parents should be held legally responsible for their kids playing games rated over their age just like if they gave their kids smokes or porn. It's sad that we have to use the courts to force parents to do their jobs but that's the world we live in.
Developers do all they can by giving it a rating, informing customers what the game is before they buy it, but it's not used as a restrictive law after the fact.
Correction, developers submit their games to the ESRB to get a rating so retail stores won't reject their game.
If parents and grandparents weren't idiots and actually did their jobs this wouldn't be an issue. Parents should be held legally responsible for their kids playing games rated over their age just like if they gave their kids smokes or porn. It's sad that we have to use the courts to force parents to do their jobs but that's the world we live in.
That's a terrible comparison.
No it isn't. I could make the argument porn is just a movie, cigs are just plants, and alcohol is just a drink. Anyone can say whatever they want but the truth is there are laws and rules in place to protect the majority of children and stupid people. I by contrast 100% agree with this comparison.
No it isn't. I could make the argument porn is just a movie, cigs are just plants, and alcohol is just a drink. Anyone can say whatever they want but the truth is there are laws and rules in place to protect the majority of children and stupid people. I by contrast 100% agree with this comparison.
Other than the fact that cigarettes have chemical additaves, and alcohol in high doses has a higher chance to create permanent negative long term effects on ones health, sure go for it.
To state that parents should be held legally responsible for letting their child play a game because they're 10 and want to play a T rated game is just asinine though.
No it isn't. I could make the argument porn is just a movie, cigs are just plants, and alcohol is just a drink. Anyone can say whatever they want but the truth is there are laws and rules in place to protect the majority of children and stupid people. I by contrast 100% agree with this comparison.
Other than the fact that cigarettes have chemical additaves, and alcohol in high doses has a higher chance to create permanent negative long term effects on ones health, sure go for it.
To state that parents should be held legally responsible for letting their child play a game because they're 10 and want to play a T rated game is just asinine though.
For you to say it's just a video game is asinine. It's an augmented and distorted reality that is influential on children and shapes their minds. We aren't talking about T games here. The argument is M and AO rated games in the hands of kids. There is a huge difference between GTA and Tony Hawk. I used to think, oh it's just a game, but after working in the court system and seeing how children absorb violent games to be truth I no longer feel that way. I will say that the ESRB needs more than T and M. There needs to be different levels of ratings.
Not to mention games have gotten a LOT more detailed and descriptive in the last Gen then ever before. And online interaction is also another thing we didn't have to worry about 10 years ago...
For you to say it's just a video game is asinine. It's an augmented and distorted reality that is influential on children and shapes their minds. We aren't talking about T games here. The argument is M and AO rated games in the hands of kids. There is a huge difference between GTA and Tony Hawk. I used to think, oh it's just a game, but after working in the court system and seeing how children absorb violent games to be truth I no longer feel that way. I will say that the ESRB needs more than T and M. There needs to be different levels of ratings.
For you to say it's just a video game is asinine. It's an augmented and distorted reality that is influential on children and shapes their minds. We aren't talking about T games here. The argument is M and AO rated games in the hands of kids. There is a huge difference between GTA and Tony Hawk. I used to think, oh it's just a game, but after working in the court system and seeing how children absorb violent games to be truth I no longer feel that way. I will say that the ESRB needs more than T and M. There needs to be different levels of ratings.
Obviously you know nothing about the mental heath field and how long it takes for something to be proven. There aren't any studies because this is a newer issue and it takes years to develop research. Although research is starting it will take time for it to be credited. Until that happens why dont you go to a juvenile detention center and volunteer and learn for yourself. Kids aren't facing the same issues we did. The world around you is evolving and your stuck in the mindset of kids will be kids, its just a game, and parents have common sense.
Developers do all they can by giving it a rating, informing customers what the game is before they buy it, but it's not used as a restrictive law after the fact.
Correction, developers submit their games to the ESRB to get a rating so retail stores won't reject their game.
Yes, but I would say in conjunction.
Developers do not always have to submit, LRG sells their PS4 and PSVita games without any ESRB rating... plus if you self publish (Like a homebrew), you do not have to submit either. One can argue that LRG is an online collector thing more than a consumer retail thing (Markets do slightly differ), but in exchange for goods and services, it's not really a requirement nor an obligation (Unless that is, as you said, if you want that game in that particular store that didn't opt out, you do.)
Obviously you know nothing about the mental heath field and how long it takes for something to be proven. There aren't any studies because this is a newer issue and it takes years to develop research. Although research is starting it will take time for it to be credited. Until that happens why dont you go to a juvenile detention center and volunteer and learn for yourself. Kids aren't facing the same issues we did. The world around you is evolving and your('re) stuck in the mindset of kids will be kids, its just a game, and parents have common sense.
Now I fully expect you to scroll to the conclusion (Or Ctrl+f Violent) and read the two paragraphs there instead of the entire paper, but to say there aren't well researched studies on media, specifically games effects on children, teens, and adults out there is just ignorant.
Violent media is not a new hot button issue, it's been around for decades if not longer.
Now there is an argument for mental development in an always connected/online society, but that's not what you chose to argue here. That's an entirely different conversation.
If parents and grandparents weren't idiots and actually did their jobs this wouldn't be an issue. Parents should be held legally responsible for their kids playing games rated over their age just like if they gave their kids smokes or porn. It's sad that we have to use the courts to force parents to do their jobs but that's the world we live in.
That's a terrible comparison.
No it isn't. I could make the argument porn is just a movie, cigs are just plants, and alcohol is just a drink. Anyone can say whatever they want but the truth is there are laws and rules in place to protect the majority of children and stupid people. I by contrast 100% agree with this comparison.
What ever the case, video games have NO legal precedent what-so-ever. The rules set aside are more aligned with tenets for retail, not law.
I've made this comparison before, that in the trade/barter law you have to be over 18 to trade in a game (or anything that involves trade such as a pawn shop). However, you have to be over 17 to buy a M rated game. You can maim, swear, and do all the stuff in an M-rated game, but you can't trade that said game in if you're 17. The reason for this juxtaposition is that one's rules governed by the government, one's just guidelines for retail users.
Obviously you know nothing about the mental heath field and how long it takes for something to be proven. There aren't any studies because this is a newer issue and it takes years to develop research. Although research is starting it will take time for it to be credited. Until that happens why dont you go to a juvenile detention center and volunteer and learn for yourself. Kids aren't facing the same issues we did. The world around you is evolving and your('re) stuck in the mindset of kids will be kids, its just a game, and parents have common sense.
Now I fully expect you to scroll to the conclusion (Or Ctrl+f Violent) and read the two paragraphs there instead of the entire paper, but to say there aren't well researched studies on media, specifically games effects on children, teens, and adults out there is just ignorant.
Violent media is not a new hot button issue, it's been around for decades if not longer.
Now there is an argument for mental development in an always connected/online society, but that's not what you chose to argue here. That's an entirely different conversation.
Also, for sake of argument, that violence doesn't always equate to making people violent, and there's no real evidence that says it does. Growing up in the 80s, I had my fair share of slasher flims-- my parents couldn't stop it because they didn't know, knew that I knew right from wrong, or just didn't care, but I didn't grow up to be a killer.
Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Hitler... you can't blame violent video games for those guys.
Any form of entertainment is just that-- an outlet, not a tool. For those who use it as such, they are already f*cked up in the head to begin with, so it's not the game or developer's fault.
This whole mess is not very clear to me, as I'm seeing the guy banned for sexual harassment, and then some shit over a 12yr old playing, and something about people teaming up against other players helping Jason and some mention of so and so knows the devs etc and apparently someone got power hungery and issuing permanent bans was all this in one incident or several diffrent cases going down all at once?
Developers do not always have to submit, LRG sells their PS4 and PSVita games without any ESRB rating... plus if you self publish (Like a homebrew), you do not have to submit either. One can argue that LRG is an online collector thing more than a consumer retail thing (Markets do slightly differ), but in exchange for goods and services, it's not really a requirement nor an obligation (Unless that is, as you said, if you want that game in that particular store that didn't opt out, you do.)
Did you actually read what I said? I specifically stated:
Originally posted by: Guntz
Correction, developers submit their games to the ESRB to get a rating so retail stores won't reject their game.
Last I checked, Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy and any other retail outlet you can think of that sells video games will not sell a game that doesn't have an ESRB rating on it. Limited Run Games are not sold in a traditional retail outlet and therefore do not count.
Developers do not always have to submit, LRG sells their PS4 and PSVita games without any ESRB rating... plus if you self publish (Like a homebrew), you do not have to submit either. One can argue that LRG is an online collector thing more than a consumer retail thing (Markets do slightly differ), but in exchange for goods and services, it's not really a requirement nor an obligation (Unless that is, as you said, if you want that game in that particular store that didn't opt out, you do.)
Did you actually read what I said? I specifically stated:
Originally posted by: Guntz
Correction, developers submit their games to the ESRB to get a rating so retail stores won't reject their game.
Last I checked, Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy and any other retail outlet you can think of that sells video games will not sell a game that doesn't have an ESRB rating on it. Limited Run Games are not sold in a traditional retail outlet and therefore do not count.
Yeah, I'm actually agreeing with you... we're on the same page, but maybe I'm wording it wrong. lol
Those retailers who all promised not to carry AO rated games and non-ESRB titles in response to Hot Coffee never really stopped carrying unrated PC games. Some PC games blatantly bragged about being "UNRATED!" just like an "UNRATED" DVD. At the time I recall that all three major game platform holders stayed that they would not licence or produce/distribute unrated games for their platforms. Guess that changed at some point if LR is doing unrated physical releases.
If parents and grandparents weren't idiots and actually did their jobs this wouldn't be an issue. Parents should be held legally responsible for their kids playing games rated over their age just like if they gave their kids smokes or porn. It's sad that we have to use the courts to force parents to do their jobs but that's the world we live in.
That's a terrible comparison.
No it isn't. I could make the argument porn is just a movie, cigs are just plants, and alcohol is just a drink. Anyone can say whatever they want but the truth is there are laws and rules in place to protect the majority of children and stupid people. I by contrast 100% agree with this comparison.
Porn, cigarettes, and alcohol are all considered harmful to minors. That "harm" to the sexual development of a child is precisely how it is legally justified to ban the material in light of free speech. It is assumed that children and their brains are not well formed enough to make the rational decisions of a free adult so addictive substances and things that could impact their lifelong sexual development are seen as preying on their naivety and robbing them of their free choice before they are old enough to understand the ramifications.
Much like the MPAA, the ESRB was formed in response to fears that the government would regulate the game industry and pass restrictive laws if it didn't regulate itself. Because there are as many studies showing no (or inconclusive) links between real-world violence and violent video games as there are studies claiming to show a link, it would have been premature to allow the government to pass laws affecting free speech under the guise of prohibiting the sale to minors.
Because the ESRB ratings are self-imposed by the industry and not any government standard I always chuckle when a state tries to legislate that a particular rating can't be sold to minors.
If parents and grandparents weren't idiots and actually did their jobs this wouldn't be an issue. Parents should be held legally responsible for their kids playing games rated over their age just like if they gave their kids smokes or porn. It's sad that we have to use the courts to force parents to do their jobs but that's the world we live in.
That's a terrible comparison.
No it isn't. I could make the argument porn is just a movie, cigs are just plants, and alcohol is just a drink. Anyone can say whatever they want but the truth is there are laws and rules in place to protect the majority of children and stupid people. I by contrast 100% agree with this comparison.
Porn, cigarettes, and alcohol are all considered harmful to minors. That "harm" to the sexual development of a child is precisely how it is legally justified to ban the material in light of free speech. It is assumed that children and their brains are not well formed enough to make the rational decisions of a free adult so addictive substance and things that could impact their lifeline sexual development are seen as preying on their naivety and robbing them of their free choice before they are old enough to understand the ramifications.
I'm as anti-regulation/censorship/government as anyone you'll ever come across...
...and I agree completely with what's bolded here. Very well said, sir.
We definitely think alike. As someone of the same mindset I've had to think long and hard about where we draw the line and how to justify that line. I staunchly believe that your liberties and freedoms should only end or be regulated where they infringe on someone else's liberties and freedoms. Robbing someone of their choice by harming them before they can make a reasoned/rational choice is denying them the true liberty of that choice.
That seems to be the role government has traditionally filled but people these days seem to think that it's the government's job to protect us. This couldn't be further from the truth (they protect our liberties), but as public expectations have changed over generations government is accepting the role (more power, so why wouldn't they?).
We definitely think alike. As someone of the same mindset I've had to think long and hard about where we draw the line and how to justify that line. I staunchly believe that your liberties and freedoms should only end or be regulated where they infringe on someone else's liberties and freedoms. Robbing someone of their choice by harming them before they can make a reasoned/rational choice is denying them the true liberty of that choice.
That seems to be the role government has traditionally filled but people these days seem to think that it's the government's job to protect us. This couldn't be further from the truth, but as public expectations have changed over generations government is accepting the role (more power, so why wouldn't they?).
Comments
Still, despite the devs not knowing the people claiming the other player's heinous acts and verbal abuse and banning said players without evidence, the customers did admit that they did it. So I guess both customer and developer is in the wrong?
I dunno, messed up situation all around if you ask me. The devs shouldn't ban anyone willy-nilly if there's no evidence, but the player whos calling the girls whores and making sexual remarks to a minor shouldn't think that just because it's a M rated game, minors wouldn't be on there. I personally think minors shouldn't play M rated games, but that's not my call-- it's the parents call.... and it's also not the dev's fault.
The minors shouldn't be playing a mature game, period. This is where the fault lies, if it can't be sold to them in the stores, then they need to deal with the consequences of playing it, period. Not sure why anyone else would be at fault here.
agreed.
If those kids can't watch the original Friday the 13th movie from 1980 because it's too violent/sexual, why should they be able to play the new game?
Because it's not illegal. For some reason, the MPAA is a bit more strict in terms on how it should be viewed (It's actually voluntary to set these rules in a retail enviroment), despite the fact that it shares similar goals to resist government censorship and defend their First Amendment rights like the ESRB does.
Still, it's up to the parents to weather or not minors are allowed to play mature games... never the devs. Nobody should blame a dev that they really didn't know a minor was in-game solely because the game was rated M. Developers do all they can by giving it a rating, informing customers what the game is before they buy it, but it's not used as a restrictive law after the fact.
If parents and grandparents weren't idiots and actually did their jobs this wouldn't be an issue. Parents should be held legally responsible for their kids playing games rated over their age just like if they gave their kids smokes or porn. It's sad that we have to use the courts to force parents to do their jobs but that's the world we live in.
That's a terrible comparison.
Originally posted by: BouncekDeLemos
Developers do all they can by giving it a rating, informing customers what the game is before they buy it, but it's not used as a restrictive law after the fact.
Correction, developers submit their games to the ESRB to get a rating so retail stores won't reject their game.
If parents and grandparents weren't idiots and actually did their jobs this wouldn't be an issue. Parents should be held legally responsible for their kids playing games rated over their age just like if they gave their kids smokes or porn. It's sad that we have to use the courts to force parents to do their jobs but that's the world we live in.
That's a terrible comparison.
No it isn't. I could make the argument porn is just a movie, cigs are just plants, and alcohol is just a drink. Anyone can say whatever they want but the truth is there are laws and rules in place to protect the majority of children and stupid people. I by contrast 100% agree with this comparison.
No it isn't. I could make the argument porn is just a movie, cigs are just plants, and alcohol is just a drink. Anyone can say whatever they want but the truth is there are laws and rules in place to protect the majority of children and stupid people. I by contrast 100% agree with this comparison.
Other than the fact that cigarettes have chemical additaves, and alcohol in high doses has a higher chance to create permanent negative long term effects on ones health, sure go for it.
To state that parents should be held legally responsible for letting their child play a game because they're 10 and want to play a T rated game is just asinine though.
No it isn't. I could make the argument porn is just a movie, cigs are just plants, and alcohol is just a drink. Anyone can say whatever they want but the truth is there are laws and rules in place to protect the majority of children and stupid people. I by contrast 100% agree with this comparison.
Other than the fact that cigarettes have chemical additaves, and alcohol in high doses has a higher chance to create permanent negative long term effects on ones health, sure go for it.
To state that parents should be held legally responsible for letting their child play a game because they're 10 and want to play a T rated game is just asinine though.
For you to say it's just a video game is asinine. It's an augmented and distorted reality that is influential on children and shapes their minds. We aren't talking about T games here. The argument is M and AO rated games in the hands of kids. There is a huge difference between GTA and Tony Hawk. I used to think, oh it's just a game, but after working in the court system and seeing how children absorb violent games to be truth I no longer feel that way. I will say that the ESRB needs more than T and M. There needs to be different levels of ratings.
For you to say it's just a video game is asinine. It's an augmented and distorted reality that is influential on children and shapes their minds. We aren't talking about T games here. The argument is M and AO rated games in the hands of kids. There is a huge difference between GTA and Tony Hawk. I used to think, oh it's just a game, but after working in the court system and seeing how children absorb violent games to be truth I no longer feel that way. I will say that the ESRB needs more than T and M. There needs to be different levels of ratings.
For you to say it's just a video game is asinine. It's an augmented and distorted reality that is influential on children and shapes their minds. We aren't talking about T games here. The argument is M and AO rated games in the hands of kids. There is a huge difference between GTA and Tony Hawk. I used to think, oh it's just a game, but after working in the court system and seeing how children absorb violent games to be truth I no longer feel that way. I will say that the ESRB needs more than T and M. There needs to be different levels of ratings.
Obviously you know nothing about the mental heath field and how long it takes for something to be proven. There aren't any studies because this is a newer issue and it takes years to develop research. Although research is starting it will take time for it to be credited. Until that happens why dont you go to a juvenile detention center and volunteer and learn for yourself. Kids aren't facing the same issues we did. The world around you is evolving and your stuck in the mindset of kids will be kids, its just a game, and parents have common sense.
Developers do all they can by giving it a rating, informing customers what the game is before they buy it, but it's not used as a restrictive law after the fact.
Correction, developers submit their games to the ESRB to get a rating so retail stores won't reject their game.
Yes, but I would say in conjunction.
Developers do not always have to submit, LRG sells their PS4 and PSVita games without any ESRB rating... plus if you self publish (Like a homebrew), you do not have to submit either. One can argue that LRG is an online collector thing more than a consumer retail thing (Markets do slightly differ), but in exchange for goods and services, it's not really a requirement nor an obligation (Unless that is, as you said, if you want that game in that particular store that didn't opt out, you do.)
Obviously you know nothing about the mental heath field and how long it takes for something to be proven. There aren't any studies because this is a newer issue and it takes years to develop research. Although research is starting it will take time for it to be credited. Until that happens why dont you go to a juvenile detention center and volunteer and learn for yourself. Kids aren't facing the same issues we did. The world around you is evolving and your('re) stuck in the mindset of kids will be kids, its just a game, and parents have common sense.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293169255_Is_time_spent_playing_video_games_associated_with_mental_health_cognitive_and_social_skills_in_young_children
^Study.
Now I fully expect you to scroll to the conclusion (Or Ctrl+f Violent) and read the two paragraphs there instead of the entire paper, but to say there aren't well researched studies on media, specifically games effects on children, teens, and adults out there is just ignorant.
Violent media is not a new hot button issue, it's been around for decades if not longer.
Now there is an argument for mental development in an always connected/online society, but that's not what you chose to argue here. That's an entirely different conversation.
If parents and grandparents weren't idiots and actually did their jobs this wouldn't be an issue. Parents should be held legally responsible for their kids playing games rated over their age just like if they gave their kids smokes or porn. It's sad that we have to use the courts to force parents to do their jobs but that's the world we live in.
That's a terrible comparison.
No it isn't. I could make the argument porn is just a movie, cigs are just plants, and alcohol is just a drink. Anyone can say whatever they want but the truth is there are laws and rules in place to protect the majority of children and stupid people. I by contrast 100% agree with this comparison.
What ever the case, video games have NO legal precedent what-so-ever. The rules set aside are more aligned with tenets for retail, not law.
I've made this comparison before, that in the trade/barter law you have to be over 18 to trade in a game (or anything that involves trade such as a pawn shop). However, you have to be over 17 to buy a M rated game. You can maim, swear, and do all the stuff in an M-rated game, but you can't trade that said game in if you're 17. The reason for this juxtaposition is that one's rules governed by the government, one's just guidelines for retail users.
Obviously you know nothing about the mental heath field and how long it takes for something to be proven. There aren't any studies because this is a newer issue and it takes years to develop research. Although research is starting it will take time for it to be credited. Until that happens why dont you go to a juvenile detention center and volunteer and learn for yourself. Kids aren't facing the same issues we did. The world around you is evolving and your('re) stuck in the mindset of kids will be kids, its just a game, and parents have common sense.
https://www.researchgate.net/publ...
^Study.
Now I fully expect you to scroll to the conclusion (Or Ctrl+f Violent) and read the two paragraphs there instead of the entire paper, but to say there aren't well researched studies on media, specifically games effects on children, teens, and adults out there is just ignorant.
Violent media is not a new hot button issue, it's been around for decades if not longer.
Now there is an argument for mental development in an always connected/online society, but that's not what you chose to argue here. That's an entirely different conversation.
Also, for sake of argument, that violence doesn't always equate to making people violent, and there's no real evidence that says it does. Growing up in the 80s, I had my fair share of slasher flims-- my parents couldn't stop it because they didn't know, knew that I knew right from wrong, or just didn't care, but I didn't grow up to be a killer.
Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Hitler... you can't blame violent video games for those guys.
Any form of entertainment is just that-- an outlet, not a tool. For those who use it as such, they are already f*cked up in the head to begin with, so it's not the game or developer's fault.
Originally posted by: BouncekDeLemos
Yes, but I would say in conjunction.
Developers do not always have to submit, LRG sells their PS4 and PSVita games without any ESRB rating... plus if you self publish (Like a homebrew), you do not have to submit either. One can argue that LRG is an online collector thing more than a consumer retail thing (Markets do slightly differ), but in exchange for goods and services, it's not really a requirement nor an obligation (Unless that is, as you said, if you want that game in that particular store that didn't opt out, you do.)
Did you actually read what I said? I specifically stated:
Originally posted by: Guntz
Correction, developers submit their games to the ESRB to get a rating so retail stores won't reject their game.
Last I checked, Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy and any other retail outlet you can think of that sells video games will not sell a game that doesn't have an ESRB rating on it. Limited Run Games are not sold in a traditional retail outlet and therefore do not count.
Yes, but I would say in conjunction.
Developers do not always have to submit, LRG sells their PS4 and PSVita games without any ESRB rating... plus if you self publish (Like a homebrew), you do not have to submit either. One can argue that LRG is an online collector thing more than a consumer retail thing (Markets do slightly differ), but in exchange for goods and services, it's not really a requirement nor an obligation (Unless that is, as you said, if you want that game in that particular store that didn't opt out, you do.)
Did you actually read what I said? I specifically stated:
Correction, developers submit their games to the ESRB to get a rating so retail stores won't reject their game.
Last I checked, Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy and any other retail outlet you can think of that sells video games will not sell a game that doesn't have an ESRB rating on it. Limited Run Games are not sold in a traditional retail outlet and therefore do not count.
Yeah, I'm actually agreeing with you... we're on the same page, but maybe I'm wording it wrong. lol
If parents and grandparents weren't idiots and actually did their jobs this wouldn't be an issue. Parents should be held legally responsible for their kids playing games rated over their age just like if they gave their kids smokes or porn. It's sad that we have to use the courts to force parents to do their jobs but that's the world we live in.
That's a terrible comparison.
No it isn't. I could make the argument porn is just a movie, cigs are just plants, and alcohol is just a drink. Anyone can say whatever they want but the truth is there are laws and rules in place to protect the majority of children and stupid people. I by contrast 100% agree with this comparison.
Porn, cigarettes, and alcohol are all considered harmful to minors. That "harm" to the sexual development of a child is precisely how it is legally justified to ban the material in light of free speech. It is assumed that children and their brains are not well formed enough to make the rational decisions of a free adult so addictive substances and things that could impact their lifelong sexual development are seen as preying on their naivety and robbing them of their free choice before they are old enough to understand the ramifications.
Much like the MPAA, the ESRB was formed in response to fears that the government would regulate the game industry and pass restrictive laws if it didn't regulate itself. Because there are as many studies showing no (or inconclusive) links between real-world violence and violent video games as there are studies claiming to show a link, it would have been premature to allow the government to pass laws affecting free speech under the guise of prohibiting the sale to minors.
Because the ESRB ratings are self-imposed by the industry and not any government standard I always chuckle when a state tries to legislate that a particular rating can't be sold to minors.
If parents and grandparents weren't idiots and actually did their jobs this wouldn't be an issue. Parents should be held legally responsible for their kids playing games rated over their age just like if they gave their kids smokes or porn. It's sad that we have to use the courts to force parents to do their jobs but that's the world we live in.
That's a terrible comparison.
No it isn't. I could make the argument porn is just a movie, cigs are just plants, and alcohol is just a drink. Anyone can say whatever they want but the truth is there are laws and rules in place to protect the majority of children and stupid people. I by contrast 100% agree with this comparison.
Porn, cigarettes, and alcohol are all considered harmful to minors. That "harm" to the sexual development of a child is precisely how it is legally justified to ban the material in light of free speech. It is assumed that children and their brains are not well formed enough to make the rational decisions of a free adult so addictive substance and things that could impact their lifeline sexual development are seen as preying on their naivety and robbing them of their free choice before they are old enough to understand the ramifications.
I'm as anti-regulation/censorship/government as anyone you'll ever come across...
...and I agree completely with what's bolded here. Very well said, sir.
That seems to be the role government has traditionally filled but people these days seem to think that it's the government's job to protect us. This couldn't be further from the truth (they protect our liberties), but as public expectations have changed over generations government is accepting the role (more power, so why wouldn't they?).
Just worried about a slippery slope and all that.
We definitely think alike. As someone of the same mindset I've had to think long and hard about where we draw the line and how to justify that line. I staunchly believe that your liberties and freedoms should only end or be regulated where they infringe on someone else's liberties and freedoms. Robbing someone of their choice by harming them before they can make a reasoned/rational choice is denying them the true liberty of that choice.
That seems to be the role government has traditionally filled but people these days seem to think that it's the government's job to protect us. This couldn't be further from the truth, but as public expectations have changed over generations government is accepting the role (more power, so why wouldn't they?).
Just worried about a slippery slope and all that.
I agree 100% with your stance.
The plot thickens...
how about a summary so i don't have to watch the video