House Bill H.R.287 Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
How many times has the Supreme Court struck down legislation like this? Besides, when is the last time you saw a retail game that DID NOT have a rating on the front of the box?

Conduct Prohibited.--It shall be unlawful for any person to ship or otherwise distribute in interstate commerce, or to sell or rent, a video game that does not contain a rating label, in a clear and conspicuous location on the outside packaging of the video game, containing an age-based content rating determined by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board.
Click to expand...
 
What was this a problem before pretty sure all physically distributed games sold in stores are ESRB rated else chains wont carry them, agreements made and enforced by video game companies so government wont get involved in that area of their business. Very similar to early days of the MPAA CARA raitings.
 
The only impact this would have is on the indie market (and probably digital distribution) ... the indies I don't think currently have to go through the ESRB or PEGI systems unless they are going to be sold in stores ... depending on how they word the bill this could also affect apps though (if they are classified as video games) ... I am not sure the ESRB is really up to this level of monitoring :eek:
 
kbrickley said:
The only impact this would have is on the indie market (and probably digital distribution) ... the indies I don't think currently have to go through the ESRB or PEGI systems unless they are going to be sold in stores ... depending on how they word the bill this could also affect apps though (if they are classified as video games) ... I am not sure the ESRB is really up to this level of monitoring :eek:
Click to expand...

That would be the problem. Independant game developers can't always afford to submit their games for classification.
 
This all started with movie ratings systems. Then it went to music ratings, then it was video games, but clearly for video games it isn't enough, they need more. Government isn't the solution it's the problem and they know it and yet don't care.
 
ballistic90 said:
That would be the problem. Independant game developers can't always afford to submit their games for classification.
Click to expand...

Oh, my response didn't indicate that this was something I was in favor of ... after reading the bill (it is very short) I doubt this will go anywhere ... it was a Democrat from Utah that submitted the bill ... I was wondering if it was written in a way where either the ESRB or brick and morter retailers might have pushed for it but it is poorly written enough it has to be a government cluster all by its lonesome :)

I can't imagine online retailers would like this since it would levy a $5000 fine for each age violation ... I can't imagine the ESRB would like this since it could give them a lot more work and more opportunity for error ... also there are some pretty horrific games out there (a white supremacist group once made a death camp simulation game :eek: ) ... I doubt that the ESRB wants their rating associated with games like that

Given how dysfunctional our government is right now and that this came from a dem in a republican controlled part of the government I think it will die the quick death it deserves ;)
 
ballistic90 said:
That would be the problem. Independant game developers can't always afford to submit their games for classification.
Click to expand...
Iirc ESRB has sorta a funny way of rating the game. I believe it's just you list what you believe is in the game and then send footage of what is in the game and they watch it and rate the game never actually playing it.
 
Semantics said:
Iirc ESRB has sorta a funny way of rating the game. I believe it's just you list what you believe is in the game and then send footage of what is in the game and they watch it and rate the game never actually playing it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's something game developers have to pay per submission and I think there's penalties if you attempt to hide gratuitous content from them. The ESRB is a private institution that relies on that money to survive.
 
kbrickley said:
Oh, my response didn't indicate that this was something I was in favor of ... after reading the bill (it is very short) I doubt this will go anywhere ... it was a Democrat from Utah that submitted the bill ... I was wondering if it was written in a way where either the ESRB or brick and morter retailers might have pushed for it but it is poorly written enough it has to be a government cluster all by its lonesome :)

I can't imagine online retailers would like this since it would levy a $5000 fine for each age violation ... I can't imagine the ESRB would like this since it could give them a lot more work and more opportunity for error ... also there are some pretty horrific games out there (a white supremacist group once made a death camp simulation game :eek: ) ... I doubt that the ESRB wants their rating associated with games like that

Given how dysfunctional our government is right now and that this came from a dem in a republican controlled part of the government I think it will die the quick death it deserves ;)
Click to expand...

Oh I know that's what you meant to say, I was agreeing and adding my two cents to the argument, that's all.
 
ballistic90 said:
That would be the problem. Independant game developers can't always afford to submit their games for classification.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but if this law were to pass then even more developers might not be able to afford the ESRB's prices, which they would be free to raise to any amount they see fit since everyone would be forced to go through them for a rating. They're not government funded and their fees are not regulated - passing a law like this that doesn't address those points... sounds like something our government would do.
 
GaryJohnson said:
Not only that, but if this law were to pass then even more developers might not be able to afford the ESRB's prices, which they would be free to raise to any amount they see fit since everyone would be forced to go through them for a rating. They're not government funded and their fees are not regulated - passing a law like this that doesn't address those points... sounds like something our government would do.
Click to expand...

Well, some lawmakers could claim ignorance, not knowing that the ESRB was a private organization.
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
It's time for RATINGS to be branded into the foreheads of members of congress, based on how fucking stupid they are. :eek::rolleyes::cool:
Click to expand...

Well, that wouldn't be too hard ... we would only need one brand that said "DOOFUS" ... I'm pretty sure we could use that rating for the entire bunch of them :D
 
We need a three strikes rule on frivolous laws introduced by any member of a local, state or federal legislature. You get a million dollar fine the first time, 10 million the second and banned from public office for the third.
 
Just another example of the federal government over stepping its bounds. When will people learn the only way to stop them to hold them accountable for there actions and stop voting for these lairs; that say they are going to do something but the only thing they do is give our money to there campaign contributors, and run up the national debt paying for there welfare state.
 
Doesn't the entertainment industry have ratings and prohibit sales already? I just skimmed the bill, maybe they should crackdown on the parents who buy their kids the games and movies.

MikeTrike said:
Laws never solve problems, they create them. :(
Click to expand...

Sadly, too much freedom is a very bad thing, because freedom without personal accountability and responsibility is pure idiocy.

If people would learn the two words above, reflect upon themselves and think about their actions we wouldn't have alot of these laws the begin with.
 
ninjaturtle said:
Sadly, too much freedom is a very bad thing, because freedom without personal accountability and responsibility is pure idiocy.

If people would learn the two words above, reflect upon themselves and think about their actions we wouldn't have alot of these laws the begin with.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that indicate that we need to raise the level of education? The law is not what makes a person do or not do something. It's the person's internal workings, laws don't fix the problem. They are a band-aid, which is saying "we don't really know how to fix it, so we'll just say it's illegal."

Unfortunately this gets carried over to things that aren't really bad. As such it's stupid to make them illegal.

Ultimately this system is going to collapse. But people need to be aware that we have an understanding of what needs to be done to actually solve problems. The assumption that a "law" is the solution, is a failure to understand the actual cause. Otherwise we'll end up right back in the same shit we're currently in. We've got a track record of doing the same types of shit for the last few thousand years. It clearly has major problems, except this time it's global. There's nowhere else to run and start over this time. :(
 
MikeTrike said:
Doesn't that indicate that we need to raise the level of education? The law is not what makes a person do or not do something. It's the person's internal workings, laws don't fix the problem. They are a band-aid, which is saying "we don't really know how to fix it, so we'll just say it's illegal."

Unfortunately this gets carried over to things that aren't really bad. As such it's stupid to make them illegal.

Ultimately this system is going to collapse. But people need to be aware that we have an understanding of what needs to be done to actually solve problems. The assumption that a "law" is the solution, is a failure to understand the actual cause. Otherwise we'll end up right back in the same shit we're currently in. We've got a track record of doing the same types of shit for the last few thousand years. It clearly has major problems, except this time it's global. There's nowhere else to run and start over this time. :(
Click to expand...

True, everything in existence take the path a least resistance. Socially, our species hasn't really changed much all these years. Most of the world never ask why, they just do and just keep on following the "tried and true" :rolleyes: methods of what their "leaders":rolleyes: tell them, whether the ones in charge have their strings pulled or not. It is kind of interesting to see the world collapse tho.
 
What about Androids app market or other type of mobile games, what about those indie developers? What about flash games on Facebook? This also has a economical impact because other countries who don't have these laws will allow innovated independent startups to capitalize more efficiently

It's sad you have to be constantly on guard against your government.
 
A company in charge of rating everything is extremely inefficient. Why can't we do the inverse? For instance, creators are responsible for rating their own products based off a set of standards. Things could be reported to the rating agency if something seems like it doesn't comply. Fines sent out to creators not in compliance.

I think all this is for nothing. Its the idiot fuckin parents that let their preteen play violent video games.
 
Taken in isolation the quoted passage appears to outlaw digital distribution. IANAL but this seems pretty problematic: "otherwise distribute in interstate commerce, or to sell or rent, a video game that does not contain a rating label, in a clear and conspicuous location on the outside packaging of the video game".
 
GaryJohnson said:
Not only that, but if this law were to pass then even more developers might not be able to afford the ESRB's prices, which they would be free to raise to any amount they see fit since everyone would be forced to go through them for a rating. They're not government funded and their fees are not regulated - passing a law like this that doesn't address those points... sounds like something our government would do.
Click to expand...

I'm looking at you, home insurance.

And car insurance.

Oh and health insurance.

Government requiring people to pay private industries for intangible services in general is insanity to the consumer and money in the pocket for the politician. It's also nothing new, unfortunately.

I'd call for the populace to rise up in the name of socio-economic freedom but they're about to take away our guns (again) too. Where's my pitchfork?
 
It was my understanding that movies do not HAVE to have an MPAA rating, but that it becomes extremely hard to get it shown in theaters if it does not. Thus if you want the film to be successful you kind of have to get it rated.

You can't show pornographic content to under age children, so that trumps being able to say "well the film was unrated so I showed it to a bunch of 8 year olds", but at the same time just because a film is rated NC-17, or R to a lesser extent, does not mean you are breaking the law if someone under 17 watches it.

But even as such, after watching This Film Not Yet Rated it seems that because these organizations are private that they do not have disclose exactly how they rate the content. Which means the content producer is at the mercy of the content rater.
 
Plus your children will hear far worse "content" when they go online in a game. That's why many games have the disclaimer that the ESRB rating may not be correct when played online.
 
westrock2000 said:
It was my understanding that movies do not HAVE to have an MPAA rating, but that it becomes extremely hard to get it shown in theaters if it does not. Thus if you want the film to be successful you kind of have to get it rated.

You can't show pornographic content to under age children, so that trumps being able to say "well the film was unrated so I showed it to a bunch of 8 year olds", but at the same time just because a film is rated NC-17, or R to a lesser extent, does not mean you are breaking the law if someone under 17 watches it.

But even as such, after watching This Film Not Yet Rated it seems that because these organizations are private that they do not have disclose exactly how they rate the content. Which means the content producer is at the mercy of the content rater.
Click to expand...

The modern rating boards are a direct result of the Hays Commission in the 30's that regulated what movies could and could not show for year. They are far from perfect but most of them are created by the industries that will produce the products to be rated so they tend to be more compatible with business than the government solutions (like the Hays Commission). The ratings boards that just issue product warnings (ESRB, MPAA) are far more preferable than the ones that restrict content with rules (Hays Code, Comics Code Authority, etc).

Ratings are useful if they are voluntary since they can give the consumer some purchasing information (if they want it). Giving a person the choice as to whether they wish to buy or watch games,movies, and TV shows that contain violence, nudity, sex, etc should be their choice. For people that don't want it, the information can be ignored. This is how a free market should work and is compatible with the 1st Amendment.

The biggest problem with mandatory ratings though is that they tend to be a function of "Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc" reasoning (After this therefore because of this). If a violent criminal plays violent games then violent games cause people to become violent criminals. This reasoning is false and the "Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc" approach almost always gets government in trouble. Keep ratings voluntary and let the industry groups manage their own houses is definitely the best approach here :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top