@Arrwmkr : (Arrow-maker?) Your post is one of the too-few self-reflective posts on here. (I've read the comments below, and re:"textual abuse" your observations are spot-on.) Many of the comments lend credence to the Senator's remarks. If, perhaps, he would have used the words, 'Gamers need to think before they speak, think again, and then speak,' the resulting dialogue would be more productive. (That's my interpretation of his intent.) [For what it's worth: I was/am a supporter of Yee's legislation that was overturned by the Supreme Court.]
@keech Did you read the law? I did. It doesn't say anything about limiting free speech, in fact it goes to great length to avoid impinging free speech. What it DOES say is that any vendor who sells a video game to an underage consumer is subject to a fine. Period. No part of the law tells developers to censor themselves. The developers, and not the government, are the ones saying that they'll have to censor THEMSELVES, but heres the thing: They don't have to. They can continue to develop the games that they want to and let the middleman assume the responsibility for any 'wrongful' distribution. Unless, of course, the developers and publishers are thinking, "We're counting on the twelve to sixteen year-old demographic to help us meet our bottom-line, so even though the game is rated M we know they'll be able to buy it." But that's a far cry from government censorship. In fact it's an affront to the ESRB. I may not be able to change your mind on this matter, and I can live with that. I just hope that I was at least able to illustrate that it's the developers and not the government that will be doing the censoring.
@keech If any party is guilty of copping out, it is the industry itself. They're more than happy to cash in when they know that retailers will continue to peddle their wares to an underage audience, but when the enforcement of age restrictions grows some teeth they cry foul. Sure, some developers and publishers won't have the stones to risk a failure, but that's what investment is, a risk; there are winners and losers, but no guarantees. Those that take the risk to develop and publish products which push the envelope stand to capitalize in a niche market. (Rockstar is a good example of this. BTW: In the right-hand column of my screen is GTA: San Andreas, listed as a 'related game,' I still play this title because the developer went above and beyond in crafting a product which delivers on multiple fronts. The developer, publisher, investor, and consumer won. This opens the topic of sustainable versus disposable consumer culture which is the topic of another discussion, so I'll just leave it at that.) For the record: I've got nothing against violent games. I purchase and play them. If you enjoy them, I encourage you to do the same. If you're not old enough to purchase them, ask a parent or guardian to purchase it for you. If they ask why you think that a game that is rated above your age is appropriate for you, have the maturity to explain to them why, and reap the rewards of your well-reasoned argument.
There's no 'Freedom of Speech'/censorship issue in this law, unless you mean the one where the industry threatens to self-censor (which actually isn't in the law). Creators can choose to continue to create the games as they see fit. Retailers can even choose to sell those games to whomever they choose. If they choose to sell those games to consumers of an inappropriate age, then they can choose to face the consequences of their actions and pay the fine. And for all of the fans of 'it's the parent's responsibility,': you're absolutely right. That means the parents can take the responsibility of purchasing a game for their child that the law prohibits them from purchasing themselves. This law could actually improve the marketplace, by separating developers who stand by their products on multiple levels from those who assume that retailers will assist them in subverting the law. It could also improve games by creating a situation in which game designers are challenged to create non-lethal methods for overcoming obstacles and could allow for a game format that required a more judicious (no pun intended) use of in-game resources to deal with a set of prescribed circumstances. If you desire lethality, so be it. Just be prepared to market your game to adults. I say let the law pass. It may force the industry to adapt and evolve instead of stagnating and regurgitating different versions of the same product over and over.
First Thought: Of course Sony is going to measure their response and keep their information stream to a trickle. They know their audience. Even the bare essentials of 'Something happened, we're trying to figure it out,' elicited many sorts of conspiracy theories, finger-pointing, etc. Every update on this situation provided countless opportunities for speculation, as can be evidenced by the hundreds of responses to each update. If they had given any more than the bare minimum, which they were able to confirm, it would have been speculative and then hundreds, if not thousands of netizens would be parsing every phrase for some hidden agenda, exactly as this article does. Let's not forget: Sony's system was attacked. Period. Any criminal will find their way into your house, if sufficiently motivated. Locks, guard-dogs, and alarms(firewalls, encryption) are DETERRENTS, not fool-proof protection. Even the Pentagon gets cyber-attacked. (Sometimes, successfully.) This article panders to its audience. You've published a piece which exploits the very practice it condemns. I can feel those strings being pulled, alright, but not by Sony.
12tone's comments