"The most important…decision that the video game industry has…faced."
That’s what Jennifer Mercurio, Entertainment Consumers Association vice president and general counsel, is terming the looming Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association Supreme Court decision, for which oral arguments are being presented tomorrow.
The court will decide whether or not to overturn the decisions of the Northern District of California Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — both of which found California law AB 1179, which bans the sale of “violent” video games to minors, to be unconstitutional.
According to Entertainment Consumers Association vice president and general counsel Jennifer Mercurio, there’s a lot more at stake in this case than whether or not mature titles will be legally withheld from Californian teenagers. Much, much more, in fact — should the Supreme Court overturn the ruling of the two lower courts, certain First Amendment protections currently afforded to video games (and, by association, other forms of entertainment media) could be abolished, completely changing the landscape of the industry.
Mercurio sums it up nicely: “I’d say it’s clearly the most important and influential decision that the video game industry has ever faced.”
“Ultimately,” Mercurio explained, “the case is about whether video games will be protected like other artistic content like movies, music and books. If the Supreme Court finds that violent content is not protected in video games, it’ll only be a matter of time before the question is reopened for the other entertainment media as well.”
My thoughts on the matter are that you’d think this sort of thing would be a no-brainer; there’s really no reason why mature content in video games, of any sort, should not be treated in the same manner as violent content in television programs, movies, music, or books…although I might be careful in playing up literature to too great a degree. Authors can get away with a lot in novels, far more than even movie directors can.
There’s also the question of enforcement. Granted, there are means of policing and penalizing game retailers who sell content restricted under California’s contentious legislation, in much the same way that there are means of penalizing convenience store owners who sell cigarettes to underage shoppers. Those structures are in place already, and should be reasonably portable.
But what about digital distribution which, by some estimates, accounted for 50% or more of game sales last year, and stands to capture yet more of the market this year? We’ve all seen the “age gates” for e.g. the Dragon Age: Origins section on Steam…but really, how hard would it be for anyone with a grasp of basic math to spoof that process? And yet, legally, that would be all a digital retailer would be required to put up to check the age of a prospective buyer.
Now…assuming the Supreme Court sided with the Governator, what would be the outcome?
“Games would become less accessible and more expensive,” Mercurio explained. “Added costs associated with developing, marketing and selling games with any violence in them will be rolled into the price of games and passed on to consumers. We’d also likely see game developers censoring themselves in the creative process, perhaps even making one version for the U.S. and another for the rest of the world.”
“Retailers would probably sell games very differently than we’re used to presently — either creating a separate area for those that might run afoul of the law, and some may choose to cease merchandising them altogether, due to the inherent risk,” Mercurio added.
We see this concept of self-limitation/self-censorship on the part of artists and developers already in other ways. Think, for example, of the “Muhammad cartoons” that were published a few years ago in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Whether you agree with the intent behind the cartoons or not, and whether you think the explosively violent outrage (resulting in murder, in some countries) that was seen around the world after the cartoons were published was in any way justified, you probably noticed that many media outlets — especially in the United States and Canada — that reported on the matter took extra-special care to a) not re-publish the cartoons as part of their reporting, and b) often took pains to draw attention to that restraint.
I don’t mention that to start a political or religious debate, but merely to give an example of something akin to what Mercurio is talking about.
When the potential repercussions of doing a thing exceed the perceived benefit of doing so, most people will simply opt not to do the thing under consideration. In the case of the Danish cartoons, many media outlets figured that it was better to exercise discretion, even at the expense of elements of the story, rather than risk further violence. Game developers, publishers, and retailers subject to more draconian laws regarding the sale of specific forms of content will take analogous measures, and either limit or outright eliminate the availability of products that would fall under the auspices of the new law.
And indeed, we can already see some examples from within the gaming industry that Mercurio is right in at least one sense, when she talks about developers “making one version [of a game] for the U.S. and another for the rest of the world.” Farenheit/Indigo Prophecy, anyone?
Could teenagers just order said violent games from a best buy in Oregon or Nevada? It’s also not really fisible to have a state law like this when most video game publishers are national.
If I understand US law correctly, a state law of this sort can be used as a legal precedent in other jurisdictions.
Of course, I could be wrong. But it certainly sounds like a pro-California decision in this case would have sweeping ramifications not limited to a certain US coastal state.
I don’t really see this as the sky-is-falling doom decision that a lot of people are playing it up as (Warren Spector among them).
As you mention with the age gates, video game rating enforcement has a lot of catching up to do to be on par with the film industry. The game industry has really been dragging their feet when it comes to this issue, and I’m glad the threat of this law is lighting a fire under their butts so that maybe they will get around to doing something about it (again, this is what happened with movies. A law almost got passed and it prompted theaters to be better about enforcing the rating guidelines).
Games won’t become less accessible and more expensive, they will just be made with a different demographic in mind. In the same way the inability for minors to get into R-rated movies hasn’t hurt the movie industry. As a reaction the movie studios just started making more G and PG rated films, which are now the biggest ticket sellers every year. The same will happen with games.
Holy Shiite, that smacks of an inflammatory debate. Awesome.
I’m somewhere between a Libertarian and an anarchist, so suits like these regarding the regulation of art and/or freedom of speech always cause me to double-check my munitions repository for quantity and quality. Vote first with the pen, vote second with the fist.
All jokes aside, commercially-produced entertainment commodities should be regulated like tobacco, alcohol, pornography, drugs, etc., and placed in the responsible (yeah, right) hands of the adults who have custody of the children. If a kid wants something, they should ask their mom and dad. Otherwise declare independence and start paying the rent.
The fact that this isn’t true actually waters down the games available to adults. After all, “What if a kid gets his hands on this?”
Common sense people. If a game lets you shoot someone, cut off a head, rape, steal, or otherwise act like an unlawful jackass, kids shouldn’t have it unless their sick parents think it’s a good idea.
Though easily confused, another debate is, “What if an adult gets this game and is offended?” Take for instance the families of armed service members killed in recent U.S. wars who protested the recent Call of Duty iteration. Rename the Taliban? Really? They died for our freedom, and yet their surviving family members protest the constitutional rights for which they sacrificed their lives. Good job, idiots. And said studio caves in, weeping about how they offended those they meant to glorify. I’m not sure if “sad” or “stupid” is more appropriate.
Hi folks. Wrong place to leave this, but couldn’t find where to submit it elsewhere on the site. An interview with Mr. Garriot on Australian tv show Good Game http://www.abc.net.au/tv/goodgame/stories/s3054027.htm
If possible please post the link correctly on your site and feel free to delete this post good Ultima fans !
I should probably mention: most of the Ultima titles would, in their day, have run afoul of this new law.
No doubt. Especially with that room where you’re attacked by children and 90% or more of players would have just killed them. My parents would have bought them for me anyway, as they knew I was in to D&D and fantasy books. The only reason I’m semi-literate today is because my dad let me read whatever books I wanted. Despite all that I never had a Columbine moment.
If kids these days weren’t so damn crazy I don’t think it’d be that big of an issue. I have to assume that it’s the parents who are failing, which in turn creates irresponsible children, but who knows? In any case, history’s shown us that when people are too irresponsible to handle a freedom then government is more than happy to take it away from them by writing a new law.
I think people should be more responsible so we can have less laws, but sadly this hasn’t been the case, at least in the U.S.
I think you are right, to a large extent, that it’s parental failure that accounts for much of this. There’s probably dozens of contributing factors there, though if I had to point the finger at any of them I’d probably say that the two main offenders are that: a) we are so afraid of damaging the self-esteem of children that we have insulated them from things like failure, defeat, and even discipline, and b) we are sending kids mixed messages with laws like this and with education.
To expand upon consideration (b), let’s assume for a minute that AB 1179 became law in my home province. The absurd situation resulting therefrom would be that I could learn, in grade school, how to put a condom on a reasonably realistic dildo-like prop, but I wouldn’t be allowed to buy Mass Effect on account of a little bit of Shepard (or Williams, depending) sideboob and ass…because I was too young, y’see. I can see a realistic-looking dong in school, but a bit of alien sideboob is just too much for my young, not-yet-fully-formed mind to handle.
Confusing? Mixed messages? Yes…to say the least. (For the record: I am not in favour of AB 1179 in the least, nor am I a proponent of modern sex-ed, which I regard as being entirely too explicit for an audience that is far too young.)
As regards point (a), we can probably all tell our self-esteem horror stories until day’s end. My elementary school even had a self-esteem coordinator, fergoshsakes! Annoying, insufferable lady…with a voice like over-ripe honeydew. Suffice to say, let’s just say that if there was one thing the kids that picked on me didn’t lack for, it was self-esteem. And that was almost two decades ago. Since then, someone invented the absurd concept of community sports leagues sans scorekeeping*, since apparently it would be damaging for any child to have to be on a losing team, or be called out according to the normal rules of baseball. And the parents, if they involve themselves in such mundane things as Little League, endorse such crap as that!
That’s the other thing: a lot of parents aren’t really parents in the historical sense of the word; they are caretakers to some basic extent, but prefer to outsource care of their children to whatever agency or educational environment they can, as early as they can, so that said children will not be too much of an impediment to the lifestyle they had prior to having kids. Children have become a fashion accessory rather than an end and obligation…and then one that should really never be disciplined in any way that might be even slightly harsh; self-esteem is king! Given all that, it’s…not hard to see why kids are losing it these days.
I’m entirely with Kevin on this one: I played many of the Ultimas before hitting my teen years, as well as various shooters and other games with violence in them. (I can’t be the only one who thought the red pixels that flew out of dying infantry in Command & Conquer was a new paradigm in shocking gaming gore…) I even my mother being appalled at the fact that Serpent Isle portrayed cheating lovers and pixelated nudity, to say nothing of the violence in that or any other game I played, Ultima and non-Ultima alike.
And when I played outside? Well, it was either Kick the Can, Capture the Flag, or Cops & Robbers. And when it was Cops & Robbers, me and every other kid on the block (a good dozen of us in total, with about six years between the youngest and the oldest) could be found running around on the streets, in the alleyways, and across the yards, pointing toy guns at one another and yelling “BANG! BANG! BANG!” again and again. Sometimes, the girls got involved too, which just made it more fun.
Strangely, I never shot up my school either. Or anything, for that matter. And yeah, a big part of that was that everyone around me — parents, grandparents (my grandpa was the one who introduced me to most of these games, as many of you know), friends’ parents — made a point of teaching me to distinguish between the virtual world and the real world, between what happened in the game and what happened outside of it. They instilled values in me about the intrinsic value of human life and the immorality of murder.
Do parents still do that these days? It doesn’t seem so. Were I to play that way today, I’d stand a good chance of ending up in front of a shrink and getting dosed up on Ritalin. And what lesson would I take away from that?
—
* link presented for example only; while I find some of what Citizen Renegade writes insightful in regard to relations between the sexes, I really can’t say I endorse his commentary.
Good read wtf_dragon, I totes agree.
I too played violent games in my youth, and I’ve barely ever murdered anybody in real life. Maybe like twice.
Back to what wtf wrote, I recall hearing awhile back that there was some children’s soccer league in Ottawa who introduced a rule that stated that if your team wins a soccer game by more than 5 points then you automatically forfeit the game and lose by default. Wowzers.
Yeah, that was an exercise in FAIL.
I mean, yeah, nobody likes a blowout. It pretty much sucks to get stomped hard by a team that is just that much faster, that much more coordinated, and playing just that much of a level above you. Nobody likes that.
But that’s kind of the point, isn’t it? Life is full of victories and losses; teaching kids that losses beyond a certain margin are unacceptable really damages them, I think, and impairs the formation of those faculties in them which will help them cope with tragedies later in life.
Something else just occurred to me, which plays off a point Kevin made:
As a kind of corollary to this point, it should probably be noted that by taking all these draconian measures in activities undertaken by young children, we are really conditioning them to become adults who look to the state for the solution to every problem they encounter. Which only encourages the state to impose yet more laws (positive feedback, as we engineers say). In essence, dependence (on authority, on the state) is being encouraged, and in many cases rewarded.
Not. A. Good. Thing.