kvrdave

I never understand why someone proposes a law that is worded so poorly. Makes me think they just want to "appear" to be doing something. How brilliant do you have to be to simply mention the rating system already used?

darkside

All the places I buy games already check IDs for M rated games. Also my kid is not going to sneak around and get a game without my knowledge. I watch out for stuff like that. I don't need the government doing it for me.

The ESRB is fine, but this will be yet another rating system devised by people that probably will know nothing about the games they are rating. Who knows what ratings they are going to slap on games.

I also am not a believer in the fact my child will be completed ruined for life if he plays GTA at 15. Some kids can handle it and some can't, its up to the parent. I can understand laws like this for Alcohol and Cigarettes, but for Video Games? It is the same kind of stupidity in this country that was used for decades to ban books. I don't need some one telling me or my children what to read, what games to play or what music to listen to. I will make that decision with them because I can decide what is best for them.

It is a pointless and unneeded law. There are plenty of resources for parents to check up on the content of the games their kids want and a good rating system in place. You don't need to bring the government into it at all.

ben12

The common-ratings will never happen. Marvel comics tried to use the G, PG, etc. ratings for their comics when they dropped the Comics Code Authority stamp. They were threatened with a lawsuit by the MPAA, who owns that ratings sytem.

Breakfast with Girls

Yet another nanny law from legislators that think they are better parents for your children than you are.

Omyard

If parents would take an active role in their childrens lives then we wouldn't need laws like this.

Breakfast with Girls

Or... maybe we should stop blaming video games for overall poor parenting.

DJ_Spyder

This law will not pass constitutional muster it's too broad and not vague on what passes for violence. this is just nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction just to pass feel good legislation by the politicians. When you think about it this law is nothing more than a hidden tax when the retailer violates the law where does the money go? straight to the state government that's who.

jaeufraser

I'm pretty sure a lot of us think that we don't need laws like this. There are bad parents, there are bad kids, but quite frankly I don't think video games (or movies for that matter) have much to do with that.

teke184

If Illinois was serious about doing this right, they'd stick with the ESRB ratings and then require anyone buying a game with an 'M' or higher rating to provide proof of age.


Wal-Mart is a decent example of enforcing this stuff, as their cash register software will pull up a "proof of age required" message and stop the transaction until the cashier enters an appropriate age when certain products are purchased, including R-rated movies and (I think) M-rated games.

PrincessT

I wonder how many taxpayer dollars this knee-jerk (and I truly believe DJ Spyder hit the nail on the head) reaction has cost the residents of Illinois? Surely it will be overturned. I don't know that I want them attempting to do this the right way though, I hope they just let it lie.

tonyc3742

Again, I agree that the law is written very poorly, and will end up being wasteful. If the law were written correctly and used resources already available, it wouldn't be that mad.

This is not BANNING games.
This is LIMITING the sale of games to minors. Not a new concept.
Just like the sale of, oh, Swank magazine is limited. Are you up in arms that your 12-year old child can't go buy a porn without your purchasing it for him? If this law makes you this irate, then you should be, otherwise the hypocrisy is showing. Every argument used for games in this case can and has been used for porn.
I believe the items should still be for sale. I believe a parent should be aware of what his child is into and interested in, and that just because a game or movie or whatever is rated M or T, it's not necessarily suitable or unsuitable for a particular child. Hence the parental involvement.
Those of you who say 'my kid wouldn't be buying it.'
You believe that your child has never, and will never, do ANYTHING that is against your wishes or that you wouldn't approve of? If that's the case, either you rule with an iron thumb, or you're deluded.
It sounds like WalMart is doing the right thing, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with the law being rephrased to require that exact same action for any retailer.
And for those of you saying 'Government doesn't need to raise my kids,', if you work and your kids go to public school, that's pretty much exactly what's happening. And to those of you saying 'Why does the government have to get involved in this,', well, at least at this point it's the state government, and it's acting on the assumption that this is what the residents want the state to do, and it can pass or fail on those grounds, and i don't have a problem with that. A federal law, I would have a problem with. But even right now there are literally MILLIONS of 'stupid, wasteful, inefficient' laws dictating how much control government [state and fed] has over us. Check your paystub for some; go sign a refi for some more. People who are against the concept of this law, not just the poorly worded form of it, need to get their priorities straight. There are a lot bigger, more important ways government is controlling our lives, to the benefit of virtually no one but government.
This is a low-impact law. If written correctly, all it would do is help enforce what retailers and the gaming industry have said they would do, and offer a little help to parents. I don't have a problem with that, and that's a lot better than getting the government into the actual rating system.

Breakfast with Girls

I would not have as much of a problem with that if the same was required of R-rated movies (theaters, rental stores, and retailers). I do think more violence would be pushed down into the lower rating levels (PG-13, T) as a result, though.

orangecrush

I think we can all agree on one thing. That is that Big Brother knows what is best for you and your children.

Duran

Lack of a credit card?

Groucho

-shrug-

I guess I don't see why people are so worked about this. As far as I know, none of you are under 18 and living in Illinois.

Josh H

It's not blaming video games. It's just accepting that there's a lot of poor parents, and thus M-rated sales should be restricted by age, just like R-rated movies most places.

Red Dog

That and so when it is overturned for being unconstitutionally vague, they can blame activist judges for usurping the 'will of the people.'



Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

Josh H

I don't get the uproar over this.

I see enforcing ratings by age during sale is good b/c it puts the responsibility squarely on the parents, even the lazy ones who don't keep any eye on what their kids are playing.

Plus, for gamers of age, it will shut up politicians as they will have no one but parents to blame for kids getting M rated games, and thus reduce chances of censorship etc.

Xander

Well, it is supposed to be required of all three. When I worked at a video store, we were supposed to card if kids looked too young to be renting rated R movies. And at Toys R Us it was emphasized heavily that we card kids trying to buy M rated games. And when I was a teenager, I got carded several times at the movie theaters around here.

I don't see the need for additional and more restrictive laws. I'm fine with the existing ratings systems, I just think they need to be inforced. While I won't freak out if my 13-year-old plays Vice City, I don't necessarily think he needs to be playing it. And if I decide it's okay for him, I don't have a problem going and buying it. I think the ratings help (in theory) because they make parents see what games or movies their kids are exposed to. Of course, it doesn't always work that way, but that's the idea I think.

outer-edge

My biggest problem with this is not what it does, but the motivation behind it. This is not about protecting kids. I believe if it were, we'd see similar laws that were a catch all to media (movies, music, books, games). There would a single, or multiple ratings system, enforced by law that prevents mature content from getting to kids in any form.

However, I see this as merely an effect of an uproar. Just like movies and music have been in the past, video games are now being blamed for the ills of parts of society. This law is nothing more than an attempt to place blame somewhere and attempt to make some people feel better about bad shit they see happen. Instead of exploring other potential causes (parenting, society, other media, etc.), some people want to lump all blame into one thing and call it a day. This does not address the real problem, only masks it for a short time until something else comes along.

If a law such as this were passed, and not overturned as others were, it would give justification to those who try to quickly place blame on games when something bad happens. The same attitude of blaming a single cause would continue. Not only would they have justification and fuel for the fire, but it would potentially pave the roads for harsher regulation that could eventually hurt game developers and the games they make.

So, in essence, I am not against mature-rated games staying out of the hands of kids. I strongly believe the industry needs to wake up and make their own regulations harsher. But, I do not want to see knee-jerk legislation passed in an effort to appease those who want to point an immediate finger at games, and potentially set presedence for other laws.

tonyc3742

And I agree with that wholeheartedly. Some games are not for kids of certain ages/levels of emotional/mental growth. But playing a game for ten minutes, or five hours, is also not going to turn the Beaver into Charlie Manson. But when *all* of the media he encounters, pre-prime-time tv, radio stations, movies, games, cd's, etc, hammer in the same concepts of violence, disrespect for women, disrespect for life, total selfishness and egotism, it's a combined effect. And, yes, that is reinforced in many cases by parents, either bad parents or careless parents--that jerk who cut me off in the exit lane, all he's doing is reinforcing 'I'm first, I'm selfish' to the kids in his car.

UAIOE

Its got less to do with the "limiting the sale" of games and more to do with the fact that the state government is opting to decide what content "THEY" decide is unnacceptable via some commitee. There is an already establised ratings system for games and i don't understand why that system was ignored.

Honestly, I don't want my taxes hiked up just to pay for some guys to sit on thier asses doing an unnecessary job. The other problem i have with this law is that it is very half-assed...it seems like it was hastily written to appease constituents and that is *more* insulting because then it comes off like the state government doesnt care to do things right.

Josh H

I get those arguments totally. Some just came off as being opposed to a better law just keeping the current ratings and fining stores that sale M-rated games to minors, etc.

sentineles

This is why politicians' children are usually in the headlines. Their parents are too busy trying to figure out how to create absentee parenting. We have absentee voting, why not absentee parenting? Look video games should not be raising kids and a well-parented kid will know that what happens in video games stays in video games. I agree with this bill because now when your kid is throwing a temper tantrum b/c they cant have GTA, you can say "well it's illegal and I'd buy one for you but they may put Daddy in jail." I have one thing to say to all these politicians, shut up, stop wasting my money(if I lived there) and be active parents. Follow the ESRB ratings, which need to be refined to 3 labels: E, T, and M. A law that limits the selling of M games to under 17 is the best. It's 17 for R-rated movies so make it the same. The biggest question is if these laws continue to pass, will game makers limit their potential markets by making a Mature game or will they tone it back to get a T rating. We might get GTA w/o the violence and replace that with insults. "I'm taking your car because you're too big for it. Go to McDonalds you loser." Still sounds like potential negative influence on our kids. This law sounds like a great idea if it's an election year but I'm not buying it being the best idea.

Josh H

They wouldn't tone it down. The developers no the biggest chunk of people buying games are gamers over 18 that grew up on games. Plus these are the ones with jobs and the income to buy games rather than having to beg their parents to buy it for them.

Plus, lots of parents will by their kids violent games anyway, so they really wouldn't lose many sales.