California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has responded to the lawsuit filed by ESA and VSDA to strike down the controversial California Bill AB1179 also known as the California Video Games Law, which prevents the sale of violent games to minors. Here's an excerpt from what Gamasutra says:

"The $31 billion video game industry is not concerned with the health and welfare of our children," said Yee, "they are simply concerned with their own financial interests. The new California law has been drafted with the help of constitutional experts to pass such a challenge and I expect the courts to agree."

In addition, California Governor Schwarzenegger issued the following statement with regard to the recent signing of AB1179: “Ten days ago I signed into law legislation that requires violent video games be clearly labeled and prohibits their sale to children under 18 years old. Many of these games are made for adults and choosing games that are appropriate for kids should be a decision made by their parents. California's new law will ensure parental involvement in determining which video games are appropriate for their children. I believe strongly that we must give parents the tools to help them protect their children. I will do everything in my power to preserve this new law and I urge the Attorney General to mount a vigorous defense of California's ability to prevent the sale of these games to children.”

Read the whole thing (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=6884) at Gamasutra.

"The $31 billion video game industry is not concerned with the health and welfare of our children," said Yee, "they are simply concerned with their own financial interestsWell, gee, that's what corporations are supposed to be concerned with. Excellent observation by Yee. I'm sure he has a bright future ahead of him in the field of scientific experimentation, where no doubt his unsurpassed powers of observation will be of great benefit.

Of course, the FBI's study on crime more or less shattered the idea of videogames creating horrid, criminal children; as videogames were becoming more widespread, crime committed by minors was (and is) dropping. Oops. So much for that idea.

I still don't see how this is going to help things.

What is the meaning of being 'clearly labled'? The 'Parental Advisary' labels work only to attract kids, not deter them. And do you really think that the cover of the game itself does not effectively proclaim what it is all about. Every FPS has guns pointing at something and blood smeared all over the cover. Games like GTA have skimpily clad females on their cover. You would have to be blind to miss what a game was all about.

Also, do you really think that the parents don't know what types of games the child probably has. Sure no one knows what exactly is in the cabinet but they know what is to be expected. And violent games or games with sexual themes still find their ways into childrens hands.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/1/19

And finally, the laws cant (hopefully never in a democracy) punish the child for owning or installing such games. Sharing of game disks is pretty common, atleast here. So assuming that an adult bought such a game, signing his name on the memo and everything and then went on to hand it over to his younger, what would the law do about that. Informal sharing of your property without cause to profit can never be legislated, can it? And no, I meant physical sharing, not goes on with Kazaa and emule.

[ October 20, 2005, 10:17: Message edited by: Shrikant ]

I wonder, what exactly does he show his kids when they asks what he's been doing the last 20 years??

Twins? Kindergarden Cop minus the shooting scenes at the start and end of the movie??

The true fact behind all of this is simply the covering up of a completely failed budgetplan. Bush started a war in Iraq, Schwarzenegger starts his crusade towards videogames.

Americans should start to realize that looking good is not a prequisite to be a good politician. Just because someone seems stiff and isn't good a feeling comfortable around kids doens't mean he's not the best man/woman to rule a country.

Learn that and they might get a country someday that actually works.

*sigh*

Disclaimer: this poster likes Arnold's movies, but does not feel identified with his political involvement.

That said, the fact that a person stars in violent movies does not make him violent by nature, nor it diminishes his capacity to determine whether something is appropriate for children or not. Heck, I wouldn't let my (yet unborn) kids watch anything violent until they are mature enough to stomach and understand it is not real.

I am in favour of rating movies, videogames and even books, so that the parents can decide whether their children (or themselves) will be upset or not by what they will see, play, or read. In fact, parents should be the first to check whether the contents of a game, video or a book are suitable for their children or not. If a horror movie is rated as "not good for children under 15", parents allow a 10-year old to watch it, and the kid doesn't sleep in weeks out of fear, that's neither the actors/actresses fault, nor the movie industry's. The idiot parents who didn't care about what their children watch (or about what the rating said) are to blame.

Kids are not allowed to watch adult movies beause of their content, why should they be allowed to buy and play games proven to contain adult content? Why not allowing shops to sell tobacco and alcohol to kids too?

[ October 21, 2005, 09:09: Message edited by: Colthrun ]

But that isn't the problem here is it. If a game is rated M or AO it already is not sold to a minor. T rated games (even if they do contain violence and mild nudity) are sold to kids 13 years and older only. But this new law goes further.

Consider this: your 13 year old brother wants to watch one of the Terminator movies, would he be denied because he is a minor and they contain a huge load of violence. Or the Rambo series and its spoofs the Hot-Shot series.
No one here is saying that ratings are bad or that they should not be enforced. And if kids manage to get their hands on games not rated for their age, it is the parents fault. But since there already is an universally accepted system of ratings, why introduce laws to subvert them.

Not having read the actual law I can not fairly judge it.

I am in favor of ratings on games. If I want to buy a game for myself or for a minor I want to know how explicit or violent it is. I doubt that I would want to play an adult only game and certainly wouldn't want to buy it for someone under 16 at least. A mature game I might buy depending on the maturity of the person for whom I am buying it.

f a game is rated M or AO it already is not sold to a minor.Unfortunately this is not the case.

Kids are never challenged when buying mature or teen rated games, because so far the rating system was for guidance only. As I see it, this law intends on enforcing that only teenagers (or older) can buy T-rated games, only adults can buy M-rated and so forth. Whether those teens or adults share or give that game to kids later, that’s another issue.

The video game companies don't want this to be enforced. If this law is passed, they fear they will lose potential customers (hormone-filled teenagers looking for nudity and violence) who won't be allowed to buy their products, and/or may not be interested in buying them if the product must be 'toned down’.

Hey, sorry, then it would be their problem - the companies I mean. If you have age rating, and it is not enforced, I don't see why blame the companies though - just make sure people take that rating seriously by making it obligatory. That's like blaming breweries because shops sell beer to 10-year olds, for crying out loud.

While I support Arnold's point of view...I thinks it's for naught. If a kid really wants a game bad enough, he/she *will* get it somehow. Either by getting a copy of it from a friend, downloading an image file/keycode off the internet, eBay, or by other means. Sure prohibiting stores from selling certain games to minors might slow the process, but kids will still find a way of getting them. :rolling:

Kids are never challenged when buying mature or teen rated games, because so far the rating system was for guidance only. Ah well if that is the case, then I guess enforcement of ratings must be legalised. But that should be the limit of it. As I see it the ratings have been developed by the industry in conjunction with responsible gamer and parent groups. If the law seeks to impose bureucracy approved limits however ... :flaming: