why havent gamers banded together?

[desperado]

To the mods, if this is to political lock it and you wont hear a word from me about it but seriously im honestly curious about this.

With the current attack on video games ranging from gta:sa to the sims it seems there is no end in sight (this is not what is to be discussed im sure if this is discused it will get locked so please READ ALL OF IT AND POST ABOUT THE QUESTION) why havent gamers banded together?

I mean the N.R.A. is one of the most powerful groups out there and yet video game owners outnumber gun owners by a great deal (i will look it up later) and think of what we could do if we formed our own game interest group. I seriously think that gamers could change this debacle if they worked together, but its not happening and doesnt seem to be happening more then the once in a great while of a person emailing or mailing someone in power with a honest and well thought out letter and the hordes of angry 10 year olds (no offence but you do know young males especialolly can be annoying just play xbox live and get cussed out by a kid that hasnt hit puberty yet saying all sorts of racial slurs every time you get on by someone doing the same thing (why live frustrates me))

So my realy question is this why arent gamers banding together? Is it laziness? Is it faith in the big corporations that seem to dominate the gaming market? I dont know but i would like some answers because im going to include this in my letter to my senetor and representitive.

[ShiroiHikari]

I think a big chunk of gamers are kids that just don't really care. Gamers are too busy fighting amongst themselves to come together for anything >_>

[desperado]

that is very true, drop a psp vs ds topic at any board and the board will rip itself apart in the aftermath. But im not talking mainly about the younger kids im talking about voting age and driving age people who have video games. I still say if you could get most of the 16-20 some year olds together that play games you could change things politically because then you would have clout because they can vote.

[blkmage]

I think that is what the politicians don't realize is that the gaming population has grown up, which is what is going to come back and kick them in the pants. I wouldn't worry about it too much though. History has shown that every time something new comes along, it's evil until that generation replaces the older one, then everything is just fine.

[Shao Feng-Li]

With the current attack on video games...

What attack?

Now, what could happen if we would come together? Why would we? I don't understand.

[desperado]

well there is a movement with a certain lawyer and some senators to make a lot of games AO and also to dismantle the ESRB and set in place a new system (by the way this lawyer is lobbying and threatening lawsuits unless killer 7 and THE SIMS are placed under AO rating)

[Chosen Raven]

Well, I think there are some games out there that some gamers don't want politicians to go easy on. Count me among them. I don't mind games with gratuitous violence. In fact, there are quite alot of those types of games that I like. But when a game like GTA glorifies violence against innocents, prostitution, and extremely profane language it's hard for me to see it as deserving anything other than scorn. Especially in the case of the current Hot Coffee Mod controversy. It seems to me that people have every reason in the world to want GTA:SA to get an AO rating. Besides, it's really no big deal for a game to go from an MA rating to an AO one. All it means is that you've got to be 18 instead of 17 to buy it.

by the way this lawyer is lobbying and threatening lawsuits unless killer 7 and THE SIMS are placed under AO rating)

Killer 7? That's new to me. Did they think it was too violent or something(haven't played it yet, but was planning too)?

[Azier the Swordsman]

I think that is what the politicians don't realize is that the gaming population has grown up, which is what is going to come back and kick them in the pants. I wouldn't worry about it too much though. History has shown that every time something new comes along, it's evil until that generation replaces the older one, then everything is just fine.

I would say that you are quite correct.

[Myoti]

I agree with what everyone has said. Also, I think more gamers need to "grow up" and realize that not everyone likes the same thing. I hear alot of people bashing the N, saying it's "too old" and needs to "move on or move aside". This makes no sense to me, especially since the ones saying this grew up with it.
I view the other gaming companies as competitors, not enemies, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Too many gamers are just full of themselves they think anything that's not "hard-core" is stupid. The ones that think that way are only fooling themselves.

Killer 7? That's new to me. Did they think it was too violent or something(haven't played it yet, but was planning too)?

Worse. For the sexual scenes, it seems. Brian of VGCats got this e-mail from some guy dealing with that. It was... wierd.

[Arnobius]

Well, with GTA, it was a case of gross negligence on the part of the producer to have a sexually explicit element on the actual disc. The fact that a hack was necessary to access it is irrelevant... it should not have been there in the first place. This whole element has called the accuracy of the ERSB into question by parents, and serious steps need to be taken to restore trust... which the ERSB did by changing the rating to AO for those packages to have that program.

The problem is, as I see it, the game industry has been pushing the envelope and now comes the reaction.

[Nate]

Well, with GTA, it was a case of gross negligence on the part of the producer to have a sexually explicit element on the actual disc. The fact that a hack was necessary to access it is irrelevant... it should not have been there in the first place.

This is where I have to disagree. The game allows you to kill policemen, traffic drugs, have sex with prostitutes, steal cars, run over innocent civilians...need I say more? To be honest, that mod is probably the LEAST offensive aspect of the game...and how sad is THAT?

I wonder why, with all the other things that game allows you to do, this particular aspect was singled out? Honestly, I think it's BECAUSE it was hidden. If it had been there from the start, there probably wouldn't be any controversy about it. The whole thing's stupid.

it's really no big deal for a game to go from an MA rating to an AO one. All it means is that you've got to be 18 instead of 17 to buy it.

EXACTLY. I fail to see how AO is any stricter than M. Like one year makes any bit of difference...they need to get rid of the "M" rating and just have "AO."

[Arnobius]

It's the same difference between anime rated 17+ and anime rated 18+:

One is SEXUALLY EXPLICIT and the other is not.

This is what people are mad about.

[Myoti]

I wonder why, with all the other things that game allows you to do, this particular aspect was singled out? Honestly, I think it's BECAUSE it was hidden. If it had been there from the start, there probably wouldn't be any controversy about it. The whole thing's stupid.

If it had been there, it would probably have been AO to begin with and this whole controversy would never have started.

[desperado]

The grand theft auto hot coffee thing is debatable but i will say this... isnt it funny when people sue about it being in there when they bought the game for there 14 year old grandson (that is an actual case against rockstar)

secondly what really gets me is there going after a game that is pretty harmless (the sims) and killer seven it seems the lawyer is going after it never having played it but just reading a review about it! How stupid is that! Anyways I dont imagine EA will let the sims be rated AO. I imagine the wrath of the something as pure evil as EA would be something most sane people would want to avoid.

[Nate]

Nothing to see here...move along, move along... ^^;;

[Arnobius]

No they can't

NC-17: No Children 17 and under. In other words: for ages 18 and up.

ESRB description of M games:
MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language.

ESRB description of AO games:
ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

[desperado]

personally i think its groups that think all video games are evil pared with politicians and lawyers with political agendas that is causing this insanity...

[Arnobius]

personally i think its groups that think all video games are evil pared with politicians and lawyers with political agendas that is causing this insanity...

I agree that the people who think all videogames are evil are not helping matters, but I think that people have a right to be offended by material contrary to their values.

This happened a few years ago with movies. Congress told the MPAA to clean up their act or they'd get involved. I suspect this is what will happen with videogames.

[Nate]

D'oh! My mistake! Brain isn't functioning quite right tonight. ^^;;

Ah well. Still, they need to get rid of the M rating entirely and just have AO.

[desperado]

yeah animeheritic i agree but what makes me mad and makes me want to speak out is people going after games that are fine, killer seven (i dont know for sure i havent played it) supposedly is very crude and it MAY deserve the AO rating but i swear the anit game people are stepping out of line for going after the sims. its funny though because the spearhead of the movement is saying false information about the game and im sure if he ticks ea of enough they may sue for libel. but i dont know i still am unnerved by how crazy there going with this... i mean certain senators are calling probes in on how adverse video games are in children (do they ever call probes in on sports or other forms of entertainment that are mainstream that are legal? not very often to never)

[Arnobius]

yeah animeheritic i agree but what makes me mad and makes me want to speak out is people going after games that are fine, killer seven (i dont know for sure i havent played it) supposedly is very crude and it MAY deserve the AO rating but i swear the anit game people are stepping out of line for going after the sims. its funny though because the spearhead of the movement is saying false information about the game and im sure if he ticks ea of enough they may sue for libel. but i dont know i still am unnerved by how crazy there going with this... i mean certain senators are calling probes in on how adverse video games are in children (do they ever call probes in on sports or other forms of entertainment that are mainstream that are legal? not very often to never)

I thought the Sims one sounded kind of dubious, yes. I wish people would focus on the legit issues and not go off like Chicken Little blaming the whole industry.

Although other forms of entertainment are also policed. Remember the "wardrobe malfunction"? And in sports, there is a lot of concern of youth being influenced by pro athletes using steroids. In the fifties, it was horror comics. There is always something to cause an uproar. Usually it's a lot of noise.

[TrigunX89]

One big difference is that many stores will not carry AO-rated games period. (I apologize if that's already been said. I haven't thoroughly read through all the posts in this thread.)

Yeah, I think this whole attack on the videogame industry is really annoying. I don't honestly think these politicians know what they're talking about. I would happily band together with my fellow gamers on this.

[Arnobius]

No, most stores won't carry AO games, but I see the point as irrelevant. The more important issue is: Do the games in question have AO rated content? If so, then they should carry an AO rating.

Remember that most stores won't carry NC17 movies either. It's a policy of the stores, who have just as much right to decide what they will sell as the game makers have in what they will produce.

Besides, in the era of the internet and online shopping, it is not a hardship that a game is not carried in stores. I consider that a false argument in the censorship debate.

[Shao Feng-Li]

EXACTLY. I fail to see how AO is any stricter than M. Like one year makes any bit of difference...they need to get rid of the "M" rating and just have "AO."

Having Red Faction and Return to Castle Wolfenstien and Halo rated "Adults Only" would of been silly. Well, Red Faction and Halo, could of gotten the "Teen" rating, methinks. The MoH games have gotten the "teen" rating... but there is no blood.

The thing is, is that you're legally an adult at 18 years of age. You still a kid at 17. As it's been said, when something is rated AO it's usualy seems to be, if not pornagraphy, pretty close to it.

[Yojimbo]

This is just another example of politicians and special interest groups getting in where they don't belong. There's always something that needs to be picked on for corrupting the youth of America this is nothing new. This isn't 1992 where the worst game you could play at the time was Mortal Kombat. Games and gamers have grown up since then and the MA rating is not just for comic book ultra violent but for real mature content. Games are equal to movies in that sense and have even surpassed that medium in some areas.

I talk alot with the guys and gals at my local EB. I've heard stories of them having to refuse selling copies San Andreas to parents buying copies for their kids. They don't understand the rating system at all. And it's not a case of bad advertisiong the ESRB has done enough of shoving that down everyone's throats in commercials and ads in magazines for everyone to notice. They just don't monitor the content their children see and they don't care. Anyway this parent said "but it's just a game right" sure it is and a movie is just a movie. So you might as well go down to the video store and rent your 11 year old son Pulp Fiction or Sin City(when it comes out) if that's how you view it. If these same people who are pointing the finger at the games industry actually monitored what their children were playing in the first place then this wouldn't be an issue. Maybe they should invest their time and resources to giving better parenting classes.

[Arnobius]

That presupposes the parents up in arms are the irresponsible ones. Somehow, I suspect that a parent that irresponsible isn't going to lose sleep over the uproar.

I would suspect more likely the parents in question trusted their kids to buy games appropriate for their age and are finding out they didn't. This is an issue for parents and kids, yes. But most of the stores I know will sell the games to whoever wants on the grounds that it is only "an advisory" and not legally binding.

So, the alternative to congress making these laws is for parents to go through their kids games and music and anime and throw out everything they feel is inappropriate.

But somehow, I suspect a good portion of the under 18 members of CAA would object to their parents doing this...

[Myoti]

Ah well. Still, they need to get rid of the M rating entirely and just have AO.

That'd be kinda pointless. I mean, if that were the case with movies, then movies like "The Passion" would be automatically rated "NC-17". Does that make any sense?

I basically think of "M" rated games the same way "R" rated movies are. Many times, they would simply be realted for "realistic" violence, while an "AO" would be like "NC-17".

So, there is a reason for having both ratings: one is for "mature" audiences, while the other probably shouldn't exist in the first place.

[blkmage]

So did anyone listen to the interview with Jack Thompson? You can find it here.

In it, he mentions such things like Wil Wright and EA collaborating with the porn industry. Honestly. I'm waiting for him to get sued for defamation. And he wonders why everyone in the gaming world hates him.

Also, have you seen how he responds to inquiries by gamers? Have a look here. The man is completely unreasonable.

[cbwing0]

As with most issues, there are several groups of confused, crazy, or just plain greedy and power-hungry people that care more about pushing their own agenda that actually doing what is right for kids and for society. I will list and describe them for your convenience:

1.Greedy Lawyers-While there might be a few laywers who honestly care about social justice, most of them just want to get rich by winning a big case against the game industry. The precendent would be the suit against the tobacco industry, which if I recall correctly earned the prosecuting lawyer about 1 billion dollars. I'm sure Jack Thompson would love to make that.

2.Fanatical Family Groups-These people annoy me immensely, because a lot of them are Christian. What annoys me is the fact that they advocate censorship, which is something that I strongly oppose. Censorship makes sense for something that is almost impossible to avoid (like network television); but for things like games that people must pay for individually, it is unacceptable. It is certainly not the most conservative and uptight people in a society that should determine the standards of what should be allowed in media, because in a short time there will be very little left of media or culture after the offensive content witch-hunt is through. If society as a whole is really outraged by these games, then they will simply disappear due to market forces or become extremely marginalized and less pervasive over time; yet GTA is one of the top-selling video game series of all time. If a Christian doesn't have enough self-control not to buy a game like GTA if they know that it will offend them, then that is their problem, not Rockstar's. The bottom line is that I do not want some uninformed zealot determining what games I, as a 20-year-old person can and cannot play.

3.Uninvolved Parents-This group is somewhat similar to the last one, but slightly different. They might give their kids money to buy games and then not ask what they bought. Then one day that they aren't working late or busy trying to ignore their children they accidentally walk by the television while their kids are playing GTA. They get outraged, and then want Congress to do something to make sure that their children can't buy these games. Most stores now will not sell M-rated games to children, so this isn't as much of a problem; but a few parents want to go so far as to censor games. These people will probably lose interest once the new season of American Idol comes around.

4.Scheming Politicians-In case you haven't heard, Hillary Clinton is seeking the presidency in 2008. Starting a witch-hunt against video games is a great way for her to get media exposure. If the campaign succeeds, then so much the better. Advocating censorship appeals to conservatives and lazy dumb people, which are two of the biggest demograhics to which a politican must cater in order to get elected. Just another way that politicians can work on pseudo-issues while the real, complex problems of society and the world get ignored.

5.Idiot Gamers-When gamers spend all of their time being antisocial, arguing over which console is better, and practicing their bad grammar for use on internet forums, they don't have a lot of time left over for intelligent political debates.

I think that covers all of the players in the video game debate. If I forgot anyone, feel free to add.

Remember that most stores won't carry NC17 movies either. It's a policy of the stores, who have just as much right to decide what they will sell as the game makers have in what they will produce.

Besides, in the era of the internet and online shopping, it is not a hardship that a game is not carried in stores. I consider that a false argument in the censorship debate.

And how many NC-17 movies sell as well as R-rated ones? The fact of the matter is that a game or movie will make more money if it is carried in more stores. If all of the huge retail chains like Wal-Mart refuse to carry AO games (which they have), then game companies will lose lots of sales if they earn an AO rating for a game.

While it may not be a hardship for adults to buy games online (although shipping & handling charges and lag time in shipping often make buying at a store preferrable to buying online), kids do not have credit cards. In order to buy online, they would probably have to ask their parents, who with all of the recent buzz about identity theft might be hesitant to buy the game for their kids.

Movie producers are often forced to edit objectionable content in order to receive the preferrable R rating; and eventually game companies will have adopt the same seriousness if they want to avoid reprisal. My prediction is that the M-rating will be more strictly enforced, despite the hardships that it may create for game developers. With games starting to earn as much money as movies, it is only a matter of time.

[Arnobius]

Um, given that I was talking about AO rated games, I think the fact that kids being inconvenienced when shopping on line is a GOOD thing.

Accurate ratings from the ESRB is what matters. Had that little game been removed from GTA, none of this commotion would have happened. However, little suprises have always been popular with the gaming industry. Combining this with pushing the envelope of good taste, it was a matter of time before the line was crossed.

So I think your list of factions needs one more: Grossly irresponsible game developers who either put offensive content into some games or cannot be bothered to make sure the games their affiliates make are fully vetted before releasing to the public.

Not all angry parents are zealots, not all lawyers are sleazy, not all politicians are looking to 2008. Some merely are greatly disturbed by X rated content in an R rated game