Games Big Decision for the games industry.

[Cerb]

If this had gone the other way it would have had big implications for the whole medium!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/28scotus.html?_r=1&hp

 

[Krazeh]

If this had gone the other way it would have had big implications for the whole medium!

Why?

 

[Punishment]

Im not a child so it makes piss all odds to me, weak parenting tbh, don't expect the goverment to say no to certain games for your kids, do it yourself

 

[Cerb]

Why?

Because despite the ages on the sides of the boxes if it wasn't for teenagers buying these games the industry would get a lot less money to develop the games we know and love.

 

[Krazeh]

Because despite the ages on the sides of the boxes if it wasn't for teenagers buying these games the industry would get a lot less money to develop the games we know and love.

And you're basing this claim on? I was under the impression research has shown that the majority of gamers these days are 18+ with the average age being somewhere around late 20s to early 30s.

 

[Fafnir]

And you're basing this claim on? I was under the impression research has shown that the majority of gamers these days are 18+ with the average age being somewhere around late 20s to early 30s.

Thougth so too, and if parents are lazy and dont look into what their kids are playing they are at fault, most "violent" games today have the PGage marking or someother kind of markings.

 

[Job]

Well my nephews pretty well play and watch anything they like, 8+10.
So do all their friends, the parents have given up in the digital onslaught.
They're all middle class, marketing directors, teachers, health officials
and they just roll their eyes when I point it out.

 

[ST^]

Because despite the ages on the sides of the boxes if it wasn't for teenagers buying these games the industry would get a lot less money to develop the games we know and love.

People would just buy the games for their kids as they already do.

 

[Wij]

I think the US has bigger legal challenges than this at the minute. The Religious Right is becoming an increasingly powerful lobby on certain issues and in many states public opinion is swinging their way. Creationism, Homophobia and a radical re-interpretation of the values of the founding fathers are big news now. More than one GOP 2012 candidate has decided they are now undecided about evolution in order to please the voters. There's a big swing to the dark ages trying to happen there.

 

[Cerb]

Trying to happen but I don't think it's something to get too worked up about just yet. The Ruling in New York on Friday is proof of this I think.

 

[Cerb]

And you're basing this claim on? I was under the impression research has shown that the majority of gamers these days are 18+ with the average age being somewhere around late 20s to early 30s.

I guess I don't have concrete proof to point to on this. I formed this opinion mostly based on what I've heard from some games "experts" I respect. I realize as I write that how foolish it sounds.

 

[Job]

Well I'm unsure about the theory of evolution until it is survives some serious experimentation, which unfortunately takes about 10,000 years to do.
It's would appear to be the winner, but time will tell.

 

[Wij]

Well I'm unsure about the theory of evolution until it is survives some serious experimentation, which unfortunately takes about 10,000 years to do.
It's would appear to be the winner, but time will tell.

wtf ?

*boggle*

 

[Krazeh]

Well I'm unsure about the theory of evolution until it is survives some serious experimentation, which unfortunately takes about 10,000 years to do.
It's would appear to be the winner, but time will tell.

The theory of evolution is pretty much as close to fact as a scientific theory can get. It may be the case that small parts of it get refined in the future but as an overall theory the chances of it being wrong are so low as to be essentially zero.

 

[Rulke]

The case was about more than just age restricting games:

If this law had passed, it would have shown that Games as a medium are less valid than Films, TV and music etc. It would have set a precedent that it was ok to restrict games development that would be a slippery slope (how long til violent games are banned altogether in some states?)

Under 18s still make up a large percentage of games purchases, this Law may have forced a lot of developers to tone down their games in order to get 15 or 12 certificates. Meaning less 'adult' or risk-taking games would be developed - since the majority of games are made in the US this would affect us as well. It would also further the trend towards casual gaming which is bad enough already imo!

Think how many good films have been ruined by the makers aiming them at 12 certificates. Think how banal most non-cable TV shows are. This law would have been the first step to games being ten times worse.

 

[Wij]

The theory of evolution is pretty much as close to fact as a scientific theory can get. It may be the case that small parts of it get refined in the future but as an overall theory the chances of it being wrong are so low as to be essentially zero.

No - God just set up all the evidence like genes, fossils and radioactive dating to exactly match what you'd expect from Evolution through Natural Selection in order to test us.

 

[Chilly]

back to topic: if a law like this had been passed 20 years ago I guarantee you the games industry would be nothing like it is today.

 

[georgie]

wtf ?

*boggle*

It's okay, he doesn't believe in maths either.

 

[Rulke]

Well I'm unsure about the theory of evolution until it is survives some serious experimentation, which unfortunately takes about 10,000 years to do.
It's would appear to be the winner, but time will tell.

Evolution is fact. Simple as that, we have hundreds of thousands of fossils to prove that. More recently we have biological and genetic proofs as well. If that still isn't enough, evolution happens observably all the freaking time - Viruses, bacteria etc. MRSA is a great example.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is the only theory part but so far the evidence overwhelmingly favours it. The great thing about science is that if we found evidence disproving it then Scientists would embrace it as furthering our understanding.

 

[Krazeh]

Under 18s still make up a large percentage of games purchases

That's not what the Entertainment Software Association are saying. According to their research 72% of gamers are aged over 18, the average age of a gamer is 37 and the average age of the most frequent game buyer is 41.

 

[Rulke]

That's not what the Entertainment Software Association are saying. According to their research 72% of gamers are aged over 18, the average age of a gamer is 37 and the average age of the most frequent game buyer is 41.

So 28% isnt a large percent?

 

[Scouse]

serious experimentation, which unfortunately takes about 10,000 years to do.

Does it fuck. Lots of experimental evidence to show phenotypic changes over a few generations. Lots.

Stop believing what well-meaning idiots have taught you.


Anyway - non-story, games make money so they're under no threat tbfh. If the religious nuts in the states were anti-violence as well as being anti-sex then selling violent games to minors may have been under threat - but since christianity is a violent pile of shit there's no worries

 

[Cerb]

The case was about more than just age restricting games:

If this law had passed, it would have shown that Games as a medium are less valid than Films, TV and music etc. It would have set a precedent that it was ok to restrict games development that would be a slippery slope (how long til violent games are banned altogether in some states?)

Under 18s still make up a large percentage of games purchases, this Law may have forced a lot of developers to tone down their games in order to get 15 or 12 certificates. Meaning less 'adult' or risk-taking games would be developed - since the majority of games are made in the US this would affect us as well. It would also further the trend towards casual gaming which is bad enough already imo!

Think how many good films have been ruined by the makers aiming them at 12 certificates. Think how banal most non-cable TV shows are. This law would have been the first step to games being ten times worse.

This is essentially exactly what I was trying to say. Only written much more coherently.

 

[Krazeh]

So 28% isnt a large percent?

Oops, got that wrong. It's actually 82% of gamers who are over 18. And when you put that together with the average age of gamers and the average age of the most frequent game buyers then it paints a picture that indicates the under 18% market isn't where the majority of sales are coming from and isn't where game producers are aiming their products.

 

[Rulke]

Oops, got that wrong. It's actually 82% of gamers who are over 18. And when you put that together with the average age of gamers and the average age of the most frequent game buyers then it paints a picture that indicates the under 18% market isn't where the majority of sales are coming from and isn't where game producers are aiming their products.

Even then, you're essentially saying to developers in the states "adapt or you're gonna lose nearly a fifth of your sales." The bottom line on most games (excluding the likes of MW) isnt so big that they can ignore that

 

[Scouse]

Even then, you're essentially saying to developers in the states "adapt or you're gonna lose nearly a fifth of your sales."

18% of gamers doesn't necessarily mean 18% of sales.

Most 18 year olds are skint to fuckkery and fifty quid is a lot of money to 'em whereas the older gamers can prolly spunk that on a very regular basis.

Presuming they've not been dumb enough to have kids.

 

[Rulke]

18% of gamers doesn't necessarily mean 18% of sales.

Most 18 year olds are skint to fuckkery and fifty quid is a lot of money to 'em whereas the older gamers can prolly spunk that on a very regular basis.

Presuming they've not been dumb enough to have kids.

Most under-18s will get their parents to buy their games. I wonder if they are counted in that 18%. I'd imagine even if the law passed a lot of that would continue but there's quite a big different between a recommended age rating and it actually being illegal.

 

[Scouse]

Give it up Rulke. Game's aren't for kids. The dumb little spackers are too busy playing facebook on their mobiles and getting "super A stars" in their worthless GCSE's to play games

 

[Krazeh]

Most under-18s will get their parents to buy their games. I wonder if they are counted in that 18%. I'd imagine even if the law passed a lot of that would continue but there's quite a big different between a recommended age rating and it actually being illegal.

The only real difference I can see between the two is that a legal age rating is actually enforced unlike a recommended age rating. If having a legal age rating means that parents who buy their kids games now end up doing it less because they deem the game to be unsuitable you really have to question the usefulness of hte recommended rating.

 

[Rulke]

The bottom line is that games should have the same freedom of expression as other mediums. These same objections were raised over Films, TVs and even music (won't someone think of the children!) but thankfully common sense prevailed - as it should with games.

Admittedly gaming doesnt do itself many favours - drivel like the new Duke game is how the public still perceives gaming in general.

Give it up Rulke.

Meh, I'm bored at work