Post: No More / Less Violent C.O.D Games
03-19-2011, 11:37 AM #1
Tory Lanez
On bail right now
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Originally posted by another user
A proposed law restricting the sale of violent games could have a great impact on the future of Activision's popular shooter franchise.
[/COLOR][/B]

So what doe this mean?

Well basically, we will see less violent games due to a law enforced in California , of the year 2005 You must login or register to view this content.

You must login or register to view this content. Blizzard Executive VP and Chief Public Policy Officer ( George Rose ) claims
Originally posted by another user
the publisher would no longer be able produce the hit Call of Duty series if the Supreme Court deems a 2005 law to be constitutional, making it illegal for retailers to sell violent games to minors and impose $1,000 fines for each violation in California.


You must login or register to view this content.


Last November, the supreme court hear an You must login or register to view this content. argument regarding the " law ", the decision was not decided.

"What would happen is that Call of Duty would then carry on it a "restricted" category?

Well basically, no store in the country, not one would invest or buy the game, thus causing no game to be made :\
Originally posted by another user
Rose stated during a debate titled "Do Video Games Cause Violence" held at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco last night.


Originally posted by another user
Rose claims that Activision Blizzard looks to fire any retail clerk that sells one of the publisher's M rated games to someone under the age of 17. "We've had store clerks fired and we improved those particular stores where there were incidents, but to be blunt about it, we had people fired," he said. Rose was then asked by moderator John Diaz of the San Francisco Chronicle why a law that restricts the sale of Call of Duty to minors would affect Activision's business model when the publisher doesn't want to sell to minors in the first place.


You must login or register to view this content.
From Left to Right - Jim Steyer, George Rose, and Michael McConnell


So there would be a $1000 fine on there heads for each unit sold.
So if we compare this to BlackOps sales, that would be $1000 x 5million!
(This is just in California)

Read The rest of the argument here,
Originally posted by another user
Fellow panelist Jim Steyer, Founder and CEO of Common Sense Media, and an advocate of the bill, challenged Rose on his claim, saying Activision is going to make $500 million in the process and that there's no way the publisher would pull those games off store shelves.

"Of course I would," responded Rose. "It's chilling the speech and it wouldn't be even our speech, it would be chilling the speech of everybody else. In the process, it's going to result in fewer games and jobs in this state."

Rose also brought up the Motion Picture Association Of America (MMPA) rating's system used for films.

"May I remind you what happened to NC-17? That was supposed to be an alternative to the X-rated movie," he said. "And in that case it was supposed to allow films that depict controversial subjects to find their way into movie theaters and stores, and guess what happened?"

"Nobody wants to show them in theaters or carry them in stores like Walmart, and therefore there are no NC-17 mainstream movies."

An archived video of the entire hour-long debate can be found on the Commonwealth Club's Livestream channel.


OFFICIAL REPORT:
Originally posted by another user
A proposed law restricting the sale of violent games could have a great impact on the future of Activision's popular shooter franchise.

George Rose, Activision Blizzard Executive VP and Chief Public Policy Officer, claims the publisher would no longer be able produce the hit Call of Duty series if the Supreme Court deems a 2005 law to be constitutional, making it illegal for retailers to sell violent games to minors and impose $1,000 fines for each violation in California.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this past November regarding the proposed law. A decision has not been reached.

"What would happen is that Call of Duty would then carry on it a 'restricted' category, no store in this country would carry that game, and the game would never be made. Period. End of question." Rose stated during a debate titled "Do Video Games Cause Violence" held at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco last night.

Rose claims that Activision Blizzard looks to fire any retail clerk that sells one of the publisher's M rated games to someone under the age of 17. "We've had store clerks fired and we improved those particular stores where there were incidents, but to be blunt about it, we had people fired," he said. Rose was then asked by moderator John Diaz of the San Francisco Chronicle why a law that restricts the sale of Call of Duty to minors would affect Activision's business model when the publisher doesn't want to sell to minors in the first place.

From Left to Right - Jim Steyer, George Rose, and Michael McConnell
"In addition to the little 'scarlet letter' placed on the box, there's also a $1,000 fine per each unit sold. Last time I looked, there were about 5 million units sold [of Call of Duty: Black Ops] in California, so that number times $1,000, that's a lot of money to put on the line," Rose explained.

Fellow panelist Jim Steyer, Founder and CEO of Common Sense Media, and an advocate of the bill, challenged Rose on his claim, saying Activision is going to make $500 million in the process and that there's no way the publisher would pull those games off store shelves.

"Of course I would," responded Rose. "It's chilling the speech and it wouldn't be even our speech, it would be chilling the speech of everybody else. In the process, it's going to result in fewer games and jobs in this state."

Rose also brought up the Motion Picture Association Of America (MMPA) rating's system used for films.

"May I remind you what happened to NC-17? That was supposed to be an alternative to the X-rated movie," he said. "And in that case it was supposed to allow films that depict controversial subjects to find their way into movie theaters and stores, and guess what happened?"

"Nobody wants to show them in theaters or carry them in stores like Walmart, and therefore there are no NC-17 mainstream movies."

An archived video of the entire hour-long debate can be found on the Commonwealth Club's Livestream channel.


You must login or register to view this content.
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
03-19-2011, 02:50 PM #20
From what I read it doesn't say anything about getting rid of violent games in stores. It's talking about putting stricter restrictions on selling these games to minors (under 17). They would never be able to ban violent games, it just wouldn't happen.

The following 2 users say thank you to Travis for this useful post:

Porter_Justice, ResistTheSun
03-19-2011, 02:54 PM #21
ez2animate
Space Ninja
TLAwesome faceR

How will they track if minors buy it? You can't buy these games anyways if your underaged, you NEED a parent or guardian with you. If they are trying to stop us from playing, good luck to them.

Originally posted by Mr.Kane
You have to be 16 to join the army. And 18 to play a game with jelly blood


You can't join the army unless you have parents permission. Same thing with buying a CoD game, you can, but with parents permission.
03-19-2011, 05:21 PM #22
ResistTheSun
In Flames Much?
Did people even read that ?

All that happening is what happens in the UK sale to somebody under the age rating you get a fine. As they don't sell the game retailers do it the retailers who take the bullet.

The following user thanked ResistTheSun for this useful post:

03-19-2011, 05:37 PM #23
If you would read the story you copied and pasted you would see that they are going to fine up to $1000 for selling violent video games to minors, which they shouldn't even be doing in the first place considering it's a mature game.
03-19-2011, 06:53 PM #24
Porter_Justice
Cake is a lie
Two things brought up that makes thread thread NOTHING but something to talk about.

1.It states fines if SOLD TO MINORS, so unless groups of moms can prove Gamestop sold the game to a kid, so what....

2. This HYPOTHETICAL law would only apply to California. So at the most it would hurt California game retailers; not COD or any other Dev.

Its great you posted this. But the article is nothing more than the videogame equivalent of an National Enquirer article.

---------- Post added at 01:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 PM ----------

Originally posted by nathanx View Post
[/color][/b]

so what doe this mean?

well basically, we will see less violent games due to a law enforced in california , of the year 2005 You must login or register to view this content.


it doesn't even remotely mean that!!!
03-19-2011, 07:25 PM #25
The Truth
Hai Im From Minecraft
I guess im going to vegas to buy the next cod
03-19-2011, 07:34 PM #26
Xbox 180
A.K.A T4SSY
good thing i'm mature
03-19-2011, 07:55 PM #27
Omfg Jon
Space Ninja
So now in Cali there will be smuggling of CoD and, CoD trafficking?
03-19-2011, 07:57 PM #28
quigs
Gym leader
import, problem solved

Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.

Gray NextGenUpdate Logo