Post: No More / Less Violent C.O.D Games
Options
03-19-2011, 11:37 AM
#1
Tory Lanez
On bail right now
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
03-21-2011, 11:46 PM
#58
ez2animate
Space Ninja
Originally posted by PollyannaX
That wont matter. This is about them making COD less violent. Age means jack diddly balls.
This has nothing to do with CoD being less violent. Read the damn article, all it says is that RETAILERS (Gamestop, Target, Wal-Mart) Will be FINED $1000 for each game sold to MINORS. Nothing about CoD being less violent. Learn to read. This isn't going to affect anyone anyways because they already enforce a policy of not selling rated M games to minors.
03-22-2011, 12:32 AM
#60
Tory Lanez
On bail right now
03-22-2011, 06:39 AM
#61
Porter_Justice
Cake is a lie
Originally posted by PollyannaX
That wont matter. This is about them making COD less violent. Age means jack diddly balls.
The OP would lead you to believe that but the article only mentions fining CA videogame retailers for selling to minors. It gives no actual reason as to how COD games willl become less violent.
This thread title is beyond misleadin.
Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
