Post: What the Violent Game Law Means for Call of Duty *New Info*
Options
03-18-2011, 09:23 PM
#1
Black-Ops-
I <3 NGU!
I'm sure this is not posted so here is the news.
As many people know already, there is one big battle going on in the "Supreme Court" pertaining to violent video games being sold to minors.
Last November, as well also know there was a court hearing that was heard by both sides, as of today no decision is met.
Anyways, read on below for the full story!
Originally posted by another user
Panelists debate proposed law.
March 18, 2011 March 18, 2011.
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.
"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."
March 18, 2011 March 18, 2011.
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.
"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."
Here is a link to where you can watch the full hour of the debate:
You must login or register to view this content.
I've shared this with everyone in this community to get your thoughts on this very serious matter. Feel free to reply your thoughts below.
Thanks for reading! :p
03-19-2011, 03:57 PM
#11
ImOnMyPS3
Haxor!
It's not the game that make's kids want to do violent things.Its the kids.I can only really think they would do something they saw on a video game if they weren't being raised right,abused,depressed,Mental problems.Also if they were to take videogames out completely there would still be shootings at schools,Robbing stores,Beating people up.You can't stop that.
It's the People playing the game.Not the GAME.
So you can't blame violence on VIDEOGAMES.
It's the People playing the game.Not the GAME.
So you can't blame violence on VIDEOGAMES.
03-19-2011, 04:08 PM
#12
Black-Ops-
I <3 NGU!
Originally posted by ImOnMyPS3
It's not the game that make's kids want to do violent things.Its the kids.I can only really think they would do something they saw on a video game if they weren't being raised right,abused,depressed,Mental problems.Also if they were to take videogames out completely there would still be shootings at schools,Robbing stores,Beating people up.You can't stop that.
It's the People playing the game.Not the GAME.
So you can't blame violence on VIDEOGAMES.
It's the People playing the game.Not the GAME.
So you can't blame violence on VIDEOGAMES.
I agree with what you said, but I must add also that the parents are at fault if they can't keep up with what their kids are up too. I doubt parents would allow their kids to play violent video games if they sat down; i.e (Watching them play GTA Vice City and running around with a chainsaw cutting up people). Again I did that in the game, but it doesn't mean I'm going too run around and cut people up.
Oh and when I say to young, I'm talking about kids on "Call of Duty" who are between 8-12 year old kids who shouldn't be playing the game. So in reality it's the parents fault if the kid who is around that age playing a game they shouldn't be.
Again the only solution to stopping the sale of games to minors is simply a ID check as they have implemented in buying alcohol and cigarettes, funny though because you can always get someone to get the game for you whose over 17.
Just my opinion, and I thought I'd express my opinion of what I think on this matter.
Thanks for taking the time to read the article and appreciate your response.
:y:
03-19-2011, 04:51 PM
#13
BlackHayze
I go HAM
Originally posted by ImOnMyPS3
It's not the game that make's kids want to do violent things.Its the kids.I can only really think they would do something they saw on a video game if they weren't being raised right,abused,depressed,Mental problems.Also if they were to take videogames out completely there would still be shootings at schools,Robbing stores,Beating people up.You can't stop that.
It's the People playing the game.Not the GAME.
So you can't blame violence on VIDEOGAMES.
It's the People playing the game.Not the GAME.
So you can't blame violence on VIDEOGAMES.
I think you can blame games in situations where kids who shot their school up played games like Grand Theft Auto when they were really young (8-12.) Things have a big impression on children when they are that young, and kids playing games like that, at such a young age, does have an impact on them. If it didn't you wouldn't see M rated games and R rated movies.
I think violent video games are to blame in situations of young kids playing them who grow up to do violent things, just as alcohol would be to blame if a drunk driver killed a family. Things have a bigger impact on kids as they get younger, and having a kid play games where killing is fun can really impact the way a kid grows up.
03-19-2011, 05:30 PM
#14
Millz
Worth the Weight
It's simple immaturity. These kids get so caught up in a damn game that they forget everything else. I can honestly say, I am not 17, however, I do have a scene of maturity in me, and I know that it is quite obvious that I wont turn to be a drug dealer just because of what I saw in a video game. The games are fun, however, they do give negative messages to kids who cannot handle it. Just kick all of the 8-13 year old players, and the game would be much more fun, not to mention much less whining.
03-19-2011, 09:22 PM
#15
hustlnpoon
Pokemon Trainer
Its not the games fault, but I do agree that we should stop selling M rated games to some minors. Those kids who shot up a school are obviously mentally inmature from the start. Its THEIR fault, not the games, their inmaturity took over and made them think it was alrite. What im saying is there should be a method in which the game sellers are able to view the minors past history of crimes or violence, so if that minor has ANY history of commiting any crime, then they shall not be allowed to buy the M rated game under no circumstances. Cause if M games do ever get banned against all minors, then it would be pointless to keep violent games away from kids who wouldn't hurt a fly. Also, if M games do ever get banned, the video game industry would plummet, cause theres no kids to buy them. Crazy thing is that kids buy M rated games just as adults these days, which banning them would take maybe a little less than HALF of the industries profit made from games. In the end, all I want to see is a new method of M rated being sold to minors, not the easy ID method. Hate the player, Not the game!
03-19-2011, 11:11 PM
#19
.Requiem.
Banned
Originally posted by BlackHayze
18 and will be 19 when November comes around this year, but Activision won't be charged with anything if they have good enough lawyers. It is not activision's fault that their product is sold to people illegally. Is Vicaden responsible for all people who are taking pain killer drugs as an addictive drug? Is Glock responsible for all the people killed using his weapon?
Long story short, the creator of a game, or any product, can't get in trouble if it is sold to the wrong people. They didn't make it with the intent of giving it to minors (they may have, but it would be easy to argue that they didn't) so therefore the stores are at fault, not Activision.
Long story short, the creator of a game, or any product, can't get in trouble if it is sold to the wrong people. They didn't make it with the intent of giving it to minors (they may have, but it would be easy to argue that they didn't) so therefore the stores are at fault, not Activision.
Wait so all they are banning is sales to minors? So I could still play cause I'm turning 17 in june.
Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
