Game Retailers Trade Group Reacts to Passage of New York Video Game Bill

June 26, 2008 -

The Entertainment Merchants Association, the trade group which represents the interests of a large bloc of video game retailers, has issued a statement on Tuesday's passage of video game legislation by the New York State Senate:

The bill is unnecessary and seeks to solve a problem that does not exist. But we do not anticipate that video game software retailers will have a problem complying with its requirements. (It is important to note that NY law already requires DVD packages to display the rating of the movie.)

With passage in both the New York State Senate and Assembly, the measure now proceeds to Gov. David Paterson, who is likely to sign it into law.


Comments

Re: Game Retailers Trade Group Reacts to Passage of New York

Hi all..Anyone who thinks that there aren't any negative effects in playing video games is kidding themselves, fooling themselves because there is a negative impact of everything we do, and is more likely to give the fervant anti-gamers more ammo.

Lets take an established example shall we, footbal in this case (the soccer kind not american), if we look at all the negative impacts of football, breakage of limbs, straining of muscles mob violence and even death.

So clearly following this logic, football is the biggest peril that we know to man and should be clearly banned, made ilegal and all footbal couches should be sentanced to life in prisonment for the damage that they have caused society.

Clearly, this hasn't happened.

And why is this?

Because no study in football has been conducted without also looking into the positive aspects, rather than just the positive ones.

So anyone who says that games are completely harmless fun is obviously unaware to the geeks who can't hold down a social life, but clearly, this isn't true of all gamers, its the same with booze, one of the more social accetable bad habits, nearly everyone drinks but only a small percent of those people go on to comit DUI.

Another thing here, I see "unconsitional" thrown alot around here, and I also see the violent negative reaction that it is met with almost everywhere, but in this case i feel that the reaction is unjustified, for what I can make out what many in the anti-video game are trying to do is introduce laws which say that you can't be a 12 year old and walk into a store and buy GTA, and I whole heartily support them in this measure, and if you really feel that your, or your kids rights are being violated, buy it for your kids, really its that simple, the state deems that content A is not suitable for people a below a certain age and believe that the state is wrong in this conclusion, then by all means, buiy your son GTA, if you happen to be said son, I don't beleiev that as a child that you have the power to make a informed decesion and that the power of state and parent makes that decesion for you.

ankara evden eve ankara evden eve ankara evden eve nakliyat ankara nakliyat saç ekimi saç ekimi ankara evden eve nakliyat evden eve

very nice sites.good.

Re: Game Retailers Trade Group Reacts to Passage of New York

I really could care less about what the bill is trying to do, these actions in and of themselves are not all that dangerous. The danger is this sets a mark on the law that other laws of this sort can use. What I'm saying is the passage of this into law will make it much easier for other gaming laws to come to pass that could do much more damage to the industry.

It's times like this I feel embarassed to think I came from that state...

Re: Game Retailers Trade Group Reacts to Passage of New York

I'm really glad this stance is made.

I believe this is a issue between the consumer, the merchant, the publisher and the developer.  The government should have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Re: Game Retailers Trade Group Reacts to Passage of New York

If the Senate's version of this bill is similar to the Assembly's A11717, I doubt the industry will sue. It costs money to fight in court, and the bill doesn't require ratings for games that haven't already been rated.

I do wish this were overturned, as the mandate to display any ratings at all, even for games already rated, is a form of compelled speech. I understand the requirement to label food and other stuff that may kill us, but video games are speech and should not be required to display any ratings. Consider: If NY law were similarly amended to regulate comic books and Marvel decided to republish an old comic, it would be required to include the Comics Code Authority seal of approval in those comic books, whether it wanted to or not. That's not free speech.

Re: Game Retailers Trade Group Reacts to Passage of New York

So movies are required to have it to. I didn't know that. Still i think this bill is just a waste. Just makes politicans look like they are doing something useful when they really are not. Ugh.

What will come of this? What if the ESRB shuts down?

-If shit and bricks were candy and tits, we'd all be livin' large. For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block and Crain(2007)Grand Theft Childhood, a book by Harvard Medical School researchers Larry Kutner and Cheryl
Reality/////////////////////////////////////Fantasy. Seems like a pretty thick line to me...

Re: Game Retailers Trade Group Reacts to Passage of New York

If there is a similar law regarding DVD cases, and this law is simply bringing things into line with current practice for New York, then, personally, I don't have a problem with it. Though, I'm surprised that establishments in the US are so eager to ignore their own constitution.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteNumber 3: Night Dive was brought to the attention of the public by a massive game recovery, and yet most of their released catalogue consists of games that other people did the hard work of getting re-released.04/17/2014 - 8:46pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 2: If Humongous Entertainment wanted their stuff on Steam, why didn't they talk to their parent company, which does have a number of games published on Steam?04/17/2014 - 8:45pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 1: When Night Dive spent the better part of a year teasing the return of true classics, having their big content dump be edutainment is kind of a kick in the stomach.04/17/2014 - 8:44pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician