Does it matter who buys video games?
Much has been made about violent video games and how they impact children over the past decade and legislatures and activist groups alike have tried to find ways to stop them from getting in the hands of minors. And with the help of retailers, most laws have tried to make it impossible for those under the age of 17 to buy an M-rated game. But according to a recent Nielsen survey, 17 percent of Grand Theft Auto IV buyers were underage.
Nielsen found that of the 6,000 respondents, 17 percent of all buyers were younger than 17 -- the children were aged between 6 and 17 -- and of those younger buyers, 61 percent bought the game themselves, while 39 percent had a relative or friend buy it for them. In those cases where someone else bought the game for the kids, 80 percent were the child's parent or guardian and 10 percent said their older siblings bought the game for them.
Of course, anti-video game hacks will use this survey and say that it demonstrates to us all that retailers need to be more prudent in who they're selling games to and parents should be ashamed of themselves for giving a violent video game to a minor.
But I have a different take. I don't see anything wrong with underage kids buying any video game from any store at any time. And why should I? It's abundantly clear that they'll just have their parents get the games for them anyway.
The original intent of not allowing underage kids to buy video games was to stop them from picking up a violent title that their parents didn't want them to play and bring it to a friend's house where they wouldn't know. And while that is an admirable idea, it simply doesn't hold up.
First, most video game stores or even big-box retailers are staffed by kids that are barely old enough to buy mature-rated games anyway. And considering many of them are probably attending the same high school as the 15-year old who wants to pick up the latest M-rated game, I seriously doubt most kids will say no.
On top of that, why do most sales clerks even care? They're getting paid to run the store and if a 14-year old kid comes in and wants to play GTA IV and asks for a copy, it's easier to make a sale and look good for the boss than it is to push the kid away because he can't provide any identification.
Beyond that, it's extremely easy for these kids to get the games anyway. As the survey shows, a parent and an older sibling would be more than happy to walk into the local Gamestop and pick up a copy of an M-rated game for a child who is underage. And why not? It's a video game that keeps the kid quiet and happy.
Do you see what I'm getting at here? Nobody really cares about age requirements in video games and it's clear that parents and family members are perfectly capable of "beating the system" and putting mature-rated games in the hands of minors.
To think that ID'ing kids for a video game will somehow stop violence and the proliferation of violent video games is extremely foolhardy. If they're turned down, they'll simply go to the next place and see if they can win someone over there. And if all else fails, they can enlist the help of an older person.
It sounds like alcohol purchasing as a kid, doesn't it? Eventually someone will let you in.
Stopping underage children from buying video games may be a great PR stunt, but that's all it is. Children are getting their hands on M-rated games and there's no changing it. So we have one of two options: ignore it or just forget about age limits altogether. I vote for the latter.
Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
It really is that simple.
I agree with Don that age limits should not be the law, but the video game industry, like the movie industry, should participate in the education of parents through rating systems and guess what? The ESRB already does this. The root of the problem is education of parents. If parents are informed, they can make a sound decision, but unfortunately, mainstream media likes to display anti-video game propaganda and politicians and education never gets to the parents.
We started with Blockbuster but soon found that a number of companies rent online, so I assume we're not the only ones who have gone this route. We currently rent from a netflix-like company www.Gamefly.com. Overall, it's less expensive (no late fees too) and unlike Blockbuster, Gamefly has parental controls, ESRB ratings, user reviews, and a family section, so we can research the game right there before to put it in the queue.
But it gets even better. If we receive a game we object to there's no argument about it going back. It costs nothing to return and a new one will arrive in day or so, so there never much complaint. We traded in most of the games we had for rental credit and got 4 months of service for free, so now we only have a couple games in the house at any one time.
Maybe more already know about this, but if not, please look into it. Renting can make gaming fun not just for the kids but for us parents too.
Or how about going a step further. If anyone figures out a way to break any law, let's just get rid of the law and let everyone do what they want regardless of the consequences to everyone else.
It is completely valid to debate the legality, ethical, and moral implications of making a law that limits people's ability to purchase video games, or any other law for that matter, but it is incorrect to simply state that because a law is easy to get around we should just get rid of it. That reasoning is flawed and frankly a cop out.
Assuming that this video game law stays on the books, they way to make it stick and have impact is very simple. First you jack up the penalty for breaking the law. I'm not talking about some penalty that is proportional to the value of the product. But something that has teeth and says to those who break the law you need to have respect for our laws and authority. The penalty needs to be large enough to leave no doubt in the sellers mind that breaking the law is not worth the risk. Make the penalty $10,000.00 for infraction. Second, you need to get law enforcement to enforce the law. If a retailer gets hit with $50,000.00 in fines for selling 5 copies of GTA, you can bet he will think twice about ever doing it again and other retailers who hear about the incident will also.
Does the above example address the issue of a parent purchasing a game for their children? No, but then again the law does not say it is illegal for a parent to do so, it just says the retailer cannot sell to someone under the specified age. If it is important that children under 17 not see 'M' rated games then the law needs to be changed so the penalties affect parents as well; but now we are back to debating the merits of the law itself, which is a good thing to do, not just sweeping it under the rug because someone has figured out how to break it.
Comparisons to driving and drinking laws are entirely stupid. 14 year old kids driving could seriously hurt themselves or other people. A 14 year old kid playing GTA IV or COD IV on the other hand isn't really in any danger of hurting anyone in any way...unless of course you're one of the crazies who thinks that video games make kids suddenly pick up guns and start shooting people.
Of course the fact that kids can get around the law easily is no reason to dismiss it either, so you are right on that point. The merits of the law need to be discussed, not the fact that the law can easily be beaten. In that case I guess we should throw out laws on shoplifting too along with age restriction laws because I see kids swipe stuff from stores all the time.
aloud to watch a movie because of it's silly rating!!
(sorry for all the spelling mistakes, I wrote this on my phone) :P
If parents were parenting we wouldn't be writing about this type of stuff.
You can't just get rid of a law because there are some ways around it. There genuinely is a problem with the violence in some video games and parents need some system to tell them which games are very violent, whether or not EVERY parent obeys them is another story. Some people will always disregard ratings, however they are important for those who do follow them.
By the way Don, it seems to me that the only people who complain about this law are the ones affected by this law. So Don, are you still living at home with the P's? or do you just have the mentality of a 14 year old?
And to your point, every single study in attempt to find any straw of even a remote correlation of violent behavior and violent video games has come back with little to NO correlation. In short, those who use the so-called excuses that parrots like yourself love to repeat ad nauseam (i.e., I thought I could kill someone because I saw it in a video game, blah, blah, blah), are the sole reason for the problems related to violent behavior.
Personal Responsibility.. period. End of story. Parents need to parent and instill a sense of responsibility for one's actions in their children.
Now I'm not in agreement with the poster of this blog, but you sir are even worse.
Do you you REALLY believe that any kid shoots up a malls, school or anywhere else because they saw it in a video game?
Kids do that because they are depressed, ignored, have bad parents and easy access to guns in their usually backwards household. It has nothing to do with games, TV, movies or anything else. You either know/learn it's ok to kill or you dont. Period.
And there have been statistics regarding felony crime and media exposure (movies, tv, music games, etc..). guess what? No link! Not even a lousy correlation. Even conservative groups like Heritage and Family Research can't find any scientifically justified link.
So get a different tree to bark up.
The retailers are self-moderating re: M rated games. They choose not to sell to minors, but it's not illegal.
Fact is, most kids can handle it. The vast majority of people who play violent video games don't lash out because of them. Granted, any exposure to glorified violence increases kids' aggression - but you know, that's true for all ages. And it's true for all forms of media. Videogames aren't really any different.
Not to mention the fact that fuggin G-rated cartoons use violence as a solution.
Once a kid's past puberty, he's pretty much gonna see it all one way or another, and they're gonna be old enough to understand it all. At that point, parents can't really do much more. They're going to listen to their peers and siblings far more than their parents.
Honestly, the only really bad part about young kids playing videogames is that they tend to act like disrespectful ******-tards after playing on xbox Live.
The very few who use videogames as an excuse for doing violence or other illegal acts are either 1) lying, or 2) were already broken anyway.
Or, another option, use the Sony EyeToy or 360 Camera to do retinal scanning that matches with retinal scans done at the checkout. These are all very cost-prohibitive, but I've seen WAY too many little brats playing games like GTA IV. Which, BTW, SUCKED. The game isn't even good for more than a day! It really is pointlessly violent, unlike war-games or other videogames that at least give you a real reason to be violent. Most of the missions in GTA can be done without firing a single bullet, so it's really the player's choice to be violent.
My problem is that anyone under 13 should NOT be allowed to play mature games, not because they aren't old enough to understand it, or that they'll become Colombine-esque monsters, but because kids under 13 should be outside playing, or watching disney movies, or learning about animals, and generally getting a quality childhood!
To the parents of these little brats: SHAME. I'm 18, have more friends than I know what to do with, and going to college. I am socially aware, athletic, and successful. I didn't get to play an M rated game til I was 14. So if you think you're helping your kids by letting them play these games, you are WRONG. I'm no Jack Thompson, but I do think that little kids should be playing Ecco The Dolphin or MarioKart. NOT GTA.
-
by stephenselby
August 15, 2008 5:13 PM PDT
- As a responsible parent, I like the rating system. I control what comes into my house and I raise my children as I see fit. What you are really looking for is a solution to bad parenting, and I doubt that is coming any time soon. The rating system is just information for responsible parents. Keep the rating system for the parents who care.
-
Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (45 Comments)