"KK" <_KK_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.06.02.12.59.20.801428@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 22:27:25 +0000, Richard Eich wrote:
>
>> _KK_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote...
>>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:01:10 +0000, Richard Eich wrote:
>>>
>>> > _KK_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote...
>>> >> On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:18:45 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > "KK" <_KK_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> >> >> On Tue, 27 May 2008 12:43:11 -0400, tar~bal wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>> I just wonder what kind of person has a problem with video game
>>> >> >>> ratings.
>>> >> >>> Maybe 12 year olds?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Video game ratings are dumb. They just make the kids want them
>>> >> >> more.
>>> >> >> Same with album warnings.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > That's not ALL they do.
>>> >> > They also inform parents as to the nature of the content.
>>> >> > Why do you oppose letting parents know what their kids are up to?
>>> >>
>>> >> I oppose requiring someone to label their product so that parents
>>> >> don't
>>> >> have to do their job.
>>> >
>>> > Oh, so the parent is supposed to buy the game and review it, and
base
>>> > their decision on that? Except that the license says you can't
>>> > return it if opened, so the company gets the revenue regardless of
>>> > whether or not the parent will let the child play the game.
>>>
>>> No, dummy. Show me one game that's out that there's not an
immediately
>>> available free review of.
>>
>> LMAO. To paraphrase Nietzsche, beware when calling someone a dummy
>> that you yourself are not one.
>
> Ummm, check.
>
>
>>
>> First, the game developer is vastly more familiar with what the game
>> has in it than any immediately-available review. So having the
>> developer provide the rating is a trivial task on the developer.
>
>
> Says you. If the developer doesn't object to it, then there's no law
> needed. If they do, it's not "trivial".
>
>
>
>>
>> Second, in order for the parent to do their job -- as you suggest --
>> without the benefit of a rating label then the reviews are going to
>> need to provide certain information about suitability for children,
>> and at what ages. Are you going to mandate that?
>
> No.
>
>
>> How is that
>> different than mandating a label? You've simply ****fted the burden
>> of who provides the information from a highly effective and efficient
>> source (the developer) to a less effective and efficient source (a
>> reviewer).
>
> All I said was, in response to a suggestion that there's no way a parent
> could ever ascertain the content of a game, that they're extensively
> reviewed and written about. If you really think that the marketing
> department of a games company is going to remind parents of
objectionable
> content that a review would miss, your head is in the sand.
The reality (in my case, at least) is that any game my kid gets is
generally
used from Game Stop. We'll go in and look for something he can afford.
He
pretty much knows that he isn't getting a game with M or T on it, so he
shuffles through a pile of games, most of which are ones we have never
even
heard of, and he picks one selling for however much money he has.
Now it would be great to go home and read the reviews of a 5 year old game
prior to buying it, but chances are it could be gone when we return. I
mean, get real. Having ratings on the game are absolutely no problem.
|
