If the game industry is truly ‘recession resistant’ expect increased harassment from local and federal governments.
In California, a Governor Schwarzenegger passed a law that restricted minors from purchasing a video game defined as violent. Retailers were to be fined for infractions. Unsurprisingly, a court judge found this to be unconstitutional. The state has appealed to the Supreme Court.
Entertainment Software Association CEO Michael Gallagher issued a response to the news, saying that “California’s citizens should see this for what it is — a complete waste of the state’s time and resources. California is facing a $21 billion budget shortfall coupled with high unemployment and home foreclosure rates. Rather than focus on these very real problems, Governor Schwarzenegger has recklessly decided to pursue wasteful, misguided and pointless litigation.”
“We are confident that this appeal will meet the same fate as the State’s previous failed efforts to regulate what courts around the country have uniformly held to be expression that is fully protected by the First Amendment,” he added. “California’s taxpayers would be better served by empowering parents and supporting the ESRB rating system.”
I love ESA’s forceful response to this by reminding that the state of California has severe financial issues to worry about instead of minors obtaining violent video games. It is a fantastic response.
However, I wonder if it is a little naïve. The reason why the State of California is trying to pass this law is precisely to obtain money. They know that it is literally impossible to keep a minor from purchasing a violent video game especially when ‘violent’ is undefined. The purpose of passing the law is not to protect minors but to create a new revenue stream by fleecing retailers and whoever else they can. This law is designed to fail.
Don’t think money is their primary concern? Listen to what a state senator says:
“The multi-billion dollar videogame industry relies on the revenue generated by the sales of these extremely violent games to children; thus they have the desire and resources to fight this cause at every turn,” California State Senator Leland Yee said in a press release.
“Despite their high-priced lobbyists, they were unsuccessful in the Legislature and despite their high-priced lawyers, I am hopeful they will inevitably face the same fate in the courts,” he added.
The state senator is complaining that the video game industry has too much revenue. In political speak, this means the California State Government wants that revenue. The talk of high-priced lobbyists is just a tired out old canard. There are no ‘high priced lobbyists’ demanding that violent games be sold to children because that is where the game industry gets its money. Most gamers are older than 18. The state government doesn’t know this, the game industry does.
Many people are uncomfortable in doing this, but imagine the government as a type of legalized mafia. If you have money, and you are not contributing to them, they will come after you. A great example of this was Microsoft who, as we all know, has tons of money. But Microsoft wasn’t playing the Washington game. They didn’t contribute to parties. Ever since the anti-trust suit, Microsoft has been contributing generously to both parties. Unsurprisingly, the lawsuits have been dropped and no more have been raised. Much of the reason why contributors and lobbyists exist is for pure protection.
I think the game industry should rethink its tradition of stating that it is ‘recession immune’. If the game industry is reaping in profits as an island in a sea of debt and stagflation among other companies, chanting “we are recession proof” is like putting on a giant target.
”What are you talking about, Malstrom?” a reader says. “They can’t just go in and take the money. There are laws.” And who writes the laws? The way to rape the game industry would be very easy. They can show that gaming is harming children which they have continued to try to show with ‘violent games’. They can also show that gaming is ‘an addiction’ and is harming society. There are many ways for them to get their tentacles into the game industry.
Do you think Jack Thompson kept making a case because he ‘cared about the children’? No. He was in it for the money he thought he could make. The ‘hot coffee’ incident was so disastrous not just because of the adult content in a game that wasn’t adult rated, but it was disastrous because it allowed lawyers and politicians (there is no difference between the two) to say: “The game industry cannot regulate itself. Therefore, we shall do it for them (*whispering* unless you contribute heavily to my campaign).”
Consider that each and every one of the so-called ‘recession resistant’ industries as listed in this USA Today article are political targets. Phillip-Morris of tobacco is targeted (if it was so bad, why not ban it? Follow the money). Wal-Mart (because it has no unions) is targeted. McDonald’s will increasingly be targeted by saying it is responsible for child obesity (just watch).
So when you hear a politician or a Jack Thompson rant and rave how the video game industry is ‘destroying children’ and ‘creating addiction’, it is not that they are stupid. It is that they are attempting to stigmatize the industry so the public will not protest when the game industry is financially raped.