The Political Game: NY video game bill barks, doesn't bite
Each week Dennis McCauley contributes The Political Game, a column on the collision of politics and video games:

The video game world was buzzing last week following the New York legislature's passage of a video game statute. In voting overwhelmingly for the bill, New York became the first state to pass a video game law since June, 2006 when lawmakers in Oklahoma, Louisiana and Minnesota all sent restrictive game legislation to their respective governors for signature. The video game industry opposed all of those laws, of course, on constitutional grounds. Since Gov. David Paterson is expected to sign the New York bill into law, there's a natural assumption that the industry will also drag the Empire State into federal court.
But maybe not.
While earlier state laws placed content-based restrictions on video game sales, New York's proposed statute does no such thing. It is largely symbolic, perhaps designed to persuade voters that legislators are doing something to address that familiar cultural whipping boy, video game violence.
So, how impotent is the New York law?
Very.
Its first requirement is that new video game consoles have parental controls built in. Of course, the Wii, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 already do. Next, the law calls for the formation of a 16-member advisory council. This group would examine the potential impact of violent media, make recommendations regarding the ESRB ratings, and set up "a parent-teacher violence awareness program to identify and appropriately assist students who may have a propensity toward violence."
That last part, with its implication that violent games are de facto related to school shootings, is more than a little insulting to gamers. It's also reminiscent of the Tom Cruise film Minority Report, as in, "let's determine who the violent kids are before they do anything violent."
But then again, this is an advisory council. You may substitute the word "toothless" for advisory, if you like. I've also learned that the video game industry has been promised two of the 16 seats. One will go to the ESA, representing game publishers, while the other goes to the EMA, on behalf of game retailers.
The bill's third major component requires that games have content ratings on their packaging. You know, sort of like the ones the ESRB has already been placing there for more than a decade.
Given that this bill will smack the industry with all the force of a bag of marshmallows, it seems unlikely that there will be any lawsuit. Although, to be fair, I should point out that the ESA's Video Game Voters Network issued an alert on Monday, calling the New York Senate bill "unnecessary and unconstitutional," and urging New York-based members to contact sponsor Sen. Andrew Lanza with their concerns.
In the game retailers' response to passage, the EMA called the legislation unnecessary, but the trade group seemed to indicate that they could live with it. Nor would this be the first time that the video game industry declined to sue over the passage of a game-related law. California and Washington, for example, have had laws on the books for years requiring that game retailers post information about the ESRB rating system.
There is, of course, some history behind the New York legislation and it's more amusing than most. In 2007 the state seemed on the fast track to pass an especially nasty bill, one that would have made it a felony to sell an M-rated game to anyone under 17. But those efforts vanished into the political black hole generated by a bitter feud between Senate Republicans and then-Governor Eliot Spitzer. Still hoping to keep the video game issue alive, Spitzer's administration released an incredibly lame slide show last December. Apparently cobbled together by career bureaucrats who had just completed an introductory PowerPoint class, the presentation's most noteworthy feature was its inclusion of parody site Mothers Against Videogame Addiction and Violence as a parental resource. Of course, Spitzer, who was openly critical of the animated hookers in Grand Theft Auto, famously saw his own career, ahem, go down in flames over flesh-and-blood call girls.
For his part, bill sponsor Sen. Lanza outraged gamers last year by comparing the appalling amateur game V-Tech Rampage to the then in development Grand Theft Auto IV. While arguing for his bill on Tuesday, Lanza made another rather curious remark. Speaking about the 2007 bill that came this close to passage, Lanza said, "Last year's version... that included a provision that would have made it an E-felony to sell these games, we all thought it was wrong."
This begs the question, of course: If Lanza and his colleagues thought it was wrong, how did the felony bill pass the Assembly and only miss passage in the Senate when the Spitzer and the Republican majority leader decided they couldn't get along?
Dennis McCauley is the Political Editor for the Entertainment Consumers Association (www.theeca.com), tracks the political side of video games at GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at

The video game world was buzzing last week following the New York legislature's passage of a video game statute. In voting overwhelmingly for the bill, New York became the first state to pass a video game law since June, 2006 when lawmakers in Oklahoma, Louisiana and Minnesota all sent restrictive game legislation to their respective governors for signature. The video game industry opposed all of those laws, of course, on constitutional grounds. Since Gov. David Paterson is expected to sign the New York bill into law, there's a natural assumption that the industry will also drag the Empire State into federal court.
But maybe not.
While earlier state laws placed content-based restrictions on video game sales, New York's proposed statute does no such thing. It is largely symbolic, perhaps designed to persuade voters that legislators are doing something to address that familiar cultural whipping boy, video game violence.
So, how impotent is the New York law?
Very.
Its first requirement is that new video game consoles have parental controls built in. Of course, the Wii, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 already do. Next, the law calls for the formation of a 16-member advisory council. This group would examine the potential impact of violent media, make recommendations regarding the ESRB ratings, and set up "a parent-teacher violence awareness program to identify and appropriately assist students who may have a propensity toward violence."
That last part, with its implication that violent games are de facto related to school shootings, is more than a little insulting to gamers. It's also reminiscent of the Tom Cruise film Minority Report, as in, "let's determine who the violent kids are before they do anything violent."
"You may substitute the word 'toothless' for advisory, if you like." |
The bill's third major component requires that games have content ratings on their packaging. You know, sort of like the ones the ESRB has already been placing there for more than a decade.
Given that this bill will smack the industry with all the force of a bag of marshmallows, it seems unlikely that there will be any lawsuit. Although, to be fair, I should point out that the ESA's Video Game Voters Network issued an alert on Monday, calling the New York Senate bill "unnecessary and unconstitutional," and urging New York-based members to contact sponsor Sen. Andrew Lanza with their concerns.
In the game retailers' response to passage, the EMA called the legislation unnecessary, but the trade group seemed to indicate that they could live with it. Nor would this be the first time that the video game industry declined to sue over the passage of a game-related law. California and Washington, for example, have had laws on the books for years requiring that game retailers post information about the ESRB rating system.
"Spitzer, who was openly critical of the animated hookers in Grand Theft Auto, famously saw his own career, ahem, go down in flames over flesh-and-blood call girls." |
For his part, bill sponsor Sen. Lanza outraged gamers last year by comparing the appalling amateur game V-Tech Rampage to the then in development Grand Theft Auto IV. While arguing for his bill on Tuesday, Lanza made another rather curious remark. Speaking about the 2007 bill that came this close to passage, Lanza said, "Last year's version... that included a provision that would have made it an E-felony to sell these games, we all thought it was wrong."
This begs the question, of course: If Lanza and his colleagues thought it was wrong, how did the felony bill pass the Assembly and only miss passage in the Senate when the Spitzer and the Republican majority leader decided they couldn't get along?
Dennis McCauley is the Political Editor for the Entertainment Consumers Association (www.theeca.com), tracks the political side of video games at GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
wealthyman2 @ Jul 3rd 2008 6:43PM
hmmm very interesting
offday @ Jun 30th 2008 1:11PM
Wow. This shows how much anti-video game morons actually understand video games. How mislead can you be? Way to go guys. I'm so glad you came up with all of these groundbreaking ideas.
Parental controls? Brilliant! Games should have ratings? Genius!
Falcom @ Jun 30th 2008 4:22PM
this will potentially have far reaching effects people are glossing over. Do they define video game console specifically? What about cell phones?
Now they want a regulation board to regulate the ESRB? I think the ESRB has done a wonderful job of self-regulating the industry without political involvment. If the ESRB slaps a AO rating on a game, retailers refuse to carry it and it gets toned down to acceptable limits.(GTA4 for example)
This can easily get out of hand, its also precedent for future laws to be implemented to take baby steps towards full on regulation and control of yet another industry.
offday @ Jun 30th 2008 5:58PM
GTAIV never had to be toned down. I know Manhunt 2 had to take a lot of things out to lose its AO rating, but then again Manhunt 2 sucked anyway.
Alexander @ Jun 30th 2008 1:11PM
Damn im glad i just turned 17 NY can be a pain in my ass
Brian @ Jun 30th 2008 1:16PM
"Next, the law calls for the formation of a 16-member advisory council."
Sounds like the perfect size for a nice online match. Plus they'll have access to various games... It all makes sense now.
Chris @ Jun 30th 2008 1:20PM
So they get approved to make these "game ratings" and such, then once they get a foot in the door, they make other changes like putting a stamp on what exactly devs can create? Would that be a correct assessment? B otherwise I don't understand the point of any of this.
BigD145 @ Jun 30th 2008 1:33PM
"parent-teacher awareness"? Is it really that difficult to be a parent these days? Do you need your teacher to watch over your kids 24/7 in school and at home? Here's an idea for you: don't have kids.
offday @ Jun 30th 2008 3:29PM
Yeah. I know a lot of good people who would make excellent parents that try and try to have kids, but can't. While drug addicts and prostitutes who constantly abuse their kids or abort them can't stop poppin' them out. I'll never understand it.
rickytickytavy @ Jun 30th 2008 1:57PM
Boy! If the gov of NYC was an (R) this thread would be poppin!
animeman_59 @ Jun 30th 2008 3:44PM
Exactly.
People seem to think that Republicans are the biggest opponents of video games, but there's an equal amount of so called "liberal" Democrats who wish for more restrictions and laws.
As I understand it, most conservatives believe in less government intervention and that individuals should be held accountable for their actions. Liberals seem to believe that more restrictions and laws based on what one person did justifies big government.
Just goes to show you that politicians on both sides are idiots. Do we really expect 50+ old geezers to understand our pasttime? As time goes on, we'll find more people who have played games like us running the government, then all this crap will be history.
Same thing happened with R-rated movies, rock 'n rool, rap, and heavy metal. No one complains about those anymore.
silentmoo @ Jun 30th 2008 2:26PM
It's not entirely pointless. It's just taking what are right now de facto standards, and making them into law (in NY at least). Currently parental controls in consoles and the ESRB rating system are entirely voluntary - this just prevents any "rogue" companies/publishers from marketing their wares in the state of NY. While you might look at it as pointless, it's really more a protection mechanism and reinforces the standards that are already in place.
Rocketboy @ Jun 30th 2008 2:47PM
I'm sure Patterson will still sign it into law...
He's never seen a bill that he doesn't like...
Anyhoo...
New York State has one of the most dysfunctional and corrupt governments that money can buy. And some of the dumbest voters. How else can you explain Spitzer and Clinton.
(Full Disclosure: I'm a New York resident, and I didn't vote for any of the above mentioned politicians.)
Korova *of the highlands* @ Jun 30th 2008 3:31PM
Completely unnecessary viciousness, Muchacho Rocketteer.
As for the law, a government advisory counsel can take all the fun out of entertainment. If some zealots gain a seat they will be using taxpayers money to annoy and harass developers, retailers and the media with ignorant rants and other ideological nonsense.
Its like having a DVD or MUSIC counsel. I dont want to hear some freak with a government badge spew ignorance on the evening news and know that I just worked for an hour to pay taxes so that douche can do it.
Rocketboy @ Jul 1st 2008 1:20PM
You know, if someone is dumb enough to seriously suggest that police officers should shoot to disarm, you deserve to be openly mocked in any way, shape, and form.
It's not like I kicked the guy's dog.
Hell, if I was a blind un-elected governor, I'd make the same joke about myself.
LawlFull§ @ Jun 30th 2008 3:06PM
If people were smart,they would be worried about morons like those wasting their money on things like these instead.
People are not smart.
Alex @ Jun 30th 2008 5:41PM
This is hysterical. The world is getting more restricted every day. I await the City 17* scenario. Remember when the sexy scene in Mass Effect was called the 'most realistic sex ever on a videogame' or something?
*City 17 is the city in which Half Life 2 is set, and has flying cameras and guards who are everywhere. Just for all you squares who haven't played HL2, you're missing out big time.
8bitwhore @ Jun 30th 2008 8:57PM
Working in the retail aspect of the video game industry has taught me that it doesn't matter how much you tell most parents that GTAIV is not meant for their six year old kid. They buy the game regardless. I can't count how many times I have heard, "They see worse s**t on the news anyway."