Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Could this law mean the end of Call of Duty?
-
22-03-2011 12:57am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
A proposed law restricting the sale of violent games could have a great impact on the future of Activision's popular shooter franchise.
George Rose, Activision Blizzard Executive VP and Chief Public Policy Officer, claims the publisher would no longer be able produce the hit Call of Duty series if the Supreme Court deems a 2005 law to be constitutional, making it illegal for retailers to sell violent games to minors and impose $1,000 fines for each violation in California.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this past November regarding the proposed law. A decision has not been reached.
"What would happen is that Call of Duty would then carry on it a 'restricted' category, no store in this country would carry that game, and the game would never be made. Period. End of question." Rose stated during a debate titled "Do Video Games Cause Violence" held at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco last night.
Rose claims that Activision Blizzard looks to fire any retail clerk that sells one of the publisher's M rated games to someone under the age of 17. "We've had store clerks fired and we improved those particular stores where there were incidents, but to be blunt about it, we had people fired," he said. Rose was then asked by moderator John Diaz of the San Francisco Chronicle why a law that restricts the sale of Call of Duty to minors would affect Activision's business model when the publisher doesn't want to sell to minors in the first place."In addition to the little 'scarlet letter' placed on the box, there's also a $1,000 fine per each unit sold. Last time I looked, there were about 5 million units sold [of Call of Duty: Black Ops] in California, so that number times $1,000, that's a lot of money to put on the line," Rose explained.
From Left to Right - Jim Steyer, George Rose, and Michael McConnell
Fellow panelist Jim Steyer, Founder and CEO of Common Sense Media, and an advocate of the bill, challenged Rose on his claim, saying Activision is going to make $500 million in the process and that there's no way the publisher would pull those games off store shelves.
"Of course I would," responded Rose. "It's chilling the speech and it wouldn't be even our speech, it would be chilling the speech of everybody else. In the process, it's going to result in fewer games and jobs in this state."
Rose also brought up the Motion Picture Association Of America (MMPA) rating's system used for films.
"May I remind you what happened to NC-17? That was supposed to be an alternative to the X-rated movie," he said. "And in that case it was supposed to allow films that depict controversial subjects to find their way into movie theaters and stores, and guess what happened?"
"Nobody wants to show them in theaters or carry them in stores like Walmart, and therefore there are no NC-17 mainstream movies."
An archived video of the entire hour-long debate can be found on the Commonwealth Club's Livestream channel.
Do you think we'll still see Call of Duty if this law is deemed constitutional?0 -
Advertisement
-
could someone post the article ? Tis blocked for me
here ya go.
0digg
Level 9
by Jim Reilly
LATEST IMAGES
View all 57 images »
LATEST VIDEOS
View all 20 videos »
A proposed law restricting the sale of violent games could have a great impact on the future of Activision's popular shooter franchise.
George Rose, Activision Blizzard Executive VP and Chief Public Policy Officer, claims the publisher would no longer be able produce the hit Call of Duty series if the Supreme Court deems a 2005 law to be constitutional, making it illegal for retailers to sell violent games to minors and impose $1,000 fines for each violation in California.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this past November regarding the proposed law. A decision has not been reached.
"What would happen is that Call of Duty would then carry on it a 'restricted' category, no store in this country would carry that game, and the game would never be made. Period. End of question." Rose stated during a debate titled "Do Video Games Cause Violence" held at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco last night.
Rose claims that Activision Blizzard looks to fire any retail clerk that sells one of the publisher's M rated games to someone under the age of 17. "We've had store clerks fired and we improved those particular stores where there were incidents, but to be blunt about it, we had people fired," he said. Rose was then asked by moderator John Diaz of the San Francisco Chronicle why a law that restricts the sale of Call of Duty to minors would affect Activision's business model when the publisher doesn't want to sell to minors in the first place.
From Left to Right - Jim Steyer, George Rose, and Michael McConnell
"In addition to the little 'scarlet letter' placed on the box, there's also a $1,000 fine per each unit sold. Last time I looked, there were about 5 million units sold [of Call of Duty: Black Ops] in California, so that number times $1,000, that's a lot of money to put on the line," Rose explained.
Fellow panelist Jim Steyer, Founder and CEO of Common Sense Media, and an advocate of the bill, challenged Rose on his claim, saying Activision is going to make $500 million in the process and that there's no way the publisher would pull those games off store shelves.
"Of course I would," responded Rose. "It's chilling the speech and it wouldn't be even our speech, it would be chilling the speech of everybody else. In the process, it's going to result in fewer games and jobs in this state."
Rose also brought up the Motion Picture Association Of America (MMPA) rating's system used for films.
"May I remind you what happened to NC-17? That was supposed to be an alternative to the X-rated movie," he said. "And in that case it was supposed to allow films that depict controversial subjects to find their way into movie theaters and stores, and guess what happened?"
"Nobody wants to show them in theaters or carry them in stores like Walmart, and therefore there are no NC-17 mainstream movies."
An archived video of the entire hour-long debate can be found on the Commonwealth Club's Livestream channel.0 -
-
-
Isnt it already illegal to sell to minors tho ? It certainly wont equal the end of call of duty. The whole "Does video games cause violence" debate is a joke, the sooner these old farts are replaced in governments the better because they're so far behind the times its unreal.
Ming Cambell for Leader
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement