Forum - View topicNEWS: Connecticut Rep. Calls for End to Gun Licensing in Video Games
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Clyde_Cash
Posts: 376 |
|
||
|
If he really thinks banning gun licensing in games is going to cut down crime and violence, he should go pet his unicorn.
|
|||
|
|||
TsunaReborn!
 Posts: 4713 Location: Cheltenham UK |
|
||
Unless they can show that this was the gun that he used and can prove that he wanted to use that gun because he used it in Call of Duty the reference made is irrelevant. It's obvious what would cut a greater extent of gun crime and its not games. It's a little annoying that the sane have to suffer because of the very small minority that has to get kicks through other means, which they would do if they didn't play games and just watched films. Just blame everything on games and films, its so much easier. 
|
|||
|
|||
Mr Adventure
 Posts: 1598 |
|
||
|
If cartoon camels can't sell cigarettes, video games not hawking firearms seems perfectly all right.
|
|||
|
|||
walw6pK4Alo
 Posts: 9322 |
|
||
|
This is a bit of a deeper and more nuanced issue, since licensing means your money does filter back to the gun companies when you buy your game. Not like it's going to remove fierarms from games, just that financial connection, and I find myself agreeing with it.
|
|||
|
|||
|
samuelp
Industry Insider
Posts: 2238 Location: San Antonio, USA |
|
||
|
How about instead of banning video game companies from licensing rights from gun companies, they instead ban the gun companies from selling those rights in the first place, be it to video games or movies or TV or whereever. I.e. legislate that all usage and likenesses of deadly weapons are by default in the public domain and can't be sold as intellectual property.
Seems to me that video game makers are again being unfairly targeted when there's just as much gun product placement going on in various action movies, etc... |
|||
|
|||
|
Lady Multi
Posts: 675 |
|
||
|
Wait? Is this someone in a government position that actually makes sense?
I, honestly, see exactly what he's talking about. Basically, he's asking for the games not to, essentially, advertise specific guns that truly exist. If a gun is a fictional representation mock only created for the game, it doesn't exist, so the want to have the gun in your favorite game in your own possession becomes un-obtainable. That, and by using the gun in the game, you can see what it can do. Sure, it's not the same as learning to shoot the gun in real (game controllers =/= gun usage), but you can see what it -can- do... |
|||
|
|||
Yttrbio
 Posts: 3653 |
|
||
|
Or, alternatively, people can decide on their own what is or is not appropriate, and tell government officials to take their opinions on the matter and shove them. Why is there any obligation to "say something in defense" of the practice?
|
|||
|
|||
ikillchicken
 Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
||
|
It's really disheartening that this thread has already been peppered with the exact same dramatic responses that we always see when a politician goes on some inane rant linking games to violence even though this guys is doing virtually the opposite. Hell, he's actually saying that there is no established link between games and violence and explicitly reiterating the fact that games fall under the first amendment. And he's not trying to legally force his stance on anyone. (Seriously, you guys ranting about a "ban" did you even read his actual comment!?) His point is extremely reasonable even if you don't agree with it and yet it is being met with the same knee jerk outrage regardless.
Evidently being a gamer doesn't make you a killer. Except of healthy debate. |
|||
|
|||
mgosdin
 Posts: 1302 Location: Kissimmee, Florida, USA |
|
||
|
It's a non-starter.
Next. Mark Gosdin |
|||
|
|||
simona.com
 Posts: 332 Location: Tokyo |
|
||
|
I really envy people with as much spare time as this guy.
Don't envy his brains though. |
|||
|
|||
Wrathful
 Posts: 372 |
|
||
|
It's bit annoying, every blame goes back to gaming, no wonder there's not a single positive response. If has there been any incident where teen goes off driving unattended and commit hit and run, the majority of politician would've blamed GTA for giving them the idea of driving simulation.
|
|||
|
|||
|
mewpudding101
Industry Insider
 Posts: 2209 Location: Tokyo, Japan |
|
||
|
I think he has a point, though. The license EA did with the gun manufacturers was a HORRIBLE idea. I don't buy those games, but if I knew that my money from buying Atelier games was going towards companies that sell cigarettes, I would have to stop buying new. It's just sick.
|
|||
|
|||
Fencedude5609
 Posts: 5088 |
|
||
|
HEY. GUYS.
READ THE [expletive] ARTICLE.
|
|||
|
|||
jet_
 Posts: 398 |
|
||
|
This made my day.
|
|||
|
|||
Animehermit
 Posts: 964 Location: The Argama |
|
||
|
I remember reading something a little while ago about EA (at least I think it was) not using gun licensing anymore in their games. They would continue to use real guns, but not pay the manufacturer of the guns any royalties.
It came down to the fact that games companies don't technically have to pay these manufacturers any money at all, but they do so out of courtesy and not wanting to be sued. Companies like EA and Activision are big enough to not give a shit. Overall I think this is a positive thing for gaming. Cutting ties with gun manufacturers may help clean the image of some games as being in bed with them to promote gun culture (whatever that means). Edit: It was EA Source: http://kotaku.com/ea-wont-be-paying-for-real-guns-in-video-games-anymore-494940003 |
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group