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.

Just curious as to what you guys think. The original title of this had Call of Duty in it. As in what would this law to do the Call of Duty series. As in sales might decrease as some stores might question carrying the game. I know Wal-mart never used to carry games that had sexually explicit scenes. Well the one where I lived didn't. Besides carrying the game. If a minor did buy the game, the store could be fined $1000 dollars. Either way though, I know now a days most stores where I live will not sell a mature game to anyone under 17-18 years old. So what is this law for? I kinda find it to be just another the law to make money for the state. Ironically the law is trying to be passed in one of the poorest state. California. Coincidence? lol

 

If you guys do watch the video. I would really like to see some of the "highly scientific studies" they did, and what made any one of those studies "highly scientific"?

What I don't get, is why are they singling out Call of Duty? There are games out there that are way more violent than Call of Duty.

Because it is the highest selling game out there, and it is considered to be a violent game.

even if they do pass it whats stopping parents from buying the game legally and giving it to their kids.

even if they do pass it whats stopping parents from buying the game legally and giving it to their kids.

Nothing will. It happens alot today. One time I was in Gamestop, and this mom was buying GTA for her child who had to be no more than 8 years old.