Activision VP Rails on Games Ban Supporters

While not the first time someone has voiced their opposition, it’s good to see more company executives mix into the fray. In an editorial published by the San Francisco Chronicle, VP George Rose has some not-so-nice words for supporters of the Schwarzenegger vs EMA case regarding the prohibition of violent video game sales. In an excerpt from the article, Rose argues the law uses resources the country cannot afford and is based on misrepresentation:

It makes no sense for California to put in place a costly state bureaucracy to replace a privately funded system that is working. The industry’s ratings partnership has been thoroughly tested and praised by the Federal Trade Commission as thorough and effective.

Sadly, supporters will accept nothing less than more laws, subbing for parents, that the state can’t afford to enforce. So to whip up drama and hysteria where none justifiably exists, zealots supporting this movement cite the worst of the worst by harking back to video game dinosaurs like 1997’s “Postal.” By today’s standards, this game was a commercial flop dropped by mainstream retailers long ago. No single movie, television program or video game defines an industry and justifies sweeping regulation, which is why the anecdotal example of “Postal” is disingenuous.

He also goes onto argue that the case is buried in questionable research and that scientists still are having difficulty finding credibility for such studies:

an unprecedented 82 social scientists, medical scientists and media scholars felt so strongly about Yee’s law that they filed their own brief with the Supreme Court. Their conclusion: it was based on “profoundly flawed research.”

Of course, we do have to realize that Mr. Rose has a personal stake in the matter, and it’s reflected in some of the comments to the article:

manteca99 2:27 AM on December 30, 2010
Spoken like a schill for the needlessly violent video game industry.

SMac2 2:26 PM on December 30, 2010
I love how, not only violent video game producers, but pornographers and disgusting rappers always hide behind the first amendment. As if the founding fathers, in a million years, ever would have thought all of this sickness were free “speech”!

The first amendment protects just that, speech, not disgusting filth, with no redeeming qualities. What’s so hard to understand about that?!?

The fight isn’t over yet folks. The court is scheduled to rule on the law later this year.

San Francisco Chronicle