Slashdot Mirror


ESRB Now Enforcing Game Trailer Ratings

Gamasutra has the news that the ESRB is beginning to enforce rating-related audience restrictions on game trailers. D3 Publisher's trailer for Dark Sector was judged AO by the ESRB, and demanded in correspondence to the company that it be removed from the internet. Take-Two, meanwhile, has been handed a letter saying their trailer for The Darkness needs to be 'age-gated' if it is to be seen online. Update: 06/26 14:20 GMT by Z : The Gamasutra post has been updated to clarify the situation: "ESRB president Patricia Vance has responded to Gamasutra with a prepared statement that claims today's notices are routine ESRB Advertising Review Council procedure followed since 2005. According to Vance, the appearance of both publisher emails today are simply reminders that mature rated trailers must be age-gated, and that if a trailer's content is found to be in violation of the ESRB's trailer requirements, it must be removed or replaced with an edited version."

86 comments

  1. Re: This trailer? by Clockworkalien · · Score: 1

    Here is a link to said game trailer: link.
    No nudity, no blood spilled, one possible death. I feel so robbed...

    --
    I am on the road crew. This is my stop sign.
  2. Link? by Durrok · · Score: 1

    Anyone have the link for the trailer that got rated AO? I could not find anything in the article and the trailers on youtube all seem pretty tame.

    --
    I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
    1. Re:Link? by sandwichtron · · Score: 1

      This may be the trailer in question. There's a man being cut in half and you can see his intestines, another man getting his throat slit, another getting his neck broken, and yet another human being immolated. There's also a hound-creature that gets its jaw broken and ripped off.

    2. Re:Link? by Taevin · · Score: 1

      That qualifies as AO now? I'm not saying it's a bright and happy video with koala bears dancing in a flower patch but... seriously? Everything I saw in there was pretty tame in my opinion, and well in line with other games rated M.

  3. This feels weird to me. by Perseid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Gamespot is not run by the ESRB. They have trailers online. Are they saying that the publisher must tell these gaming sites to remove all traces of their trailer? What if Gamespot says 'bite me'? Perhaps they can't. But what about uploads to YouTube? What about copies posted on Bob's Gaming? These trailers are meant to spread like crazy - they're commercials after all. One would think that the ESRB should tell the publishers their fate before their trailers get in the wild, 'cause I've never heard of Dark Sector but you better believe I'm hunting down the trailer as soon as I hit Submit.

    1. Re:This feels weird to me. by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Gamespot is not run by the ESRB. They have trailers online. Are they saying that the publisher must tell these gaming sites to remove all traces of their trailer? What if Gamespot says 'bite me'?
      In theory the publisher goes after Gamespot for infringing their copyright... But yea, once a video hits the internet, there's no holding it back.

      And the Dark Sector trailer is definitely gory
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:This feels weird to me. by robbiethefett · · Score: 2, Funny

      as long as they take these nasty, degrading, and utterly un-christian trailers off-line, i'll be happy. i can't count the number of times my search for interspecies erotica was interrupted by some obnoxious, violent popup displaying a trailer for some degenerate videogame. the intarwebs are safe at last!

      --
      "Luke, you've switched off your targeting computer, what's wrong?"
    3. Re:This feels weird to me. by Shabadage · · Score: 1

      You guys are a little off here. Basically it goes like this.

      ESRB "Take your trailer down or age-gate it."

      Publisher "No."

      ESRB "Then we won't rate your game, meaning it can't be sold in stores, effectively killing any kinds of sales, have a nice day."

      Basically, it boils down to strong arm tactics. ESRB has been on a witch-hunt lately. Thank god for the Indie's.

    4. Re:This feels weird to me. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone has tried an unrated game yet. Considering it works for DVDs it may be worth a try.

      However I would assume that if the ESRB keeps abusing its monopoly on ratings like that it's going to get some trouble later on, either publishers rejecting the syystem and forming an alternative or even the govt trying to make a federal agency instead.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    5. Re:This feels weird to me. by Shabadage · · Score: 1

      There's a huge difference though, Unrated DVD's can be sold in stores. Un-rated games cannot or are not. (Can't remeber if it's actually a legal mandate or just deals with retailers.)

    6. Re:This feels weird to me. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      It's guaranteed to not be a legal mandate since the courts won't even permit restricting sales to minors. Whether stores have such a deal I don't know.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  4. Out of the ESRB's hands by kornkid606 · · Score: 0

    I fail to see how game trailers on the internet are within the jurisdiction of the ESRB. I mean, they are the Entertainment SOFTWARE Rating Board, and, while these trailers are not software in and of themselves, I understand that they do pertain to software. Still, to me, it doesn't seem like it is the ESRB's decision which trailers can be shown on the internet and which cannot. If that decision is left to anyone, it should be left to those websites that choose to put up the trailer.

    And can someone inform me as to what age-gating is, because I tried to look it up on Wiki and got nothing.

    --
    Future indie game developer of America (and possibly Canada)
    1. Re:Out of the ESRB's hands by aichpvee · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's where it'll ask you your age before letting you see something. There's some gaming site that has this on their flash videos. I just put in January 1 (default date) and then whichever year I happen to click on first, usually somewhere in the 60s or 70s. It's stupid, because there's NO verification (I don't think there should be anyway, don't let your kids on the Internet if you don't want them to see stuff) and it's just annoying as fuck.

      Never heard the term "age-gating" before though, but it makes sense.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    2. Re:Out of the ESRB's hands by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      Of course they have no actual legal power, but if publishers/websites don't comply the ESRB can refuse to rate their games, which is death for the game thanks to the cabal of retailers that are all in bed with the rich "thinkofthechildren" lobbiers.

    3. Re:Out of the ESRB's hands by empaler · · Score: 1

      Of course they have no actual legal power, but if publishers/websites don't comply the ESRB can refuse to rate their games, which is death for the game thanks to the cabal of retailers that are all in bed with the rich "thinkofthechildren" lobbiers. "Yeah... I know this isn't within our legal realm, but this is such a nice game...

      It would certainly be a shame if something... happened to it."

      I can't say I wouldn't push the envelope if I had the power, I'm just saying that their methods are a bit shady... (if, of course, above speculation is true)
  5. MPAA area? by ILuvRamen · · Score: 0

    You'd think the MPAA would be the one to handle that cuz they do all the movie ratings and I don't know but maybe TV ratings for shows and stuff. But of course, if they can't make any money off it why would they ever do their job for someone else? They're too busy suing people lol. But seriously, couldn't game makers get off the hook from the ESRB by saying "well duh, trailers aren't games" cuz yeah, they kinda shouldn't have any control over that legally.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:MPAA area? by vix86 · · Score: 1

      I believe you have hit on the key issue here.

      The ESRB is focused on rating the playable content within a game and critics have always voiced that games are worse than movies because theres an interactive portion to the game. Here we have nothing more than a movie showing some graphic content thats not even live action. Even movies like Hostel only get by with an R rating and are presentable in theaters, but here we have the ESRB claiming this video can't be shown and must be removed?

      That aside, it also seems to me that the ESRB is over stepping their bounds in attempting to control what companies release on their sites.

    2. Re:MPAA area? by 7Prime · · Score: 1

      That makes a lot of sense, actually. I'm not an appologizer for Rockstar or anything, but I'm not an appologizer for the ESRB either. A game trailor should be rated NO DIFFERENTLY than a realistic animated movie. And if you think animation doesn't have an effect on ratings, think again... animated violence is given a lower rating than actual film. Now, seeing that the difference between photorealistic graphics (especially FMVs) and film is becoming pretty pretty small (especially seeing as how large parts of some films, like Lord of the Rings, are technically computer animated), probably it's more appropriate to look at things like Manhunt and The Darkness as being on par with cinematic violence. That said, I've never seen a videogame trailor that comes anywhere close to the violence you see in movie trailors.

      A game trailor, after all, isn't a game... it's a movie of a game. "Interactivity" should have no relievence.

      --
      Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
  6. MOD THE TROLL DOWN!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MOD THE TROLL DOWN!!!

  7. Suppose it's not a surprise, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I know, the MPAA does that too. Still, how could a trailer for a game be rated differently than the game itself? Or, more specifically, could it be rated *worse*? If a game is rated T, could a trailer by rated M? Is that possible?

    1. Re:Suppose it's not a surprise, but... by xero314 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If a game is rated T, could a trailer by rated M? Yes, if the trailer contained content which is not in the actual game. This happens in game trailers. For instance it could be possible to make a Wii sports game trailer which showed people playing the game, while naked. This would change the rating of the trailer. Game trailers need not be made up of just snippets from the game itself. Many game trailers have had content only available in pre production demos (as happens in movies as well).
    2. Re:Suppose it's not a surprise, but... by revengebomber · · Score: 1

      Game trailers need not be made up of just snippets from the game itself. But look at those graphics! You can't tell the difference! POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLE POSITION!
      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  8. Remove them from the internet, eh? by jasonmicron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How does one remove something already released to the internet?

    Besides, all they need to do is leak their trailers into some IRC & Newsgroup channels. Underground publicity is the best publicity, plus it is has plausible deniability.

  9. Isn't the ESRB Voluntary? by sssssss27 · · Score: 1

    Isn't the ESRB rating voluntary just like the rating the MPAA gives out? I don't see what power the ESRB has to stop this sort of thing short of refusing to rate the games for which the trailer is for.

    According to the article it seems they are even going past just rating and deciding what trailers should or shouldn't be allowed:
    "We recently received a ruling from the ESRB," the statement reads, "...stating that the two officially released Dark Sector gameplay montages have been deemed to contain excessive or offensive content; and to this end are not to be available for download or viewing, regardless of being placed behind an age gate."

    1. Re:Isn't the ESRB Voluntary? by vix86 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Its my understanding that games can't be published unless they have an ESRB rating. This isn't a law but its a general rule that many of the console makers follow. The ESRB can easily tell the company that they need to rate/remove the video or they won't have their games rated, effectively locking them out of having their games published. So its a form of coercion I believe.

    2. Re:Isn't the ESRB Voluntary? by sanosuke001 · · Score: 2, Informative

      ya, pretty sure the ESRB rating system is voluntary and no company has to get their game rated. Though not sure if Sony/MS/Nintendo require it to make a game for their system. If not, then the way things are going, companies are going to start putting their own ratings on their games, or no rating at all. The ESRB is going way too far, lately. That trailer posted in the first comment was lame. No wonder why there's been talk about replacing the ESRB...

      --
      -SaNo
    3. Re:Isn't the ESRB Voluntary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Its my understanding that games can't be published unless they have an ESRB rating.

      As legal basis goes, your understanding is patently false. Unfortunately, many stores won't carry an unrated title, and all the console manufacturers have made it a requirement. So they have all the force of government censorship, with none of the accountability.

      Tangentially, go see This Film is Not Yet Rated sometime, which should pretty much blast away any respect you might have had for the MPAA ratings board. After watching that, I would have liked to see the ratings board brought up on criminal fraud charges.

  10. Isn't it the same way with Movie Trailers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This preview has been approved for all audiences"

  11. Not the point of ratings. by MeanderingMind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have no problem with games being rated AO, and I have no problems with trailers being rated AO. However, given the way in which the AO rating is practically being applied (and quite explicitly here) I believe it needs a new name: NFA (Not for ANYONE).

    What bothers me about this is that decisions are being made for us concerning what we can do and watch. It is not the place of the ESRB to say what can and cannot be on the internet. The power of the ESRB is entirely within its ratings and should be extended no further. Don't like a trailer for "Gorefest Maimkiller", slap it with AO. Congratulations, your job is finished.

    I don't like that Nintendo and Sony won't allow production of AO games, but at the very least they have the right to do so. Their consoles, their rules. The internet, however, is not owned by the ESRB. There is no government sanction (nor should there be) that gives them the right to tell us what can and can't be there.

    I never intended on buying Manhunt 2, and I didn't care or know about the titles in the article. I'm about 100x more likely to take interest in these if only for the fact that they're the ridiculous targets of needless censorship.

    --
    Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
    1. Re:Not the point of ratings. by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 1

      I don't like that Nintendo and Sony won't allow production of AO games, but at the very least they have the right to do so. Their consoles, their rules.

      Last time I check it was *my* console. I didn't pay a huge chunk of change for them to tell me what I can and cannot play.

    2. Re:Not the point of ratings. by demeteloaf · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with games being rated AO, and I have no problems with trailers being rated AO. However, given the way in which the AO rating is practically being applied (and quite explicitly here) I believe it needs a new name: NFA (Not for ANYONE).

      I completely agree. From TFA, it looks like the ESRB has basically decided to ban the trailer. From the ESRBs statement:

      However, the mere presence of an age gate does not permit a publisher to simply put whatever content it wishes into the trailer. All trailers must still conform to ARC's Principles and Guidelines, which prohibit the display of excessively violent content or any content likely to cause serious offense to the average consumer...

      When ESRB notifies a publisher that the content in a trailer is in violation of these ARC requirements, or that there is an age gate issue on a third party site, that publisher then must notify third party sites to rectify the problem.

      Apparently, The ESRB is saying, "This trailer is inappropriate, you need to go find every third party site that has it up, and tell them to take it down, or we're going to punish you." Frankly, I think that is completely ridiculous. The ESRB is supposed to be a voluntary rating system, and despite the fact that it has become basically mandatory if a company wants to put a game out for a console, it's still supposed to be a set of guidelines saying what age level a game is appropriate for. In this case, they're saying that "The trailer is AO, and therefore appropriate for nobody, take it down and tell third party sites to take it down too." That, IMO, is completely overstepping the bounds of a voluntary rating system, and is censorship in its finest form.

      --
      If there's anything more important than my ego around, i want it caught and shot now.
    3. Re:Not the point of ratings. by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      Well then you should purchase a console from a vendor who allows you to do what you want with the hardware. Until then, I don't see you (or I, for that matter), having much choice.

    4. Re:Not the point of ratings. by westlake · · Score: 1
      I never intended on buying Manhunt 2, and I didn't care or know about the titles in the article. I'm about 100x more likely to take interest in these if only for the fact that they're the ridiculous targets of needless censorship.

      Does - anyone - here find it surprising that it was a Take-Two trailer that got the AO rating?

      If you can answer that question - truthfully - with a "Yes," congratulations. There is a place for you at Rockstar. For how long is another question.

      The Internet isn't owned by the ESRB. But neither is it owned by the gamer-geek.

      If YouTube wants no part in distributing AO rated adds for console gaming, tough luck. They are not obliged to let you post anything.

      Remember Snakes On A Plane? Cost $32 million to produce. Grossed $62 million world-wide. The Geek got the movie produced. But the Geek couldn't deliver the audience to make it profitable.

      The same equation works in gaming.

    5. Re:Not the point of ratings. by westlake · · Score: 1
      Last time I check it was *my* console. I didn't pay a huge chunk of change for them to tell me what I can and cannot play.

      The NES hit the American market in 1985. The PlayStation in 1996.

      If it hasn't dawned on you by now that AO content was never part of the deal, it never will. It may - someday - dawn on you that ultra-violence and graphic sex is an adolescent obsession and not an adult's.

      The older the gaming market becomes, the more games like Manhunt 2 will be pushed into the margins.

      Too much grief, too little a return.

    6. Re:Not the point of ratings. by amuro98 · · Score: 2

      What do the release dates for the NES vs. Playstation have to do with anything? Both have always had a strict policy of "No porn or AO games!". Granted, Nintendo was MUCH more strict with the NES and the SNES - garnering their reputation for being a Kiddie Console that still sticks with them today despite their efforts to show otherwise. Sony didn't have such a reputation, so it was easier to accept the Playstation as a platform aimmed at older, adults gamers. Even then, its games never got the controversial coverage that some of the PC titles of the time did, like Postal.

      The gaming market grew up, and the Playstation 1 addressed that market in ways that Nintendo couldn't/wouldn't. Even during the Playstation 1, Nintendo was desparetly trying to change their image. Why else would they do that other than acknowledging that the market had changed?

      So, there's clearly a legitimate market for "AO" games - and not just ones filled with over-the-top violence and sex. Unfortunately, the ESRB linked their "AO" rating to porn - causing most retailers to vow never to carry those titles due to all the social and legal issues with carrying pornographic items.

      Whether or not you think such games are "mature" or not, is another matter. Insert jokes about "M for mature because it features boobies" here.

    7. Re:Not the point of ratings. by westlake · · Score: 1
      So, there's clearly a legitimate market for "AO" games - and not just ones filled with over-the-top violence and sex.

      Name one - just one - created for the unrestricted PC market.

      Unfortunately, the ESRB linked their "AO" rating to porn - causing most retailers to vow never to carry those titles due to all the social and legal issues with carrying pornographic items.

      The catch phrase for films like "Saw" and "Hostel" is "torture porn." It caught hold so quickly that I think it is fair to say that there is a broad popular consensus that violence can be pornographic.

      Insert jokes about "M for mature because it features boobies" here.

      In the last ten years there have been many games that have earned an M rating without any show of boobies. What they tend to have in common is a strong narrative and game play that demands adult judgment and self-restraint.

    8. Re:Not the point of ratings. by grumbel · · Score: 1

      ### Name one - just one - created for the unrestricted PC market.

      Fahrenheit: Indigo Prophecy Director's Cut available via online distribution in the US, rated AO.
      Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, even so removed from the shelves and rereleased later with M rating.

      The issue with AO is that you can't sell it, its nice that you are allowed to sell it on PC in the first place as opposed to consoles, but you still won't get into the shelfs at the big retailers, which means you can basically forget to sell any decent amount of it. Which means publishers won't even touch anything that gets close to AO, you simply can't make money with it. Not because nobody wants it, but because the restrictions make it impossible to sell and thanks to the restrictions developers will of course stay away from doing anything AO as well.

      The real issue in the end isn't even that AO basically means things are banned, the issue is that you get AO for pretty harmless stuff, i.e. if a game involves sex and shows it on screen then its instant AO, if a movie does the same on the other side its R, not NC-17. And just for comparison, most of those stuff that gets AO in the USA, gets an 'age 16' rating over here in Germany instead of 'age 18' or being banned.

    9. Re:Not the point of ratings. by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      It may - someday - dawn on you that ultra-violence and graphic sex is an adolescent obsession and not an adult's.

      Tell that to the porno industry. That's one of the stupidest statements I've heard in months.

    10. Re:Not the point of ratings. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It may - someday - dawn on you that ultra-violence and graphic sex is an adolescent obsession and not an adult's.

      I guess that means I'm still young at heart :).

      Seriously, thought, reality seems to disagree with you; just look at how most mythologies and stories, both ancient and modern, are about who kills and sleeps with whom.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    11. Re:Not the point of ratings. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Remember Snakes On A Plane? Cost $32 million to produce. Grossed $62 million world-wide. The Geek got the movie produced. But the Geek couldn't deliver the audience to make it profitable.

      Based on these figures it produced $30 million dollar profit and about 100% return on investment. Seems pretty profitable to me, but then again, I'm not a movie producer.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    12. Re:Not the point of ratings. by demi · · Score: 1

      Seriously, thought, reality seems to disagree with you; just look at how most mythologies and stories, both ancient and modern, are about who kills and sleeps with whom.

      Consider the qualifiers in the parent's post. "Graphic" sex isn't the same as "sex." There are plenty of stories of randy gods seducing women, but they are not graphic, in the sense that today's pornography is.

      Similarly, I don't think the parent poster was saying that adults don't view pornography, just that they're not obsessed with it--and if they are, the nature of their obsession is immature. I pretty much agree with that view.

      --
      demi
    13. Re:Not the point of ratings. by demi · · Score: 1

      It's typical to allot roughly twice a movie's production budget on marketing and distribution (even setting aside "funny" Hollywood accounting). Similarly, the gross income of a movie is split with exhibitors. So with that rough rule of thumb, the production budget was $32M, marketing and distribution another $32M, for a total cost of $64M, and the studio saw $31M in their cut of the gross income.

      Total, fresh from my ass back-of-the-napkin figures, but yes, the general idea is that Snakes on a Plane didn't do terribly well.

      --
      demi
  12. Re: This trailer? by gravis777 · · Score: 1

    Somehow I doubt that this is the trailer they are refering to. This trailer, according to the website, is over 2 years old

  13. Whew, that was a close one! by roystgnr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Someone almost left Adult Only material on the internet!

    1. Re:Whew, that was a close one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how the hell is this insightful??

  14. Pointless by nlitement · · Score: 1

    Why would the publisher care if a trailer was rated [as AO]? The whole reason behind ESRB being practically mandatory on games is because major retailers (e.g. Wal-Mart) don't sell games unless they have been rated by the ESRB.

  15. Re: This trailer? by bobo+mahoney · · Score: 1

    It isn't that trailer that the issue is with. That is a very old trailer before a ground-up remake of the game. The old version was very tech and clean - the new version is much grittier and violent. The thing that I find odd is that every place I look to see the trailer you need to put in a birthdate to see it. Now any kid who can count could just lie about their birthday but that isn't anything new is it?

    --
    Bobo Mahoney
  16. Re: This trailer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If someone lies, it is not their problem that someone got access to it that wasn't 'supposed to'. CYA

  17. ESRB a censorship organization? by cgenman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This REALLY damages confidence in the ESRB. They're rating... trailers? Not only that, they're rating trailers and demand that they "are not to be available for download or viewing, regardless of being placed behind an age gate."

    This is really damaging news. If the ESRB is calling for the banning of what they would rate as AO material, then clearly there is a demonstratable censorial intent.

    "However, the mere presence of an age gate does not permit a publisher to simply put whatever content it wishes into the trailer. All trailers must still conform to ARC's Principles and Guidelines, which prohibit the display of excessively violent content or any content likely to cause serious offense to the average consumer."

    http://www.esrb.org/ratings/principles_guidlines.j sp

    As a person who makes his living making video games, I find this disturbing. You can't both say that an Adults Only rating isn't censorship, then turn around and censor trailers you don't like... or in this case, contain AO material.

    Every time I've interacted with the ESRB is has been pretty benign, though publisher overreaction to potential ESRB issues is a problem. Also, hard and fast rules from the ESRB about content restrictions are basically nill, leaving creators floundering as to, for example, if flipping the bird is T or M. This is a position I may need to reconsider if active censorship is a part of their organization.

    'Come on ESRB... now's the time to restore the faith. Prove to us that information is at the top of your list by crusading FOR the sale of AO and unrated materials in the US.

    1. Re:ESRB a censorship organization? by westlake · · Score: 1
      As a person who makes his living making video games, I find this disturbing. You can't both say that an Adults Only rating isn't censorship, then turn around and censor trailers you don't like... or in this case, contain AO material.

      The film and television producer lives with this all the time. Trailers that will reach a general audience are rated for a general audience.

      "Freedom of speech" does not mean that you get to post suggestive billboards for your torture porn flick across from every schoolyard. You might win a victory or two in court, but the signs will come down.

    2. Re:ESRB a censorship organization? by Taevin · · Score: 1

      The Internet is not equivalent to other communications media. This is, in part, what makes it such a great place to have true freedom of expression - exactly why speech is so often vehemently protected on the Internet as opposed to other places, like a billboard. The fact is, messages and images posted on the Internet are much less likely to be unintentionally viewed; you generally have to go looking for the offending content making most complaints, in my opinion, irrelevant and serving an ulterior motive. Contrast that with a very public structure like a billboard that obstructs a significant portion of my vision, greatly increasing the chances I will absorb that information whether I intended to or not. The only possible real comparison is the gigantic banner ads plastered over so many websites. Even those, despicable as they are, I would have a hard time finding justification for censor because Internet marketers generally do their best to only reach their target audience.

    3. Re:ESRB a censorship organization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Freedom of speech" does not mean that you get to post suggestive billboards for your torture porn flick across from every schoolyard. You might win a victory or two in court, but the signs will come down.

      Except your example doesn't match whats actually going on here. The case in question is more similar to an owner of a bar posting an ad for a drink, in his own bar and then having some organization that monitors bars and licenses whether they can give out alcohol come in and tell him he has to take it down because they don't like it. Its outside their jurisdiction.

    4. Re:ESRB a censorship organization? by KillzoneNET · · Score: 0

      Believe it or not, ESRB does not actually play the games they review. They only watch clips of said games highlighting the key features and what is considered the most harmful to children and their psyche...

    5. Re:ESRB a censorship organization? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      "Freedom of speech" does not mean that you get to post suggestive billboards for your torture porn flick across from every schoolyard.

      Why not ? Having to suffer through official sex education cartoons was pretty torturous, so if the combination is unhealthy, I'd say that the damage is already done :).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:ESRB a censorship organization? by bishiraver · · Score: 1

      What I find really silly about this whole thing, is that the new Rambo movie's trailer is more violent than this montage of Dark Sector gameplay footage. Seriously, he rips dudes throats out, shoots them with explosive arrows, shoots at point blank with an M42, snaps necks, cuts heads off.. It's much more brutal and realistic than any of the over-normal-mapped graphics in that trailer/footage.

    7. Re:ESRB a censorship organization? by demi · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you can make a blanket statement like that. Consider the subject at hand: video game marketing material. Doesn't it seem pretty likely that kids will want to consume any and all video game related material they can?

      Personally I suspect the ESRB's demand to take down an AO-rated trailer has something to do with pre-existing agreements between the company, relating to its membership in ESRB, I don't really know of course, just guessing the situation is a little more complicated than might be suggested at first blush.

      --
      demi
  18. It's not allowed on the internet? by trillex · · Score: 1

    Guess ESRB just became the government of the internet and can force the content they don't like off it. Sad.

    1. Re:It's not allowed on the internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ESRB doesn't have to be government of the internet to enforce this. They can deny a game a rating if they don't comply and then retailers won't carry it.

      Keep in mind that the ESRB only has this power because the game industry, which owns the ESRB through their joint membership in ESA, lets them. The reason they let the ESRB boss them around is because it helps defuse criticism from the subhumans in the government and a bunch of groups with things like "media council" in their names.

      All of that said, this is kind of an odd position for the ESRB to take and I'd expect them to back down from it soon.

  19. I supported the ESRB... by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

    I supported the ESRB for taking a stand and rating Manhunt 2 AO, and I've defended them on this and other issues here. But this? Is nuts. The point of a rating system is to rate, not ban. Even demanding age gates is a little excessive, because every 13 year old knows how to subtract 5 years from his/her birthdate, and how do they make all the other sites that host trailers?

    Nice way to make "taking a stand" look like "just being assholes". Are they still mad at Rockstar for making them look bad with the Hot Coffee scandal, or are they just giddy from rediscovering their AO rating and don't know where to stop?

    --
    "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    1. Re:I supported the ESRB... by Taevin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hate to be picky but anyone who was upset by the Hot Coffee "scandal" made themselves look bad, not Rockstar. Last I checked, no one has reason to be angry at the construction company that creates a building because they provided a surface for graffiti.

    2. Re:I supported the ESRB... by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah. The Hot Coffee stuff was pretty stupid. But a lot of people were upset by it, and it put the ESRB in an awkward position when people (who didn't have a clue about anything) started asking how they could have let that slip by. Personally, I think they should have just said fuck it, we wouldn't have rated Hot Coffee AO even if we had seen it, but they've taken enough of a beating in the media. Maybe they're still mad at Rockstar for putting them in that position, or maybe they're just overzealous in preventing it again, or maybe they've just hit a bout of temporary insanity. I really don't know.

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    3. Re:I supported the ESRB... by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      Not a real good analogy, since in this case the 'graffiti' was produced by the 'construction company', and then painted over. All someone had to know was that it was there, and how to make it show.

      This really -was- at least partially Rockstar's fault, as they could have removed the code and 'art' necessary to make the scene, and there would have been no scandal. (Art in this case being the script for the scene, as well as any scene-specific textures and meshes, if any.) The deal with the ESRB is that the developer is to provide info on -anything- that was on that disc. With the amazing things hackers do to circumvent copy protections, and create cheats, it wasn't a far leap to assume they could 'unlock' this content.

      Do I think it's stupid? Yes, the whole mess. But Rockstar is not nearly so innocent as you claim.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    4. Re:I supported the ESRB... by bishiraver · · Score: 1

      Ehhhh, it's more like a construction company that graffiti'd a wall, then painted over it, and someone else came along and took the coverup paint off.

    5. Re:I supported the ESRB... by demi · · Score: 1

      I think it's more like a subcontractor of the construction company, under indirect ownership of a Chilean subsidiary, put graffitti on the walls, and then, egged on by junior-level employees (but not the permanent officers of the general contractor) made it more and more explicit. Then a third guy--Steve--came by and said, "hey, that's pretty funny, but it'll have to come out before the Japanese investors"--did I mention the Japanese investors?--"come over tomorrow." But the subcontractor thought it was so cool that instead of washing it off they carefully taped over it with some paper. No wait, paper is a terrible analogy, let's make it Tyvek house wrap. Yes, Tyvek house wrap... they put some of that over it and then painted over that.

      After the building's launch, one of the neighborhood free spirits who's a big fan of the building--maybe security has noticed him hanging around, maybe they haven't: their lunch breaks are fifteen minutes shorter on this job than at their last one, so inevitably they feel less of an obligation to take a really good look at people hanging around. Well, anyway, this smelly hippie starts picking at the walls and finds this covered-up graffitti. He doesn't want to spoil the fun by just ripping the cover off, so what he does is start spreading the word in the smelly hippie underground (and also, this gets out to the underground comics scene and, through the coffee-house poseurs, to the rave and goth kids, much to the chagrin of the smelly hippie) about how to go to the building, pick off the Tyvek house wrap... you know, on second thought maybe it's not like Tyvek house wrap at all, maybe it's a tough, silicone-impregnated paper. Yeah, that's what it is.

      So all these people are peeking under the Ty^H^Hsilicone-impregnated paper at this stuff and it starts to get out. The local building code review board gets in trouble because they approved the building and everyone starts a pie-throwing fight--yes, a pie-throwing fight is exactly right--at the press conference about the controversy.

      That's just what it was like.

      --
      demi
  20. Re: This trailer? by balthan · · Score: 1

    That is a very old trailer before a ground-up remake of the game. The old version was very tech and clean - the new version is much grittier and violent.

    It's a shame they decided to go a different direction with the game. The older trailer looked more interesting.

  21. How does this differ from the MPAA? by amuro98 · · Score: 1

    Doesn't the MPAA rate trailers even if the final movie hasn't been rated yet? IE. "This trailer is approved for general audiences... This movie not yet rated."

    I know I've seen a few "restricted" trailers (had a red background instead of a green one.)

    Obviously you wouldn't expect to see a restricted trailer for a non-R movie, but anyways...

    And again, all companies have to do is say "This trailer is rated RP by the ESRB for a game that is also RP by the ESRB"...

    Actually, could you release a game with the official rating of "RP"? (especially since many games are released in an unfinished state, how can they be properly rated in the first place?! :-)

    1. Re:How does this differ from the MPAA? by p0tat03 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IMHO the problem is not that the ESRB is rating trailers, it's that it's going against the nature of the AO rating. AO means Adults Only, which means, like the name implies, that content from such a trailer or game should not be shown to underaged persons.

      In this case though, the ESRB is not calling for proper enforcement of age gates, or preventing the sale of the game to minors... no, they are outright banning the content! Doesn't AO mean "appropriate for people of age", instead of "not appropriate for ANYONE"? They're using the AO rating as a death sentence instead of the content guideline that it should be.

  22. Re: This trailer? by Walpurgiss · · Score: 3, Informative

    The trailer they are trying to get canned is http://www.gametrailers.com/player/17392.html
    Its named a gameplay montage rather than a trailer. It shows several methods of killing, from neck breaks, decaps, shooting, and cutting with a weird 3 bladed weapon that apparently can also catch fire and build up a lot of static.

    I can see their objection to it being used as a trailer, but as far as being game content isn't all that much more graphic than a lot of other games.

  23. Enforcement? by Whuffo · · Score: 1
    What enforcement powers do these clowns really have? I would presume none and this is just saber rattling.

    But if they do have some enforcement power to go along with their ratings - that makes them censors. If that enforcement power exists, it'd be worth taking a good close look at where they got it from.

    1. Re:Enforcement? by grumbel · · Score: 1

      ### What enforcement powers do these clowns really have?

      They can give a game an AO rating or deny the rating completly, which results in the game being unpublishable on all consoles as well as being unsellable in many retail stores. So in effect the game would be banned with only online sales on PC being the last way out.

      ### that makes them censors

      Thats basically what they have become. Its not really their fault, but instead the fault of Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, Walmart and friends due to not allowing AO games. But they effectively do have the power to drive your company into bankruptcy if you have a game that gets near AO.

  24. Re: This trailer? by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

    D3 should be thanking the ESRB, you can't buy publicity like this. I've never heard of this game before this article. However, after viewing the trailer it doesn't look all that good.

    --
    I got nothin'
  25. Dear ESRB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an ADULT, aged 28 years, and a gamer, both of console and PC titles, I would kindly like you to FUCK OFF!!!!!!

    As expressed from your own website here, "a rating system should inform and suggest, not prohibit".

    I'd like to quote the featured article at this time, which quotes the letter D3 Plublisher states recieved from you:"...stating that the two officially released Dark Sector gameplay montages have been deemed to contain excessive or offensive content; and to this end are not to be available for download or viewing, regardless of being placed behind an age gate".

    By these very statements, you have now committed fraud on your own behalf. You have purposely and willfully overstepped the bounds by which your organization has imposed on itself. As such you are no longer of any use.

    As a responsible adult, and member of the gaming community, I will no longer purchase any goods or services from any ESRB, OR ESA membership entities. As the web is a very open and informative environment, I have already located the majority of membership bodies which I will be boycotting until either the ESRB alters its rating system and enforcement, or is disbanded altogether.

    Your behavior will be monitored thoroughly for the next few years by myself and countless others. Please be aware, you are now being watched.

  26. No no... this trailer... by KillzoneNET · · Score: 0

    Not quite. That is not Take Two's. That is called Dark Sector.

    Now this video and the other series of gameplay videos is what they are talking about. Very graphic, and highly awesome.

    Now what I only just learned about ESRB's rating system is that this independent organization does not play the games. Instead they only watch a contemplation of clips from the game highlighting all the key aspects of the game. And in most cases, that would mean every single hardcore aspect of these games will be somewhat skewed with all the non-stop violence being displayed.

    I still cannot believe that in the end, even if these sort of games get an AO rating, they are basically banned from attaining the license from the console makers. Its really sad way to be an adult gamer not having the final say as to what I my self play...

  27. Troubling. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is all very troubling because it represents current trends in government and society. This enforcement in and of itself might not be a big deal. But it represents the warning signs of a nanny state where we wont be able to do anything deemed harmful to our well-being. Kind of like that Stallone movie Demolition Man.

    The funny thing is that those enforcing these ratings apparently seem to be completely oblivious as to what is readily available elsewhere on the internet.

  28. Completely Sad by Flobomatic · · Score: 1

    This is probaly the most disturbing thing I have read. When did we take the power out of the parents and game retailers hands? I am 24 years old, so someone explain to me why i cant watch AO rated trailers or play AO rated video games, but I can go watch all the internet porn I want. If your a parent why dont you pay attention to your child and what they are doing. This is just as bad as people who use violent films and video games as scapegoats for school violence in this country. i have been playing these kinda games for years, I havent lost my mind and wasted a school room full of kids. Just some food for thought.

  29. The solution is simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the ESRB wants to decide what's appropriate video for us adults to view, obviously, we should call them everytime we wish to view a game trailer online, just to make sure that it's age appropriate for us, and doesn't contain any material that might offend us.

    bkd

  30. i heart esrb by rav64 · · Score: 1

    Yes, please protect me from myself. I do not want to click on a trailer for violent game X and be _offended_ by it's violence! Thank you, ESRB, for looking after my own good since I apparently can't do it myself anymore.

    This is fucking bullshit.

  31. Re: This trailer? by Col.+Blackwolf · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow, nice to see the ESRB really on the ball here. That trailer came out in March. Good work protecting the childrens from the evils of the intraweb trailers there....

  32. Re: This trailer? by blackicye · · Score: 1

    From your link. then "veggie abuse" trailer is "age gated"

    It wanted me to download a suspicious plugin to view it though, something about MS windows media player 11, I closed the tab right around there.

  33. How is this different from movie trailers? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    I don't go to the cinema much, but I seem to remember a brief certification logo displayed before trailers. Sometimes, in fact, it'll say that the trailer is rated 15 (say), while the film itself is 18, so that the trailer can be shown before the following (15-rated, in this example) film.

    How is this different? Both are short tasters of the real thing, both real things are themselves rated; it makes sense to me that trailers should also be rated.

    "Stop thinking of the children" and "this is the intarwenets and so freeeeeeeeeee!" hyperbole aside, what is the actual problem?

    1. Re:How is this different from movie trailers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They normally rate software, and they rate it differently to video because it's interactive (i.e. Saw is more extreme than Manhunt 2 yet gets a lower rating because it's just video). However, here, they're rating a video trailer which is outside their remit, and they're giving it an also inappropriately high rating because they aren't taking account of the fact that it's video.

      Secondly, they're rating it "adults only", which is fine. However, they demand that "adult only" content is removed from the internet! This is stupid on several levels. I'm an adult: I buy internet service, I buy games, I buy movies, I buy porn. "Adult only" should not mean banned, it should mean only adults can get it. If I can buy "adult only" porn why not other "adult only" videos and games.
      Also, this video isn't exactly extreme compared to what's on the internet already. And it's already on the internet, once something's out of the bag you can't get it back in.

    2. Re:How is this different from movie trailers? by arieswind · · Score: 1

      the problem isnt that the trailers are being rated, its that the esrb is demanding the video be removed from the internet because they say so

  34. ESRB Contact Page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is the link for the contact page Drop them a message and let them know what you think about the policy.

  35. Helping people? by anduz · · Score: 1

    I used to think the ESRB ratings were there to help parents who don't have all the time in the world to keep up on their childrens hobby set a limit for their children. They never really enforced the ESRB ratins on video games in Denmark though but cinemas does something similar on movies, and while it's still not a law it ment my parents had to buy me alien tickets when I was a child.
    But lately it seems these kinds of ratings are getting out of hands, I mean, I think it's fine that parents have to approve and thus care about what their children are doing - but it used to be that you could buy a game like Fallout and do all the gay weddings and morbid murderings you could possibly want without any organisation telling you not too if you were an adult. Not so much anymore apparently, because the AO stamp is more or less a ban of games forcing developers to self-censorship which in terms renders things like the ESRB ratins dangerous.

    Basicly they, and other rating systems like them have moved from helping people raise their children to telling everyone how they think we should think. What gives them the right to do this? I'm sure not going to think very highly of the ratings or the politicians who support them in the future if they keep this nonsense up.

  36. finally found the video by darga · · Score: 1