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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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!
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
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.
Somehow I doubt that this is the trailer they are refering to. This trailer, according to the website, is over 2 years old
Someone almost left Adult Only material on the internet!
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.
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
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.
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."
j sp
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.
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.
The ______ Agenda
Guess ESRB just became the government of the internet and can force the content they don't like off it. Sad.
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.
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.
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.
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?!
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.
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.
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)
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'
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.
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.
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
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.
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....
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.
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?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7tzPuRYwok