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."
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.
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.
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
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
Someone almost left Adult Only material on the internet!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....