Slashdot Mirror
ESRB Responds to 3D Realms' Kvetching
Via GamePolitics, an article at the Hollywood Reporter site on the ESRB's snappy comeback to 3D Realms. You may recall Scott Miller (3D Realms' co-founder) saying a short while back that he viewed the ESRB's smackdown as a 'sucker punch'. The Reporter article lays out the ESRB's response, courtesy of the board's president Patricia Vance: "It's unfortunate that Mr. Miller's feelings were hurt, but let's be clear ... The ESRB is the self-regulatory body for the video game industry. We were established by the industry and we simply enforce the rules and guidelines that the industry has imposed upon itself. The games industry determined that there should be rules with regard to the proper display of rating information and that ESRB should enforce those rules by notifying companies who are not in compliance ... Unfortunately, due to 3D Realms' lack of experience submitting games to the ESRB, it would appear that they were unaware of the various industry guidelines in place and the consequences of not complying with those guidelines."
Kvetch... didn't I save that town in Oblivion?
While I understand that technically the ESRB was "created" by the industry, the recent shenannigans that they have been pulling makes me believe that they are "funded" by those with certain political motivations.
The inneptitude they have displayed as of late has been astounding.
Living With a Nerd
Talk about a sucker punch..
"Unfortunately, due to 3D Realms' lack of experience submitting games to the ESRB,"
FTA:
"Miller suspects that recent incidents in which the ratings system failed the public, like the so-called Hot Coffee controversy, may have inspired the ESRB to adopt a new get-tough stance."
We've seen what happens when developers thumb their noses at the ESRB and not take the ratings process seriously. One lying problem child and everyone gets slapped. This kind of thing happens everywhere, why is it a suprise? You could see it coming from miles and miles away.
Realistically, yes you would notice, because that would be when the government steps in. Then you'd see what real censorship does to the gaming industry.
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
I doubt that it would pass the scrutiny of the courts. Maybe shops like Rockstar don't have the balls, but you can sure as hell bet that shops like EA do.
But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
Do they send letters to every company? What really forces a company to send their game in to be rated. (other than the fact that Walmart won't sell it)? Can anyone really stop me if I wanted to put an a game online for purchase having no rating?
"makes me believe that they are "funded" by those with certain political motivations."
The ESRB is funded by the Entertainment Software Association, a trade group of software publishers who offer services to their members (customer research, IP, etc.).
What you are seeing is a classic reaction to a "bad" child among the bunch; one who created an incident and then lied about it, creating the impression of the ESRB not having control. The result is a classic flip to the extreme in enforcement to prove the system works and no intervention is needed. Why should we be surprised?
Last I checked, there were PLENTY of religious nuts ALL OVER THE F-IN place, A-Hole. I am from the South and have been an Atheist my entire life. While I agree the problem is at least partially due to Religious Fanatics, check out where most of our Government officials (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Roberts, etc.) are from, shut up about the South and retract your ethnocentric fervor, dickcheese!
This makes sense. I mean, when DNF started development, the ratings icons were written on, like, scrolls. Or chiseled into stone tablets.
"Take ye heed - yon game containeth much violence and bare wenches"
--riney
And this is more of the same reactionary bullshit. This is what happens when you let religious nuts **Cough-The South-Cough** inject their religious beliefs into the public debate.
I think you may be hard-pressed to find supporters for your opinions when you go off on "Reactionary Bullshit" in one sentence, and then stereotype and classify an entire region of people in the very next sentence.
In fact you could argue you're committing the same behavior as these "religious nuts". They judge the video-game industry and claim all video games corrupt their children. You judge Southerners and claim that all Southerners are religious nuts.
Practicing what you preach would work better for you to get people on your side. Otherwise you simply fall into the category of "Do as I say not as I do."
Hi.
I live about as south as you can get (near New Orleans). I've also lived in many other places, mostly on the northwest coast. I can assure you that prejudicial and overall stupidass idealism is not the fault of the south any more than over-reaching and reactionary dumbass remarks are the fault of whatever area you just posted that horseshit from.
Thanks.
Talk about salt in a wound.
I can't believe how much complaining about the ESRB there is here. Does anyone that plays games understand that if the ESRB wasn't doing what they are doing, including tightening up, that the government would take over in a SECOND?
Which would you rather have:
- An industry-run system that allows parents (I am one) to at least look at a box and understand why something is rated in a certain way?
- Every game monitored by a politically controlled, possibly even politically appointed, group of non-game people, with some rejected outright and others put behind glass, or only available at certain stores?
Seriously kids, just because there is a T or an M on a box doesn't mean somebody's tinkling in your cheerios.
-- I really need to bleed off some of this
"I doubt that it would pass the scrutiny of the courts."
Doesn't matter if it would pass the scrutiny of the courts or not, nor whether publishers have "balls".
The public, and thus retailers, would require some sort of standardized ratings system, voluntary or not.
If government regs didn't pass through the courts you'd see another ESRB type system -- if the industry didn't die before that. You've let the genie out of the bottle when games went "mass-market" -- there is no going back to the days of no ratings now.
Besides, the government doesn't have to succeed in regulating the industry to effectively hurt it; all it has to do is TRY. Publishers know this.
Given all of these things, you'll never see the death of a voluntary ratings board.
If everyone stopped submitting their games to the ESRB, and we pink slipped those censor's like they badly deserve, would anyone even notice?
Yes, because this is what would happen:
1. No major retailers would stock any of these games
followed by
2. The US government would intervene and create their own censoring board that would be far more strict and arbitrary and would answer to nobody.
All of you complainers need to realize a couple things. The first is that the ESRB is entirely funded by and consists entirely of game companies. This is not the PMRC. This is not the government. This is not some outside organization. This is the industry. Game companies have all banded together and agreed on certain rules, and they created this organization to enforce those rules. 3DR's position is, by definition, a rogue position within the industry. They are going against the wishes of all the other game companies out there, because that's what the ESRB is.
The second is that the reason the ESRB exists is because the industry realized that the alternative to self-regulation was government regulation. The government is not going to sit idly by while a free-for-all is going on. Their position is, why should video games be any different than any other entertainment medium? They all have various content ratings and warnings. The ESRB has in fact long been held up by the government as an example of self-regulation done right - their rating system is the gold standard. But if enforcement of that rating system ever breaks down, the government will have no problem stepping in and enforcing it themselves. Is that what you want?
I realize that some of you kids think everything should just be available all the time to anyone who wants it regardless of age or parental consent. But that's never going to happen, nor should it. Given that, the ESRB is the best possible system anyone could have come up with - it's an industry-created, industry-funded board enforcing rules set by the industry upon itself. It is exactly how this kind of thing should be done.
Contrast it with the way things work in the UK or other parts of Europe, where games can be outright banned by the government. The government does not ban games here, and neither does the ESRB. The worst the ESRB can do is give a game an AO rating, and you can blame Sony, MS and Nintendo for the fact that they won't allow those games on their systems - it's not the ESRB practicing any sort of "censorship", and plenty of AO games do come out on PC. If the ESRB was gone, these games would end up being banned outright by the government just like they are elsewhere. That's the alternative you're arguing in favor of.
First off, the PMRC and the ESRB are far less related that the MPAA and the ESRB. Both bodies exist to rate the content their industries put out so that the government (ideally) doesn't have to step in.
Secondly... By "The South," you obviously mean New York, right? There's a pretty prominent Senator up there that might even be president some day that has called for special hearings into video games. Granted, she lived in the south for a while, but is from up north and represents people up north right now.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
I'll remember that next time I hear about TV and radio shows having to pull hosts and shows under threat of government intervention for their content.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
If everyone stopped submitting their games to the ESRB, and we pink slipped those censor's like they badly deserve, would anyone even notice?
Okay. First of all: I've been lucky enough to meet face-to-face and to chat with several ESRB employees in charge of ratings, and to a man they are all vehemently anti-censorship. They believe -- and I am inclined to agree -- that the ratings system, while flawed, actually protects game designers and game retail. With a system that "laymen" can understand in place, at least parents and other theoretcially "for the children" prude groups aren't (usually) demanding a ban on all digital entertainment.
In fact, it IS very similar to the problems surrounding the comic book industry: you have a set of creators and consumers making art and entertainment for a target population (i.e., adults over 17 who can enjoy their sex and violence if they damn well want to) squaring off against a set of "concerned individuals" who believe that the medium in question, because it is also consumed by children, is only meant for children and should therefore not contain any "inappropriate" material or "adult themes."
I happen to think their argument is rubbish, of course, as an adult consumer of comics, games, and other media, but their argument is there and it's not going away. That's why we have organizations like the CBLDF. But unfortunately, a self-imposed regulatory board, as contrary as it may seem, is about the only tool currently working AGAINST people with such (prudish and misguided) beliefs.
It's very like the MPAA. An "unrated" movie may simply not have gone through the process, or it may be two frames away from unmitigated pornographic rubbish, but either way it's not going to get distribution. The real "cure" for this sort of misunderstanding of games lies, I think, in the next 10-20 years. The first kids to have an NES in their homes growing up are now starting to become parents. That generation has a much better and more realistic understanding than their parents did, and that will go on over time.
Oh, that's right, a cartel. Eventually, cartels always act to stifle their competition.
See the movie, The Aviator for examples of cartels in action. Or this article on the milk cartel, Dairy Industry Crushed Innovator Who Bested Price-Control System
The government likes cartels, because cartels embiggen business, and Big Business is a great source of graft and legal graft (campaign contributions). Small business gets crushed under the weight of unfunded mandates and "well meaning" rules that have the of course unintended side effect of making it harder for small businesses to compete.
It reminds me of an old Russian saying, "Every business in the United States has it's own Mafia."
I'm not sure why so many people on Slashdot are in a rush to defend the creation of a robust video game cartel.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Hells, yeah, they'd notice. You seem to be leaving some key groups out of "anyone". Consider the two possible scenarios:
One or two established publishers stop going through the ESRB. In this case, the move would first be noticed by two groups: Retail store buying agents who might notice that some games suddenly dropped off the list of what company policy allows them to buy, and fans of those publishers' games who might notice that suddenly they can't find them in any retail stores. Both of those would move on to the available alternatives. If the publishers are publicly-traded companies, you can bet your ass their stockholders would notice, and storm the castle.
A large majority of established publishers unite in ignoring the ESRB. Let's just assume for the moment that this is even remotely likely. Since the ESRB is an industry-created group, this would be tantamount to the industry changing their mind and deciding to dismantle it. The retail buyers would notice, but with their alternatives being limited, they'd probably just change policy and get over it. Consumers might notice, but their reaction probably wouldn't be much more than tepid. Who would really notice are lawmakers. You obviously realize that our lawmakers are terribly reactionary on this sort of thing (although drawing the line straight to religion is rather oversimplified), but don't you realize the only thing that's kept the government censorship hounds at bay is the ESRB? If the games industry hadn't created its own "censorship" agency on its own terms, federal and/or state legislatures would have done it for them years ago, and they'd be a lot worse off. If the ESRB disappeared, you'd better believe government would fill the void in a heartbeat.
The second is that the reason the ESRB exists is because the industry realized that the alternative to self-regulation was government regulation.
Except it isn't.
There are still a few courts in the US that understand the meaning of the phrase Congress shall make no law.
The ESRB was formed in response to empty threats by people like Joseph Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. These legislators demanded that the industry form its own ratings body to forestall further legislation. Of course, they lied about the "forestalling further legislation" part.
I'm convinced that the best way to get government out of the content-rating business is to let them try to impose legislative content standards... and either let the Supreme Court strike them down, as they have in what must be a thousand other prior-restraint cases, or show the country's true colors by upholding the restrictions. Only then will reform be possible.
The current system of veiled threats and Hillary-style "investigative subcommittees" is neither Constitutional nor tolerable.
I'm not agreeing with the GP at all, I want to make that clear. However, it's called the bible belt for a reason; that's where a majority of the people who bitch and whine and moan come from.
With that said, anyone who thinks everyone in the south is the same is, without fail, an idiot. It's one thing to be wary of it - to possibly expect it more than you would, say, someone from Japan - but it's quite another to write them all off all up front.
I'm wary of people from Texas. I've never had a good experience with someone from Texas. But Texas is quite a large state, and it would be irresponsible to write the entire state off due to previous bad experiences.
With that said - those people who *are* religious bible bangers can go form their own country. They can split it off, even if it means they get where I live now, and I have to pack up shop and get the fuck out. I'm okay with that. I don't hate them, but I can't see us living together peacefully for very long if they're so hellbent on legislating morality. I'm not saying I don't like religious people - I think they're fine. Sometimes hypocritical, sometimes delightfully *not* hypocritical. I just object to having said religious rules and regulations enforced upon me without any reasonable reason. I thought we were founded on *freedom*, letting people do as they wish provided they're not hurting others or directly costing others money. That's the only principle my countrymen and I need to agree on. Outside of that, they can do whatever they want, whether it's praying 95% of every day and telling me I'm going to hell, or never praying at all, having promiscuous sex, drinking, doing drugs, playing video games, listening to marilyn manson, and reading the aforementioned comic books. If they want to attempt to socially change me, ie: through coercion, then all the best luck to them. Just don't get the government involved, mmkay?
P.S. I was all over the fucking map on that comment. I'm not sure whether it should be modded off topic or not!
Aside from Prey, what exactly have they done for the industry lately? Other than providing the punchline for one too many jokes...
Insert Sig Here
Not to nitpick, but the kids that had NES systems are already parents. We had an NES when I was in high school, and a SNES when I was just out of HS and my little brother and sister were still in HS and Elementary respectively. Now I'm 35, with 2 kids, my brother is 30 (no kids yet) and my sister is 25. The video game generation is all grown up now.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
The system is damn good.
The retailers and the big 3 need to let AO games on their systems, or find a middle ground possibly creating a new rating that doesn't have th pornographic connotations of the AO.
You mad
We had an NES when I was in high school, and a SNES when I was just out of HS and my little brother and sister were still in HS and Elementary respectively. Now I'm 35, with 2 kids, my brother is 30 (no kids yet) and my sister is 25. The video game generation is all grown up now.
;)
Fair enough. I guess I live in a skewed population -- no-one I know except one couple has had or is planning to have kids until they're 30-35, and most of us are late-20s or just coming up 30 now.
"The ESRB was formed in response to empty threats by people like Joseph Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. Of course, they lied about the "forestalling further legislation" part."
Empty? Ha.
The public, and as a result, retailers were the real reason, not Hillary or Lieberman; they were just the vehicle by which it came.
Doesn't even matter that Lieberman and Hillary lied about the further legislation; the industry was smart enough to realize that any ATTEMPT at regulation would be a bad thing, regardless of whether it was successful or not. They don't have to succeed to destroy the industry, all they have to do is *try*.
"Only then will reform be possible."
Reform of what? The process works as it is:
1. Public asks for standardized ratings system, complains to government, companies, retailers.
2 a. Government really says to industry "look guys, set up something yourselves, we don't want to police you, if we did, it would kill you -- the public wants something to be done so either you do it or we will at least try and no one wants that"
2 b. Government says this to industry but uses rhetoric that the public thinks means they are serious about legislation in the first place.
3. Industry complies
4. Public satisfied
New York?
Kansas?
New York again?
Indiana?
Just wondering why people seem to think all of this comes from the South, when it so often comes from other areas of the country. Sure, the South has it's fair share of crazies, but I have yet to find a shortage anywhere else. Same goes for people wanting to meddle in my life, but I haven't spent time in Montana yet, and I hear they tend to leave you alone (as long as you actually pay for stuff).Easy there tiger, we aren't *all* idiots down here, just most of us.
There is a war going on for your mind.
The fact is the ESRB icons are TRADEMARKS, and no one is legally permitted to use them without permission (mainly through a contract you agree to when you submit the game for a rating). Seeing as those are TRADEMARKS, the trademark owner must protect the use of that mark. This is true of ALL trademarks, be it the Pepsi logo or "Grandma's Jam".
Miller has been in the game business for a LONG time. For him to whine and plead such ignorance to something so common within the business world (trademarks and trademark usage) that I am just left speechless and wondering if Scott wasn't drunk, or lacking sleep. How detached from your own industry do you have to be to not know the simple facts about trademark usage? Ridiculous!
The ESRB is being stupid in this matter.
And by stupid, I mean really dumb.
They could have sent warning, with a longer deadline and information on who to contact at ERSB with details on how to get into compliance or to appeal the notice.
After all this web site and these out of compliance games/icons have been up for YEARS. What's another 30 days or even longer? The ESRB could have even extended the compliance deadline to 'when it's done'. Sorry it juslt slipped out.
Instead they pissed all over one their member companies that makes the ERSB possible.
Then the ERSB continues to rail on about 3D. Just shut up ERSB. Or if you can't, then apologize for being stupid and offer to work with 3D - they are one of your benefactors/customers after all.
Lawyers should NEVER be in charge of ANY business decisions, EVER.
"RTF Constitution."
Re-read my post, seems like you are having reading comprehension problems today -- it's not about the flipping constitution.
It doesn't fucking matter what you believe about First Amendment rights and whether this would be challenged in court, that's NOT the issue here. The end result would be still be bad for the industry no matter what the verdict.
The public and retailers want a system. They have the power (their purchase power $$$$), not the government.
Retailers have free choice of what products to stock based upon their customers, if customers want a ratings system, so do retailers. Market forces in direct action.
"There is no exception in the First Amendment...(blah blah blah blah)"
Rights do not exist in a vacuum and exist in relation to other fundamental rights.
You cannot lie in court and claim you are protected under the First Amendment.
Campaign finance laws exist dealing with fair political campaigns.
False advertising relates directly to what you can say in advertising.
Besides, a ratings system has nothing to do with abridgement of free speech; it's about commerce.
Amen! I currently live in the Bible Belt and I'm from Pennsylvania. Before my family moved down here, we assumed the same "they're all religious nuts!" out of ignorance. Having lived here for almost 10 years, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of people who "blindly" support the ESRB and support government censorship. Hell, I'd be surprised if you find ANYONE who wants the Government to interfere.
/. community look worse.
The ESRB, in fact, is something that a lot of people down here don't concern themselves with unless your a gamer, and being a gamer myself, I know that most gamers down here don't agree with the ESRB too awful much. Heck, I'm trying to think of the number of people I know in Church who support censorship and I can't name a single one, although I admit I go to a small (very conservative) Methodist church with about 40 people who regularly attend. So guys, quit it with the stereotypes. Its just making the
"The second is that the reason the ESRB exists is because the industry realized that the alternative to self-regulation was government regulation."
...
...
Except it isn't. There are still a few courts in the US that understand the meaning of the phrase Congress shall make no law.
Before your start quoting the Constitution you should really read the entire thing:
"Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
RTF Constitution. In the USA (which I realize may not be your home country) the "public" is not given the authority to regulate speech. ... There are no exceptions in the First Amendment, period.
The first ammendment does not apply to the public, it appies only to Congress. Read it below. If I have a store I have the right to ban your book or game. If I am a publisher I have the right to censor part of your writings or game (assuming you did not negotiate a contract to the contrary - good luck doing so), etc.
"Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So how I'm reading this the ESRB is basically saying you can't go out and read the guidelines and be able to submit a game with much success on your first couple of attempts, you have to submit a bunch of times and through trial and error you'll figure out how the guidelines work? It's pretty ridiculous to suggest that the only way you can successfully submit games is by having past experience submitting games.
Erik http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~rattles
Could I have a list of games banned in Europe? I've never experienced that a game other then Manhunter 2 has ever become banned although there were a lot of people that wanted to ban the game postal 2 for excessive violence here in Sweden.
I think you have MORE control not less if the regulating body is controled by the goverment. Then at least you can vote about it. When it's controlled by the industry there is nothing you can do at all if a game or movie you're interested in can't reach the market because it doesn't comply with the guidelines.
Yeah, they might just make it impossible for game companies to release AO rated games in stores. Good thing game makers can currently put anything they want in a game and sell it on store shelves next to the unrated movies.
And the rest of us have to deal the idiots too, you insensitvie clod!
He whom you called four-eyes yesterday, you call Sir tomorrow.
FCC regulation, mang. FCC.
Yes, there really are things you aren't allowed to do on TV and radio.
...only if everyone else lets it.
Everyone should remember where the majority of lawmakers are from - hint: not the south or the midwest. Both the south and midwest do have a disproportionately large representation in the Senate, but not so in the House. Even in the Senate, I would consider the south and midwest to have no more than half the vote (depends on where you draw the lines).
Doesn't it annoy you that, even with the majority of the vote coming from outside these "trouble" areas, you still have to worry about morality legislation? If it does, consider blaming someone other than religious and/or southern "crazies".
They did - and called it "The United States of America".
Mod it up! It's the only sane posting here. Everyone else is just reacting in ignorance, unfairly chastizing the ESRB.
FCC was part of the government, mang, last time I checked.
you do realize texas is down south with y'all right?
> One or two established publishers stop going through the ESRB. In this case, the move
> would first be noticed by two groups: Retail store buying agents who might notice that
> some games suddenly dropped off the list of what company policy allows them to buy,
> and fans of those publishers' games who might notice that suddenly they can't find them
> in any retail stores. Both of those would move on to the available alternatives.
That depends a lot on who those one or two publishers are.
If some two-bit developer from Armpit, Texas; who's really doing nothing more than living off past glories and empty promises were to take this stand; then yes you're right, they'd die an ignominious death and be quickly forgotten.
If it were someone like Square, EA, or Blizzard who were to grow a pair and take the principled stand that they were no longer going to be censored by the bunch of nosy busybodies that are those esrb people; than the results would be different. Denied their Final Fantasy, Madden or World of Warcraft fix, they'd be at the gates of EBgames, and the like, with torches, pitchforks and ropes, and a makeshift gallows. Having had their lynching, they'd promptly flock to whatever retailer didn't give in to the xtian-right goonsquad and buy the games they wanted; accepting no substitutes. Seriously... have you ever met or seen those people?!?!? FF, Madden, and WoW player cosplay as their favorite characters, FFS!!! Those people are stone-cold fanatics!
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
the problem is that ESRB is worse than than the older RSAC system which rated individual types of objectionable content. for example a store could refuse to carry any sex 3 or 4 games while still carrying violence up to 3 and language up to 4
Snowden and Manning are heroes.