Slashdot Mirror
ESRB Eyeballing Ratings For iPhone Games
Kotaku reports that the ESRB is thinking about expanding their game ratings to include games sold on the App Store. They realize that evaluating every single game is not feasible, but they may still be underestimating the amount of work they'd be taking on, and it could negatively affect some developers. Quoting:
"'ESRB has seen increases in rating submissions each year since its founding and has always been able to keep pace,' the ESRB's Eliot Mizrachi told us. 'We have rated more than 70 mobile games to date and will undoubtedly rate more in the future as the market grows.' Seventy? Over the past, what, four or five years? It's a piddling number when you think of the hundreds of games available through the App Store. Further, many of them are mobile adjuncts to console releases, a different sort of beast from iPhone games. Not all of those need or deserve a rating; but if Apple brings in the ESRB to rate games, with the idea that it'll help parents control what their kids buy for their iPods, then unrated games are likely to be blocked by such filters. The incentive would definitely be there to get a game rated. And what of the cost? Getting a game rated isn't a free service; the ESRB levies a fee that covers the cost of looking through the code and rating the game."
When you submit an app to the App Store, you already have to select various categories your app falls into (e.g. you might select realistic violence: frequent/intense), which result in a rating that is a direct analogue of ESRB ratings (Apple publishes a table showing the equivalents). iPhone OS 3.0 will make use of these ratings so a parent can lock out content they think is inappropriate from their children's phones. Apple have shown themselves more than willing to lay down the law to app developers, so why would the ESRB need to get involved?
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
is a cowboyneal review board to certify the fart apps.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I don't buy or play games based on their ESRB rating. I do not judge games or content for my children based on the ohsosubjective ratings process. These guys provide no value-add, just seems to be a money catch.
... I'm an adult, a participating parent, and I prefer to allow my children to experience and ask questions rather than become numb little fat kids with Nicktoons as a babysitter and therefore do not need your assistance in choosing appropriate content for my children.
Oh, MPAA, you can lose your ratings as well
...I'd use TIGRS rather than ESRB.
Circumcision is child abuse.
ESRB should forget about the iPhone and start rating desktop applications. I'd like to know if it's acceptable to let teenagers play with NURBS in 3DS Max
It's a "Keep the politicians the fuck out," action. The reason that the MPAA started rating movies was because there were grumbles that maybe the government should start doing it. Well you can ask our Aussie friends how much they like a government run system. So instead the movie industry set up a voluntary ratings system. It is completely voluntary, and if you sniff around you find there are plenty of films not submitted for ratings. However most do get submitted and rated. Thus they can say "No need for a government ratings system, we take care of it ourselves."
Was the same logic with the ESA and ESRB. They are trying to keep congress the fuck away from game ratings because they know that'll be a huge shit storm. Instead there is a voluntary ratings system that most companies use. It isn't required, looking at Impulse right now there's a couple of new indy games on there that aren't ESRB rated, whereas the big name games are. Also it isn't the only one out there. PEGI is a European equivalent. Many games are rated by both, however I've encountered US titles that were PEGI rated rather than ESRB, Civ 4 comes to mind.
So that's the idea. It isn't that the ESA is trying to extort money, it is that they are trying to protect their market from politics. They want game makers to be able to develop games without having a congressionally appointed committee saying "Nope, that's not ok, you can't do that." They do charge for the service, but it makes sense since yes, it DOES take time and effort for people to go through a game and rate it.
It's good that you don't use ratings as a "This is ok," guide for your children, however that doesn't mean that the whole ratings process is worthless. It is more about CYA than anything else. Also, ESRB ratings are pretty good. While they are subjective, all ratings will always be, they give specific reasons for a rating on the box. On the front there is the letter that lets you know what the rating is, but on the back there is a larger explanatory panel. For example Prototype is a new game rated M. The reasons listed are Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language. Sacred 2 is also rated M, it's reasons are Blood and Gore and Violence. Now that sort of thing is helpful, though the ratings are the same, the reasons are a bit different. Suppose you are ok with violence, but not swearing (ok so that's stupid, but just suppose) then maybe you decide that Sacred 2 is a game that you can consider.
So really, I'm happy with ESRB ratings. I don't use them to make any kind of buying decision, I don't have kids, but I like that it is working to keep politics out of game rating. Otherwise, it'll just be a huge problem.
For example they might find a crafty way to try and get around the first amendment. So they pass a law saying all games must be rated by the Government Ratings Board to be allowed to be sold. They aren't restricting your expression, just saying that if you want to sell the games they have to be rated. However they decide they want to ban what are now M rated games. So what they do is set up ratings for lower games, but then keep disagreeing on what goes in the highest rating. So you submit a game, and it gets shot down, they won't rate it because they don't have the rating for it. You claim free speech and they say "We aren't restricting your speech, you are free to make the game, you just can't sell it right now since we don't have a metric for how to rate it." Net effect? Game is banned and such a law might survive a court challenge.
So let's keep the voluntary ratings thing going here. Give the government as few reasons as possible to get involved in regulating games.
This is to protect all those young, impressionable minds out there that can afford a $400 phone and $100 a month for 3G service! Seriously, if a kid has one of these, he has more important things to worry about than "mature" elements in the games. Like getting mugged for this very expensive piece of hardware for instance. Won't somebody think of the children, and not load them up with this expensive shit that is just an invitation for them to get jacked?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I think the usual thing is that publishers send them footage of the 'worst' stuff in their game and the base the rating on that.
It's changed a bit since the whole "Hot Coffee" thing, but for most of the existence of the ESRB, you basically rated your own game, sent them a tape with some stuff from the game, and then they rubber stamped it in exchange for your cash. It's pretty stupid, really.
Be involved with your kids and actually take a look at what they're playing/downloading and act accordingly. Take it upon yourself to rate their games/apps.
So what, you think they just tell the government "Hey, you are never allowed to regulate us," and the government says "Ok,"? Wow, I had no idea it works that way! You really should go let the hedge fund managers know, the government is currently piling tons of new regulations on that which they don't like. If only they knew all they had to do was tell the government to stay out and they will! ...
Ya, sorry, doesn't work that way. The government has the authority to regulate basically anything they like. More to the point, they will start regulating something if people demand it, and you know there are all sorts of "parents" groups that would cry about the evils of unrated videogames. Thus a preemptive strike, self rating, is teh way to maintain independence.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, probably the best reason is this: Why should Apple get a free ride on its games? The PSP and DS need their games rated, and the iPhone is being pushed as a viable gaming platform, with an install base reaching the PSP's. If Apple's platform is outside the established ratings, and becomes very much popular, the voluntary ratings system falls apart. The ESRB is administered by the industry, which is preferable to a governmental agency doing so, and remember, the government over the years has said that if movies or video games didn't handle it themselves, they would.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
The ESRB is non-profit. You can't exactly make a cash-grab if you're a non-profit entity.
Holy crap are you ignorant about non-profits. Non profit is code for "not taxed" and as a result they are HUGE businesses with lots of money flowing through them.
The ESRB is no different, the money flows from the game industry.
Anyone who says this is a cash grab is obviously just knee-jerk anti-regulatory.
Better than being a regulatory jerk.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Can I quickly ask what the fuck an 11 year old is doing with an iPod? Or any device that REQUIRES him to start charging items to your credit card?
Are you people smoking crack?