Slashdot Mirror
Why Is the Grand Theft Auto CEO Also Chairman of the ESRB?
donniebaseball23 writes In an editorial at GamesIndustry.biz, Brendan Sinclair asks an important question about the game ratings board in America. Should Strauss Zelnick, the CEO of Take-Two, which owns the Grand Theft Auto franchise and has been at the heart of the ESRB's biggest controversies of the last decade, really be serving as its chairman? "No matter how removed from the day-to-day running of the ESRB Zelnick might be, his current role invites accusations of impropriety," he writes. "It's the sort of thing any critic of the games industry can point to as a clear conflict of interest, and many reasonable outsiders would probably look at that as a valid complaint. At least when titans of industry in the U.S. become the head of the regulatory agencies that oversee their former companies, they actually have to leave those companies."
Over videos of burning and beheading that are occasionally posted to Youtube and Facebook.
Probably for the same reason the people in charge of the MPAA, who rate movies, all work for the big companies in the movie industry?
"age-restricting" content ratings always have existed to selectively restrict competitors or undesired content. MPAA, ESRB, same thing.
Do people actually take the ESRB seriously?
1. The controversy is good for sales. The kids want the taboo stuff.
2. It allows him to set the line for "too extreme" as one step past GTA, meaning that he sells the most taboo title available.
GTA5 is rated M. As is GTA4 and GTA3.
If he has some sort of unfair influence, he's obviously not using it...
The ESRB was created by the game companies so that they wouldn't get government involvement and can set ratings themselves. Of course it's going to be populated by Game company execs.
As I recall, the MPAA rates movies in America...why should the video game industry be considered at fault for having someone who is at the head of their industry be faulted when the movie industry isn't? Aren't people supposed to be encouraging the "self-regulation of the free market" or something like that?
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
"They" put:
-Bankers in charge of banking regulation and the Federal Reserve
-Drug manufacturers in charge of the FDA
-Lawyers in charge of governments
It's a revovling door. How is this any different?
One note is that the ESRB rating is a voluntary rating.
At least insomuch as a publisher/game company will not be fined by the government, though market forces (ie, walmart) may require it, these days.
Near as I can tell, every official "ratings" operation I've ever encountered has been, to paraphrase OWK, a hive of scum and villainy. Almost never do the ratings make sense, they pay absolutely no mind to the actual state of knowledge / interest / sophistication of young people, they routinely ok violence and they pull their virtual lace panties up over their own heads if sex rears its terrifying, world-destroying head... seriously, on the list of people I'd like to bitch slap until my hand hurts, ratings boards are right near the top.
Seriously. Ratings boards. Ugh.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
After seeing the blatant and pointless censorship pushed by the movie industry's version of the ESRB, all I can say is that I hope he does as much damaage as possible.
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
The film industry also handles ratings internally and despite the bullshit brought to light by "this film not yet rated" is still largely doing an acceptable job of it. It's nonsense to take potshots at the gaming industry over this.
Or rather, its nonsense if you take it at face value. Really it's transparently obvious that this is just astroturfing. It's a sad attempt at appearing to care about "ethical" issues betrayed by their utter inability to drop the moralistic, censorious, and authoritarian Jack Thompson 2.0 rhetoric even for long enough to get one good lie out.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
The ESRB isn't a regulatory agency; it has no actual official power whatsoever.
The whole idea of an ESRB is a joke, why should it matter who heads it?
The ESRB is not a regulatory agency. Regardless, video games represent speech and are thus not to be regulated in such a way.
It is somewhat ironic that after successfully heading off conservative "think of the children!" handwaving last century, this century video games are being attacked by the left-wing radicals who for some reason see video games as destroying their view of social justice. Probably because video games are the purist form of meritocracy possible: it all comes down to your skill, judged by an unbiased computer.
Can't have that in a left-wing utopia, so they gotta attack video games from any angle they can. It's getting kind of pathetic by now, to be honest.
Given the choice between a video game corporation executive determined to rubber-stamp violent games a religious zealot hell-bent on pushing their version of "morality", I'll take the former. At least it results in more content being released rather than less.
Not to mention that the ESRB doesn't have any real authority. This isn't like the FCC where media CEOs have the power to dictate real law that actually affects people.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Because fuck you that's why.
Impropriety? Ohh, I'm sorry, I thought this was America.
This is an advertisement not news.
There is no coincidence to this headline, weeks before the launch of GTA V for PC. It motivates the stupid to talk about GTA, and search for it raising its profile. I mean read the fuckin' title:
"Why is the Grand Theft Auto ..." why didn't they say "Why is the Rockstar ..." or whatever the conglomerate is? Specifying the game in the title, to an audience as well targeted as we are is mostly obvious.
Increased awareness == increased revenue.
Rockstar loves controversy because of it...
More importantly is this question: who gives a shit about the ESRB?
The people who are paid to...
Obama was elected President and now he wants to be dictator rather than compromise with the republican congress and get things done. So what harm would Zelnick be, boobies for all!!
This sounds like their m.o. for choosing the "best" candidates to move their agenda forward. Nobody fought ICANN on any of their shitty ideas in the past 5 or more years, why would anyone fight ESRB?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Values change over time. Things once considered socially acceptable become taboo. Try playing Green Day's "Having a Blast" song in an airport and see if the reaction is the same as it would have been in 2000. Things once considered socially unacceptable become commonplace. Some old people are shocked by the language they hear on television, bitch.
Rockstar Games has always had a better understanding than the ESRB where social values pertaining to depictions in video games are concerned. In the past, perhaps a very conservative approach to rating games was called for. Perhaps in the future, there will be things that simply are not done. Consider the recent initiatives to develop ethics for fields related to artificial intelligence.
One of the reasons that we should not object to this man's position on the ESRB is that he will be capable of balancing changes in values since his career in game development began with enough preservation of those older values that we don't see the market alter too much, too quickly. Somebody who only repeats the old mores would not represent us well.
Because we are as much human as past generations, and because life goes on, we must collectively redefine our values now and then. We are self-determining, as individuals and as communities. We are not slaves to those who came before us.
Perhaps there are others who would like to see some values change. In time, as their convictions and passion are tempered by the trials of experience and they find the balance between their vision and the ways our culture is willing to bend, they will have their chance. However, attacking this man or undermining his time only means that when that chance comes, those will not deserve the respect they were unwilling to give.
Except that the ESRB has nothing whatsoever to do with the government.
...so how has he taken advantage, really? Do you think there's a possibility that he personally sabotaged a competitor? Kinda doubt it...
Twinstiq, game news
I don't worry about my kid going on a killing spree and being taken down by the national guard. I _do_ worry about her getting knocked up. That's the difference.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This does not top Bill Clinton appointing Haim Saban (owner of the Power Rangers) the head of a committee on children's TV violence. Haim Saban was, and is, a major financial supporter of the Clintons.
Should sexist developers have their projects censored or removed?
Recently an opensource game release story was removed due to the game developer's open sexism(0) and harrasment(1) of women in tech.
A story posted by the editor of the popular Phoronix linux news site about a release of an Open Source videogame was later manually removed(2). The reason cited was the game developer's unacceptable views on social issues such as gender equality (3).
The release story was titled "Xonotic-Forked ChaosEsqueAnthology Sees New Release - Phoronix" and can be accessed via the google cache(4).
With the recent inclusion of a code of conduct(5) for those wishing to contribute to the Linux Kernel some questions now need to be asked and answered about the inclusion of code from people who are known to engage in or promote socially unacceptable attitudes or harrasments of those whom the free-software movement would prefer to attract in their place:
* Are the social or political views of an author of free software relevant to that software's inherent quality?
* Should the beliefs of an opensource developer weigh when when evaluating whether a piece of opensource software is worthy of any publicity or public notice?
* Should men with unpopular or "forbidden" views be excised from the opensource movement and "not allowed" to contribute, in a manner similar to that which is done in employment?
* Has the free/opensource software movement changed in these respects since its founding? If so is this a positive change?
* Should there be gatekeepers to opensource that decide who may and who may not contribute. Should abusive developers be "blackballed" to maintain proper social order and controls?
and
* What are the consequences of not doing this
Citations:
(0) Past related incident: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1310
(1) http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/...
(2) Removed story URL: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...
(3) http://www.phoronix.com/forums...
"Fortunately, the article has been removed now."
"Thanks everybody for speaking up."
(4) https://webcache.googleusercon...
(5) Linux "Code of Conflict"
......on art/expression is fine by me. Its kind of a joke that we have rating systems for video game content, movies, and television.
Who controls the movie ratings?
who watches the watchmen?
who repairs the watches?
who watches the watch-repair-men repairing the watches?
who repairs the repairmen?
who mans the men?
who mens the man?
who is the man anyhow?
it's time we start asking the questions that matter
Google told me that OWK means Other World Kingdom
but that "a hive of scum and villainy" was a line from Star Wars.
OWK needs to be rated M for Mature (or higher if possible)
Star Wars was only PG. I don't get the link
Thanks for sharing this information. your blog is good and I got so much knowledge.
matrixlabs
Why is there an ESRB?
First, the whole thing is a system where the industry regulates itself. So a game developer or publisher is going to be running this thing.
Second, why is GTA such a big problem here? Are GTA games getting a tame review on the box? Lets look that up... *Actually looks it up* They're rated "M" for mature. So what the fuck is the problem here?
Third, no one cares about these ratings. My parents didn't when I was growing up and anyone that works at a gamestop will tell you that most parents that buy games for their kids don't either. They'll go into the store to buy murderspree 14 and the box will say M and the store clerk will say "this is not for kids" and the parent will say "shut up and take my money".
Forth, this just looks like another whiny article bitching about GTA from people that either don't know anything about gaming or people that are writing FOR people that know nothing about gaming.
This is a stupid article and the author should be embarrassed with themselves.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
LMAO! Do you know anything about gaming and how bad they censor the games? Remember Manhunt? The reason Rockstar stopped making those games is because the ESRB censored the last one, the only way you could get the proper game is by modding your unit.
Whatever conflict of interest may or may not exist at the ESRB (or MPAA for that matter) pales in comparison to the real issue those two organizations continue to perpetuate in the US: showing a little skin, talking about sex, and swearing is a sure way to get you an M or R rating, but gunning people down or beheading them is relatively acceptable behavior.
(FYI I'm not talking about a violent game's ability to influence the behavior of individuals IRL, which I believe is insignificant if it exists at all, I'm only talking about the ESRB/MPAA's messed up moral compass.)
Do Gran Theft Auto V has a rating below Mature? No? there is no controversy, call me when they give it a Teen rating.
Why the fuck are video games being regulated in the first place?
What is wrong with you people?
isn't that how the corruption in America works?
The better solution here is to completely eliminate the ESRB.
Oh, so now game journalists care about ethics! Thanks #gamergate.
Strauss Zelnick and Take-Two DO NOT OWN GTA. Take-Two is Rockstar's publisher. Rockstar owns GTA. But don't let basic research get in the way of a sensationalist click-bait article...
See subject: Your mouth's full of your words you're eating http://slashdot.org/comments.p... after you were fairly called out and RAN. You *really* need to change your diet Dave420! Eating your words != GOOD NUTRITION!
Tell us, how does eating your words taste, flavored with the bitter taste of SELF-defeat, rammed down your throat since your foot's in your mouth?
(Amazing you can still talk your gibberish bullshit, actually, considering your mouth's full, as you "eat your words" (lmao))
See subject: Your mouth's full of your words you're eating http://slashdot.org/comments.p... after you were fairly called out and RAN. You *really* need to change your diet Dave420! Eating your words != GOOD NUTRITION!
Tell us, how does eating your words taste, flavored with the bitter taste of SELF-defeat, rammed down your throat since your foot's in your mouth?
(Amazing you can still talk your gibberish bullshit, actually, considering your mouth's full, as you "eat your words" (lmao))