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."
GTA5 is rated M. As is GTA4 and GTA3.
If he has some sort of unfair influence, he's obviously not using it...
Wish I could vote you up. The purpose of these organizations are for the industry to SELF-police and self-categorize. It's not supposed to be hostile to the gaming industry, it's a way for them to collaboratively set categories for the benefit of the consumer (and themselves by avoiding media firestorms, but really, having labels is good). The alternative is each publishing house having their own proprietary scale...yeah, that won't be confusing at all. I'm betting Rockstar isn't the only super-violent-game maker to be represented.
Remember way back when ratings were new, and Apogee rushed to cram extra viscera into Rise of the Triad so they could claim the most violent rating? Those were the days.
I've seen an example that works: The Danish film and video game rating system.
It differs from e.g. the US system in a number of ways:
* It's run by an independent government-sponsored organization, not the industry.
* For children not accompanied by an adult, the highest rating is "15 and older".
* Children ages 7 and up can see any movie if accompanied by an adult, no matter the rating.
* The board is charged only with determining if a film could be psychologically damaging to a typical child. They do not judge the "morals" and message of the film.
* The board features actual child development experts. As such, they know that cursing and nudity is not harmful to children, and if that's all the film contains, it will be rated "All audiences".
Example: "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle".
USA (MPAA): 17+ (unless accompanied by an adult) due to "strong language, sexual content, drug use and some crude humor".
Denmark: 7+ recommended (but all ages admitted) due "strange and threatening persons, assaults, fights and accidents [...] all in a comedic context" (a context which could be lost on very young children).
To quote the ratings board:
The Media Council classifies films based on a perspective purely concerning harmfulness. The classification decision shall be made on the basis of an assessment of whether a film is considered harmful for children in that particular age group. When classifying films, we look at film effects, depictions of grievous loss, degree of realism, possibility of identification, inclusion of redemption within the course, genre and the expected media competences of the age group in question.
The Media Council’s view on child protection is that
* Children can manage a good thrill.
* Children are not likely to fall to pieces by the slightest push.
* Children are active users of media and, therefore, already in an early age, they have accumulated both media competencies and experiences.
* Media are good resources in children’s everyday life.
* It is acceptable that films frighten, though, only to a certain limit. The Media Council sets these limits.