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."
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?
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.
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 whole idea of an ESRB is a joke, why should it matter who heads it?
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.
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...
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.
...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/
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.
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...
As far as I see, there is just as much danger for a rating system to be packed with ultra conservative everything is evil, as it is with an ultra liberal where everything is OK.
Now that said, just because you may make morally questionable products, it doesn't mean you think that it should be all rated "e"
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.