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.
On the other hand... what content had to be cut from competing software to "only" get an M rating, while GTA gets away with it?
I strongly recommend watching "This Film is Not Yet Rated"... it applies just as well to the ESRB as it does to the MPAA.
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.
Making sex taboo and withholding information about it is precisely why so many teenagers get knocked-up.
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.
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...