ESRB's Spanking of Dark Sector & Darkness Trailers is Nothing New
ESRB's Spanking of Dark Sector & Darkness Trailers is Nothing New
June 26, 2007
An ESRB directive to withdraw online trailers for a pair of upcoming games caused a bit of a stir yesterday, but such action by the video game industry's rating board is not without precedent.GameDaily, for example, initially reported:
In a significant move that would seem to indicate that the [ESRB] is now rating publishers' trailers for video games, GameDaily BIZ received warnings from two separate companies today stating that their trailers were found to be inappropriate.
The trailers in question were for D3's Dark Sector and 2K Game's The Darkness (left). As GDB subsequently reported, ESRB president Patricia Vance issued a statement later in the day clarifying:
The ESRB's Advertising Review Council (ARC) regularly monitors game ads and trailers to make sure that they adhere to industry-adopted Principles and Guidelines for Responsible Advertising Practices, which were established in 2000. Since 2005, ARC guidelines have required that trailers for M-rated games on publisher websites be displayed behind an age gate to help restrict viewing to those visitors who are 17 and older...
However, the mere presence of an age gate does not permit a publisher to simply put whatever content it wishes into the trailer. All trailers must still conform to ARC's Principles and Guidelines, which prohibit the display of excessively violent content or any content likely to cause serious offense to the average consumer.
While we haven't heard much about ESRB enforcement of trailers recently, it has happened in the past. As GamePolitics reported in August, 2005, an obscure RPG from Atlus, Samurai Western, provoked a similar response from the ESRB.
What's more, a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report issued in April of this year criticized the game industry for excessive violence in its web-based marketing practices, which may in part have triggered additional watchfulness from the ESRB. From the FTC document:
Entertainment industries continue to market some R-rated movies, M-rated video games, and explicit-content recordings on television shows and Web sites with substantial teen audiences.
Whether the timing of the ESRB's move is related to publicity over last week's Manhunt 2 controversy or represents a more generalized crackdown is not known.
Comments
How is the ESRB, “In deep,” over Manhunt 2?
Quite simply, they very publicly did something to a game that was a very unpopular decision among a few factions (like those of us who give a damn about Manhunt 2). That animosity will go away like it did toward EA over Thrill Kill, but it won't go away overnight.
If you think that there's some overarching "conspiracy" to keep games "down" by some sort of "man" then you're indulging in juvenile fantasies.
@ angry man: If you're interested in truth in advertising you should change your name to "whiny kid."
@ SinistarX: This is similar to the Comics Code? What? Are you high? Everything you said is dumb.
Yes, using the ESRB is optional and yes not taking that option is limiting for a developer because MS, Sony and Nintendo chose to require a rating on games played on their systems. Do you suggest requiring them to let anything work on their systems? Freedom goes both ways.
In your fictional, absurd example you cite a game that is so gory and so full of violence that you cannot edit together a thirty second clip without showing gratuitous, offensive gore? What? First of all, history - the history that so very many of you have gleefully ignored - has shown that games will be rated AO for violence and that developers are willing to modify the games for release. Second, any developer making such a depraved gore-fest would be well aware that there's no way in hell that the ESRB would rate their game anything other then AO so they couldn't sell it anyway.
If I made hard core porn and asked Disney to show it at the Magic Kingdom I can't get all pissed off when they say "no."
"Perhaps nobody here remembers that politicians wanted to both criminalize the sale of such music to minors or ban its sale altogether? Sound familiar?" Yeah, it sounds much like all the attempts to criminalize the sale of video games to minors! Holy crap...
They weren't successful in banning music and they won't be successful in banning games. In fact, games are one better then music because we can release games without any warnings altogether! Yes, that's right! As you have mentioned so many times you can release games electronically with no ESRB rating! You can have whatever content your depraved little heart desires!
If you want to release an artistic, creative game that pushes many and varied envelopes then you can. You can create it, you can market it and you can sell it. You can sell it online, you can sell it in retail stores, you can walk around the street with a big sign that says, "Video game for sale!" and sell it to passers-by. You know where you can't sell it, though? You can't sell it in a store that doesn't want to sell it! Also, you can't sell it for a system who's company doesn't want it to play on their system!
If you want to make money, though, then you're going to jump through the hoops. Do you want to make money and be artistic? Well then you better be very smart and very creative because that's a hard thing to do.
The problem is, they are proving us right, and a lot of government is far too ignorant about computer games to not fall for it.
You made an interesting point until - "If the ESRB did this to Halo 3, the wrath of the internet would burn brighter than the sun."
OH NOES! Teh wrathzor of the inturwebs! LOL, you fail.
Seriously though:
So it's somehow totally the ESRB's 'fault' that it assigns a rating, in all fairness a deserved one, that becomes self-censorship because 2 of the big 3 (most likely all 3) won't liscence a game that was duly rated by their own industry's ratings board? And because (almost) no retailer will sell it because of that rating? There are four culpable parties here:
Take-Two: They made this game, knowing full well it's little more than an interactive horror/slasher fest, pushing the limits just to see if they can. They do this with almost every release. Free Speech and all, so more power to them, but just because they have the right to make said speech doesn't mean anyone has to sell, liscence, or approve of it. And they really don't care too much about their precious Speech, agreeing to dumb it down without much of a kerfluffle. That being said ...
Retailers: Video games are NOT just for children. The AO rating is NOT just for porn. Get some constitution and sell them, much like you sell Unrated Saw II or Hostel. (Wal-Mart, I'm looking at you, family-friendly, my ass)
Nintendo, Sony (and likely MS): No AO titles are even allowed a liscence on your system. Wow, so even your adult customers (Sony - you have the market share here, and Ninty - you've been courting us) can't play whatever games they want - including the porn titles. Sad, really, that ADULT customers cannot play 'Adult's Only' titles on your supposedly ADULT system. (This is really the most damning problem, because there are ways around the big box retailers)
ESRB - You rated only porn games AO for so long, and that started this anti-AO stigma. You've allowed your ratings to slide too quickly, giving many titles an M that really only needed a T, thereby tightening the AO line into unusability. Hire gamer parents and give GamerDad a bigger voice.
Gamers: Yes, us. Settle down. 'Dumbing' Manhunt 2 down isn't the end of the world, and if TTWO's response to this is any indication, they either planned this for publicity (historically their MO), or had this contingency planned out already. Let's take a deep breath. Now, I understand our frustration, it seems everyone involved is looking out for themselves and overlooking what we want. But let's not single out any one of these parties for our ire - they all deserve some portion of it.
Well Im sure you would do a much better job of running it then.
"Voluntary" is a very ambiguous term. If any developer/publisher wants to actually sell their game in a physical store, the ESRB rating is NOT voluntary.
So, some group creates content full of gore. They then hand it to the ESRB who returns it with a rating that hopefully isn't AO since those games won't be sold and won't be supported by console manufacturers on consoles that have implemented parental controls (unless it's a really popular game, in which case nobody will grouse).
Said group says to themselves, "Hey, why don't we let people see some of the content of this game in advance to drum up support?" They put a trailer on the internet that accurately depicts the content of their game. The ESRB then says, "No. We don't like your trailer. It's too violent, even though it accurately depicts the game we've already rated and returned to you. Pull it from *all sites*."
Well, that group can't possibly get as many sales doing purely electronic distribution and it needs the ESRB mark if it is going to be put in big box stores, so... they capitulate and tell everybody who has received the trailer to pull it from the net.
No offense, ESRB apologists, but this is what we call industry self-censorship. It's not much different than the Comics Code Authority. You'd be hard pressed to find somebody in the comics industry today that thought the CCA was a good thing. The MPAA has similar trappings for theatrically displayed films and trailers, but the studios have been liberally applying the "unrated" status as a marketing ploy but are at least still able to sell unrated content in stores.
Game publishers must either sell 100% online to avoid ESRB control or must bend to the whims and rules of the ESRB in order to get games on the shelf.
As a result, the ESRB is a nice little gateway through which all games must pass. If the ESRB decides a game is suitable for adults only, that game will either require changes (effectively, censorship) or won't be sold at retail at all.
Initially, I was a big fan of the ESRB. I thought it had a great mission and was helping win the PR battle. More and more, though, I'm realizing that the existence of the ESRB comes at a very high cost - it is limiting freedom of expression in games through branding.
When the Parental Advisory sticker was being argued before committee, Hilary Rosen made an excellent point by saying that labeling creative output serves only to provide an easy means of censorship (economic or otherwise). That's why music doesn't have the detailed content descriptors of the ESRB, with the exception of Sony BMG, who have chosen themselves to add their own descriptors. Perhaps nobody here remembers that politicians wanted to both criminalize the sale of such music to minors or ban its sale altogether? Sound familiar?
Part of the problem here is that nobody gives a damn about the games affected by this latest ESRB pull. If the ESRB did this to Halo 3, the wrath of the internet would burn brighter than the sun.
The 'red band' trailers are for 'restricted audiences only,' and as such are similar to the age-gate online. And, the 'red band' isn't carte blanche to put whatever the movie producers wants into it.
Sorry, son, take your anger down a notch, or put it to intelligent use.
The ESRB could do it, but it's run by pussies who are more interested in licking watchdog cock.
What needs to happen is a change of policy in these retailers to carry M and AO rated games. AO might be stretching it as this also includes sex games, but obviously the Wal-Mart buyers could tell a difference between a sex game and a game that was rated AO for violence. (Of course, this is Wal-Mart we are talking about.)
Mostly as I see it, Mature games shouldn't be held back from sale from retailers. AO games are usually much more extreme, as Mature games can get by with a lot.
If more retailers embraced Mature games (and profits too!) then we wouldn't be so up in arms about ratings.
Like someone said before me, would you allow your kid to watch a rated "R" movie? Would you allow your kid to smoke underage? Once you allow your children to use products not intended for their age group you place the responsibility on you, not the gaming industry, for any ill effects.
We will end up getting to a point when all video games will be crappy, cute, cookie cutter versions of their former selves. I for one will not stand by much longer and watch them debate this when there are more obvious issues that need to be tended to.
The problem lies, as usual, with the knee jerk reactionary crowd who believe that legislation is the way, not parental supervision, to prevent children viewing video featuring violence/sex/language.
There are literally hundreds of Net Nanny style software packages (some obviously better than others) and if worse comes to absolute worse, go sit with your child as they browse the web. There are millions of gamers that were teens in the 80's and 90's and are now well and truly adult consumers who do not need a bunch of do gooders sanitising every aspect of our lives.
Rate the games, rate the trailers but please stop making out that because something is AO that there will be no market for it...
That it?
its good there are not a lot of incidents of this on the other hand could caulk it up to to the times....
Out of curiosity did the Samuri western trailer incident happen befor or after HOT COFFEE?
Difficult to say here, I live in a country that frequently alters movies and films, for various reasons.
Let me give you an example that will make you laugh.
When The Thing was released for TV, they didn't edit the Video in the slightest, you had people being ripped limb from limb, you had a dog's head splitting into two halves etc. However, the ONE scene in the film where someone used the 'F' word was bleeped out.
I suppose trailers are supposed to be universal, but also target their main audience, so it can be hard to find a balance, but not having seen the trailers, I really couldn't say.
Well informed or not this feels like a clamping down on how they operate and that is not a good thing.
I guess by making both side unhappy (ill informed gamers and ill informed haters) they can keep some form of balance going I just see it as they are off balance and scrabbling to protect whats left of their "rep"...
I understand that video game trailers are voluntarily regulated whereas pornography is legally regulated by obscenity laws, I didn't make the distinction I only said regulated and I only meant in this specific instance of accessibility.
@The other various people that all made somewhat similar points
I guess I really wasn't all that clear, I am simply saying that the internet should be the one place where a person (or video game producer) is able to put up basically any bit of content they would like to, so that knowledgeable adults could access it. I never meant to imply that pornography has more freedom than video games. I was trying to articulate that my major problem with this incident is that it has taken place online, whereas if the ESRB asked them to pull a particular ad from television advertising I would have no problem with it. I was using pornography as an example simply because there's a situation where you have depraved images and videos freely available to anyone who wishes to access them. I would same problem if the MPAA did this to a movie trailer online, which I am sure they have done on various occasions.
The ESRB and the MPAA both have have guidelines on how there symbols can be used. This is just the guidelines being enforced. Online, in print, on TV its there choice. If they had put the trailer out without and RP or just before it was rated it would be fine. They put it out after with a rating once they were under the authority of the ESRB, who can and will control the usage of their trademarked ratings symbols.
I believe this is the first time a trailer has been pulled in awhile, if ever..
do find me some other trailers that have been pulled to show they have been keeping up on this.
the beheading wasnt about free speach, it was about what u can find on the internet. Sure we can regulate what video games children see but there are worst and how are u going to regulate that? parental blockers? not all of us know how to make white lists. And even though parental blockers return false positives how about the ones they missed? Or how about content not created by the websites such as the newgrounds stance with VT massacre game? Going to block all of newgrounds over one game?
what could be occurring is that instead of the government censoring, they are having the corporations / industry to do it, or the groups that regulate the industry. So instead of saying its prohibiting freedom of speech, its more of a corporate / industry policy instead.
"they" as people who post such content on the net
"At best they are late on enforcing a rule they made years ago."
Which rule is that? The one about trailer content? As this article points out, it has been enforced before. GP has even covered it before. Just because you haven't heard of it happening until now doesn't mean it's never happened.
I swear to God, you are both the least coherent and least informed person who comments here.
I was not saying that the majority of gamers are against the ESRB, but we sure do get a lot of them on this site. These same gamers only show up when the ESRB are doing thier job. When the government or anti-game organizations are complaining about the ESRB these people are nowhere around.
I think that the ESRB is doing great. They have improved tremendously over the last few years. They are gaining mainstream support from politicians and others. They still have a long way to go, but it will happen.
But it may take longer if more gamers express some of the opinions posted in this article and on those involving Manhunt 2's AO rating. These are the people that will cause the most trouble for the ESRB's standing.
A few of them Know Lieberman.
Many younger gamers have the whole "ESRB is the man" attitude so of course they hate the ESRB.
In part the ESRB is the man but only when they let them selfs be swayed by poli winds and the glare of the scapegoat light....
I just hope they and the industry can start begin mature abotu "AO" games and let them in in a restrictive manor, this pseudo ban thing is getting old.
Credit cards. You technically have to be 18 unless you have an adult cosigner. At that point you have assumed consent because of the fact an adult is party to all purchases even if they don't look at the money spent.
Stores can stop selling games to kids because you need to use a credit card to make a purchase. That's really the only way to ensure that someone is an adult - their credit and buying power.
In that case it's their parent's fault for letting the kids use their credit card unsupervised.
If you wanted to keep age restricted material really restricted then you should tie those gates to credit card info - but that's something that I would be so very strongly against.
@ F**ked up
Which bogyman is your "they?"
"whatever happen to the internet being the ultimate free speech platform?"
When corporations figured out they could make more moeny from censorship to gain entry into overtly restrictive population.
At worst I see this as ramping up efforts to try and show the spotlight its not "bad".
At best they are late on enforcing a rule they made years ago.
In any case I worry about the sudden rounding up on things....
Age rating for net stores do not work either so lets stop net stores from selling games to kids, but I guess one is more reasonable,its sad it took the spotlight burning them for them to step up and be vocal about it now that hurts the most,hopefully with the spotlight shining down they we re double there efforts to correctly rate stuff I have a feelign from rounding down they are rounding up.
I guess no matter what I think, the ESRB is in a lose lose position I am just not liking the new "more active" ESRB yet....
What are you talking about? The Government can't do Jack shit to the ESRB. The ESRB can't censor anyone he doesn't allow them to in the first place.
As for blockers, well thats why you make a white list.
AS for the shock sites, yes they show the beheadings, including the blood the and the screams of pain. They don't do that because its free speech. They do it for page views, shock value, and some strange fascination with the pain and suffering of others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-Zo1hZffiY
No that won't happen, you are hyperbolizing this issue. Most gamers want to maintain the status quo, which has worked for years.
and as a side note... Parental blocker for the internet dont work very well. Majority of them return false positives and end up blocking many sites. but were talking video games not porn.
hell they showed the clips of terrorist beheading people on the internet and well the news is most violent program around and it deal with real life, not fantasy.
whatever happen to the internet being the ultimate free speech platform?
All teenagers want to do is be adults. Learning how to be an adult is the whole point of teenage years. Is an age gate going to stop anyone from viewing inappropriate materials? Do you honestly think someone who's under the required age is going to look at the age gate and think, "aw nuts, I'm too young. I'm going to bookmark this page, though, and next year I'm going to watch the heck out of that trailer!" Of course not. Age gates on websites don't work.
The game is M rated and I guarantee that you'll get access to everything that's in the trailer and more if you buy the game.
And why shouldn't it be done to appease the anti-game crowd? There are some battles that we shouldn't fight. They want game trailers to be PG-13 rated, just like movie trailers? Fine. They want all games to be PG-13 rated? Hell no.
Why waste energy on a pointless battle like the dubious "right" to have more violent advertisements?
@InsidiousMrMoo
You may be right that it's related to the Manhunt 2 fallout, or it could be entirely coincidental. For me the evidence isn't too strong either way.
If I had to conjecture as to the reasoning behind their stated reason, I would say that it's because they want to be able to show that they are actively enforcing the stated standards when the next big round of court battles and legislation comes along.
The next time a lawyer looking for cash to buy a two-foot longer yacht takes the ESRB to court or a politician looking to squeeze his electorate for just a few more votes in order to remain relevant decides to suggest government regulation on games the ESRB wants to have ammunition. They want to go into those situations with a long list of examples that prove that they have been a responsible organization, that the games industry has been a responsible industry and that individual companies have (by and large) been responsible companies. They want to say with confidence that the actions being taken are in accordance with the precedent set by the MPAA and that any regulation governing video games is the first step on a slippery slope that will lead to regulation on all media.
why not,my meaning is its a M rated game thus havign a M rated trailer behind a M rated level on the site should not be dismissed and edited for the sake of appeasing the anti game crowed.
I am not disagreeing with that statement at all, I don't think releasing the most violent content for all to see would be a good idea, I just don't see the reasoning behind the removal of these particular trailers, they seemed pretty average as to what we have already out and about, I mean were they not behind the age gate thing?
Like I said before I think this has alot to do with the fallout from the Manhunt 2 thing, which I don't disagree with having not seen the content myself.
"R" rated movie trailers are "watered down" to "PG-13" levels all the time. It's not being done because the "scapegoat spotlight is on gaming," it's being done to make games more in line with movies and other media content.
Do some research and think about it for a few minutes.
the main reason its overboard is because the scapegoat spotlight is on gaming,its rather silly to water down a M game trailer to a PG13 level just to deflect the anti game horde to something else...I guess this is where fan ran sites will come into play,let the suing and take down notices begin!
That you can find porn or whatever online easily is not a defense for content that you have control over. I can cheat on my girlfriend - people cheat on their girlfriends all the time - but I'm not going to because it's not right.
Yes, parents should know what their kids are doing and be responsible and all that, of course, and you're right when you suggest that too many of them refuse to do that. At the same time, though, the ESRB and whoever has every right to release and edit whatever they choose.
I'm trying not to read into this, but you seem to be implying that they should be compelled to release the most violent or potentially offensive material that they have because adults might want to view it. That's as bad as saying that they shouldn't release something.
They can release whatever they want. That they are regulating the content in marketing material is just them being a responsible organization in the current cultural climate.
Who knows, maybe a decade from now no one will care if there's extremely violent content on TV and trailers can show whatever they like without causing a furor. That's not the case now, though.
I understand the children not seeing it, but I mean it is the net, a simple typing error in your search can bring up a porn site.
My biggest gripe is that parents should know what their kids are doing, but we have people now who want someone else to do the work for them, and when it doesn't work they want someone to blame, which is why I am sure the ESRB is acting as it is.
It is just one huge vicious circle, everyone wants to pass the blame, but no one wants to accept it.
They are not blocking the ads. They are saying that they need to be edited, because the internet is a place where anyone who knows anything can find anything. They want to make sure that he twelve year olds on Gamespot are not viewing content that is for 17 year olds. The ads and trailers for the games can remain, they just need to be edited for those purposes.
I can understand that, it just seems a tad overboard.
I think they fairly rated Manhunt and I have no problem with that (I think it was a marketing ploy anyway) but to sit here now and tell people what they can and can't see is a little crazy.
I am soon to be a Dad myself and I know what my child will see and shouldn't see, I really don't need someone else to tell me how I need to raise my kid.
I also see people here talking about the industry self regulating, well I say that Is fine and dandy but the real self regulations should begin with us, I mean really we ultimately should have the right to decide what comes in and out of our homes.
Whew I ranted enough I am done now :).
InsidiousMrMoo
in part thats what they are doing but they are also tryign to keep the anti game flaming down I think they need to understand the net is a bit more "free" than other ad spots.
Legally you're not being told what is offensive. Offensive speech is protected - you can offend whoever you want just as they can offend you to their heart's content.
The ESRB and the game's publisher are doing a wide release of marketing materials on a medium that is used freely by nearly every segment of the population. They are just working to ensure that the materials they release are appropriate according to contemporary community standards.
You can view whatever the hell you want, but they can and do control what they create and what they release.
I'm sure that if they aired the trailers on a cable network after the watershed hour then everything would be fine because they could say with complete validity, "children are not watching TV at this time and if they are then it's the parents' responsibility to be aware of the watershed hour and ensuing content."
I am all for the self regulation but I have viewed the trailers before and have not seen anything that I haven't seen in previous games.
I guess the real point is these have been out for awhile and just now the ESRB is deciding that there is a problem?
I just find it silly that we adults or the Mature crowd are not able to view the trailers because they have deemed it offensive for us, now that is really what I have a problem with, being told what is offensive for me.
There are more laws on the porn industry than on the games industry. Frankly the porn industry does just enough to stay legal.
The ESRB is trying to maintain the image of the industry by enforcing a set of guidelines that the industry agrees to.
We have to hold ourselves to a higher standard then movies and a much higher standard then porn. They do do the same thing with movies, though.
It doesn't matter the people can find obscenity-laced tirades in other blogs - I won't put one in mine. Why? That's the standard I hole myself to. I don't care that little Timmy can find hardcore man on girl on horse on man on donkey on midget on Santa on cowbell action by following a few links because that doesn't change the fact that we need to have standards for officially released trailers.
When people come out and say, "Video games are the devil! You market death and sex and nipples to children!" I want to be able to say, with complete conviction and knowledge that the industry is behind me, "No we do not." When the same people try to throw psuedoscientific studies at me or quote biased statistics (or misquote valid statistics) I want to be able to point to a long list of evidence and say "respectfully, but you're wrong."
The last thing I want is that person to drag out a trailer for Super Blood Guy and say, "See!!!! It's the evil and it's going to make little Timmy kill!!"
You know how the MPAA puts those little messages atthe beginning of movie trailers that say, “This trailer has been approved for viewing for all audiences.” (or something like that) T
That's the first thing I thought of. Ads that are exposed to general audiences need to be toned down for everyone. In general, I've noticed video games have taken a rather safe road with trailer ads. I know plenty of commercials that open with "this game is rated ___ for ____."
OK ENOUGH WITH THE WINKING! JEEZ!
Which would you prefer, an industry-input driven set of guidelines and a voluntary contract to obey those guidelines, or a "Jack Thompson" driven lawbook with jailtime for those who violate it?
Self regulation is good.
"We will be alright with the lead-time you are quoting. If the order is entered this week we will be around 3-1/2 weeks."
!!!
NO. Pornography is covered under obscenity statutes and are backed the force of law. Video games (and their trailers) are voluntarily rated (for now ...)
"In other words, there are more regulations being placed on video games than pornography."
!!!
NO. Pornography is covered under obscenity statutes and are backed the force of law. Video games (and their trailers) are voluntarily rated (for now …)
Not just the trailer, the MPAA made them pull print ads for Captivity, too. In fact, the MPAA requires pre-approval of all marketing materials, and had explicitly rejected the ads in question. As a punishment, they delayed rating the film and made them miss their intended release date.
You and Zach are right though, in the last week I've seen a lot of people around here completely lose perspective. You need to wake up people, like every other industry there are only two options: self regulation or governmental regulation. If we want governments to stop attacking us, we need to prove we can both look after ourselves and the best interests of the community at large. That's exactly what the ESRB is doing. They're not saying "don't make the game" or "don't sell the game". They're saying "guys, you might be going a bit overboard, you need to reign it in a bit there". Everybody needs a friend who will say that to you, from time to time. The ESRB is that friend to the game industry.
You got me there :)
Two people are arguing and gesturing wildly, their voices raised and spittle flying from their mouths. They're both very passionate.
Two people are arguing and only one of them is gesturing wildly, his voice raised and spittle flying from his mouth. The other person is quietly considering what is being said and attempting to respond reasonably, but his interlocutor won't let him. Only one of them is crazy.
They were letting the child watch the travesty that is G4?
Call child services. Those parents must be stopped.
To the people who say that this is "different then movies," the same thing just happened with that new Elisha Cuthbert (she's a hottie) movie trailer. The MPAA said, "Bad trailer! Too violent!" and the movie's studio pulled it.
Right now we don't have to worry about first amendment issues, those are taken care of. Games have been shown time and time again to be protected speech. What we do have to worry about is the way games are marketed or, more precisely, the way they're perceived as being marketed.
If Jane and John Parent go out and buy little Timmy an "M" rated game then we need to ensure that the rating was clearly marked and that the store selling the game acts responsibly. Studies have shown that that's what's happening so people who say otherwise are just ignorant zealots.
If Jane and John Parent are sitting with little Timmy while he's watching G4, though, and a trailer for Super Blood Guy comes on that features gross dismemberment and horrific violence then they're going to, and have a right to, complain and look towards taking action. Regulation of marketing is not protected and time and again we've seen marketing materials facing legislation.
To stop that from happening we need to self regulate. That way if something slips by that offends Jane and John Parent then the ESRB and the games community can at least say, "Hey, we've got a proven track record of stopping this stuff. Sorry that this one slipped by. We'll pay a fine and try harder." No one can argue with that.
This is EXACTLY the same as the MPAA asking that movie trailers be rated for a "General Audience." So, yeah, in deep, for sure. Really deep into a giant tub of totally warranted.
The ESRB rates games and trailers. They also oversee advertising of the games they rate. They do not control distribution of the game. That is the publishers, retailers and the console manufacturers responsibility.
When I say that the gamers will be the death of the ESRB I am looking at the responses from people here after Manhunt 2 recieved an AO rating and now this. The ESRB is doing their job and gamers don't like it. Not all gamers feel this way but those that do are putting a stronger vote of no confidence in the ESRB than the anti-game fanatics and politicians. This infighting could deal a dethly blow to the ground that the ESRB has gained in recent months.
Let's explain this in another way. After the American Revolution, the US was established and started to thrive. This is symbolic of what is going on now. We are fledgling industry just starting to be recognized and thrive.
After a hundred years or so, the US started to fight amongst themselves over policy and rights of the people. This spawned the Civil War. Now we know how the Civil War ended and we came out alright. But let's look at an alternate reality where a strong foreign nation saw the infighting going on and decided to use that to their advantage and invade the US. The odds would be strongly against such a divided nation.
As an industry we have not yet reached the state of civil war, but it grows more likely with every post of gamers crying out "Unfair! Censorship!" It will be such a time when the government supported by anti-game fanatics will swoop in with their more organized efforts and assume control.
I am not saying this will happen. Nor am I saying that a game industry wide civil war will break out. What I am saying is that the infighting of the gamer vs the industry would cause greater harm then an all out invasion of an outside organization. We have already proven too strong for such an attack, but if we do start to infight to the level of civil war we would not be strong enough to fend off the attacks.
You're already in deep over Manhunt 2. Don't push it.
Love,
Dave
I'm going to assume you know that anarchy =/= chaos.
How so? The only governing body on videogame sales should be the consumer. I'm for the ESRB rating games, period. I'm against them saying who should be able to buy a game and who can't.
Yes, maybe it isn't right, but I guess when you have voluntary standards that if memory serves, were formed with the input of the industry.
I believe the establishment and the usage of well developed and well thought out practices will only improve the image of the industry. We can scream art all fucking day, but when it comes right down to it games are a fucking business, art used to make a profit. A well run and well managed business can actually help make games better, I'm sure someone will disagree with me on that point but what the hell.
The ESRB is metaphorically circling the wagons. The only thing they really can do besides drop leaflets. The ESA and the ECA are the ones who should be doing the offensive stuff, but no instead the ESA waits for a fucking panzer division to break through the lines, then runs to push it back out.
The ESRB is doing its best to protect the industry by using t he only tools at there disposal. It exsists for one reason, and one reason only. To rate games, it doesn't want to be replaced and it doesn't want to be useless.
As for the obvious equal protection under law. Yeah, its fucking great isn't it? The government can't really do jack shit about games, but that doesn't stop the public from ignoring movies and putting games under the microscope. Sure, it doesn't seem fair, or rational for that matter. Who the fuck said the world is fair or rational? Jesus shit, I lost the expectation of things being fair when I was what, 5? It has been a long damn time since I expected people to be rational about things too.
To all the "Push the limits as hard as possible" people. "Great everyone grab some art and CHARGE!!!!!!!!" right into the the political meat grinder. Whoops, we look like asses and hurt the industry. You Blitz when you can, other wise you move forward bit by bit. Hop forward, cover the other guys as they hop. "They are taking our rights bit by bit." Yeah? Glad you noticed, instead of bitching do what they do and take your rights back bit by bit. Guess what it fucking works for us too.
/rant
In a perfect world perhaps this would be unacceptable and I'd think it sucks. But it's far from perfect, especially for the VG industry. Right now it's not a question of censorship or no censorship; it's a question of choosing the censors. Given that that's the case, I'd rather it be the ESRB than the government - and yes, if the ESRB didn't do things like this it might have been dismantled and taken over by the government by now for all we know. So before you all bash the ESRB's actions, think about what the alternative is - because despite what you think the alternative is not a world free of restrictions such as these.
http://www.gamepoliticsforums.com/showthread.php?p=43777&posted=1#post43...
I also emailed GP over this last night altho he probably already knew about it, zippy rarely finds anything before the press dose *L*
I have come to realize the disturbing truth that it will be the gamers themselves that destroy it.
There are too many people who play games that wish for complete anarchy in game distribution. Let me tell you that anarchy will do no good. Without some form of control, then everything will fall apart and the game industry will fall.
Enjoy your games for as long as they last.
Even the youngest of kids understands that "Master Code" is a sort of "Cheat Code".
Nightwng2000
NW2K software
That little M in the corner just doesn't give a good enough indication of how graphic the game is. This is a serious disservice to parents who actually bother to research game content.
No one here is arguing whether or not this is legal, of course it is, it's a voluntary contract, blah blah blah. We get it, the argument however is that it isn't right. That this clause of the contract is stupid, that if I'm 17 years old or older I should be able to watch whatever content of a game rated for my demographic that the company creating the game is willing to show me.
It's not just the right-wingers, it's the nanny-statist, government should regulate every aspect of our lives to protect us from ourselves left-winger nuts to.
Either parents are too lazy OR their kids are smart and know how to bypass them.
They agreed to it, if the game is using an RP symbol or an actual rating they are contractually obliged to follow the guideline. Industries have internal guidelines sometimes, I am willing to bet the movie industry has some, why is it so terrible that games have them?
I wonder if anybody of those right-wingers heard of pedophobia?
I see no problem with this. They are making sure game publishers follow the rules that they agreed to when the applied for the rating and the ESRB is complying with the FTC and their suggestions of improvement.
I like it.