Wired's Kohler Dishes on AO Ratings
Wired's Kohler Dishes on AO Ratings
August 23, 2007
Why worry about the chilling effect that legislation might have on video game development when the ESRB’s AO rating is already producing the same outcome?The obvious example is Rockstar's Manhunt 2, which won’t be released without a significant and expensive reworking.
In Wired, game journalist Chris Kohler examines the issue of game developers curtailing their original visions for fear of the dreaded AO. Kohler cites some less well-known examples:
Developers at Sega, working on the upcoming Condemned: Bloodshot, say the Manhunt controversy caused them to remove some content from their game. And Al Lowe, creator of the Leisure Suit Larry franchise, says that one of his naughtier classic games was left out of a recent collector's edition package because of concerns that the ESRB would give it an AO rating. It was rated M in 1996.
And those are just the ones we know about. Developers speaking publicly on their ratings woes is a rather new trend. According to the ESRB there are at least a dozen instances in the last five years of developers self-censoring their games in order to earn a lower rating. So while Rockstar’s dilemma is nothing new, instances like these are becoming more frequent. Says ESRB president Patricia Vance:
As the capabilities of the systems become more complex and the types of content in games becomes much more varied, you're going to find the creators of these games pushing the envelope in a variety of different ways.
Vance points out that a game maker’s ability to sell an AO game is not the ESRB’s concern.
These are business decisions that are being made by retailers and console manufacturers... We assign ratings and then the market determines what's acceptable.
Kohler counters that the market can't vote on games that console manufacturers won’t license and retailers like Wal-Mart won’t carry even though it has no issue stocking products like the unrated edition of Saw III.
Sony spokesman David Karraker reveals why AO titles will never appear on a PlayStation console.
We want to offer age-appropriate entertainment for our consumers but do not want to be associated with material that is gratuitously violent or pornographic.
AE: Someone better tell Karraker that Stranglehold, Jericho, and Soldier of Fortune are releasing on the PS3 this fall.
Kohler goes on to discuss the difficulties video games face as a new medium, how the formation of the ESRB temporarily placated legislation-happy politicians, and how Hot Coffee brought the whole issue to a head.
-Reporting from San Diego, GP Correspondent Andrew Eisen thinks Kohler provides the most accurate explanation of Hot Coffee to date
Comments
-------------------------------------------------------------------
since this has AO in it I will put my porn game comment here
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of…#United_States
Quote:
“United States
Main article: Pornography in the United States
Hardcore material is legal at the Federal level unless it meets the Miller test of obscenity, which is rare. Child pornography involving actual children engaged in sex acts or posing is a crime. The law against simulated child pornography was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2002 in the case Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, however, this opinion seems to have been superseded by the adoption of the PROTECT Act of 2003. Prosecution for and tolerance of pornography varies widely from state to state and city to city. Certain materials/acts have been self-regulated out of mainstream porn. Pornographic materials may not be made available to persons under 18 years of age or 21 in some jurisdictions. Some attempts at restricting pornography on the Internet have been struck down by the courts; see: Internet pornography.
”
And here it is folks, “Pornographic materials may not be made available to persons under 18 years of age or 21 in some jurisdictions.” this is why I have been railing for porn games to get their own rating (altho AO can be used for it,just not NC17 games) this is why I mentioned changing AO to 19+ or by state at one time(currently in my mind it would be better to rate with a AO18+ and let the shops that can sell it sell it,because they know their state law and what can be skirted around).
Again porn games need to be labeled and kept out of the hands of kids (least till their able to hide stuff from mom/dad LOL)and fundies(just so “WE” dont have to hear the whining).
there should be nothing wrong with an AO rating, and if it were more widely used, maybe a lot of the other "violence in games" arguments would fall away.
the Big Three need to re-examine how they look at the ESRB.
I think the ESRB needs to look at itself more then anything.
Forget the choices made by the Big Three, I say, the ESRB showed it's true colors when it gave manhunt an AO.
From what i've seen of the game, its no worse then any unrated Saw movie on the shelves today, yet they can be sold willy nilly with out any consequnce, while manhunt gets effectivly banned.
I say, Take TWo should sue the ESA and ESRB for civil rights violation because instead of being a valid rating, the AO is a ban hammer for games.
It should be rated M, but to appease the government, they made it ao and then said "Aren't we doing a good job? "
THats BULLSHIT!
Either the ESRB remembers whose side it's on, or it should be dumped and replaced by someone who isn't bending over to the government.
If T2 did that and won ,whats keeping porn game makers from from doing the same,what would keep a truly greustqse game from getting a AO.
I think the ESRB should side in favor of the whole of current culture,first off treat games basically the same as movies that way you wont hit NC17 to often.
Conejo
the main 3 are mindlessly looking at how to maximize profit,mainstreaming is a means to a end,and in order to see that end they have to take a product and rape it in order to make it "consumable" to the majority of the masses,we see this true effect in dubbing more than anythign else,tell me Dubing for movies and anime is not geared down toward the lowest mouth breathing tweens in the region!? (tween 12-20somehting).
Its funny they go out of their way to sale to this demographic when they will buy anythign 2 or 3 times regardless of how bad it is.....
You said yourself that Saw III is unrated. This means it's outside the MPAA's ratings.
Now, there are plenty of stores that will not sell unrated material.
If you can't find it at your local Blockbuster, is that the MPAA's fault??
Conejo is right - it is Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft that prohibit AO rating games to be played on the consoles, and Walmart that refuses to sell AO games when it will sell unrated DVDs.
The ESRB did it's job. It rated the game according to its guidelines, which are made VERY clear to video game developers.
Yet many places, including Walmart, DO sell unrated versions of films. So not finding AO games in the stores? Considering that the ESRB KNOWS what giving a game AO means - essentially banning it, YES they are at fault.
It's a form of sanctioned censorship, and that's ALL it is.
NO funky, Your not paying attention today.
SAW3. Unrated= Avalible at all major retailers.
Mppa=Failure in preventing sale of inapropirate material to minors at retail.
Game indutry- Far more succesful at this then any industry.
My point was that it's Hypocritical for the game industry to be SELF CENSORING due to a corrupted and ineffective rating board when the MPAA can get away with selling stuff that is just shy of porn to Kids and no one bats an EYE!
The industry should be turning all the government hypocracy back on them and suing the them every time the try to gang up on the industry WHile I know that isn't practical, my Point is that the industry should not be Capitulating to the Government but like the Movie industry should be fighting tooth and nail to push those limits so that it will be respected as a ligitimate form of art and entertainment.
The courts already agree with me, lets force the goverment to as well.
As an example, in Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, you could: take helpful drugs (stimpacks that restore health), take stat boosting drug which were addictive, kill children, get married then sell your wife/husband/cow into slavery, become a slave trader, etc etc.
Each of these "offensive" actions came with severe consequences: if you killed a child, on purpose or inadvertently, you were labeled as a child killer and would receive no help from important NPCs or be attacked out right when you entered a town. If you get addicted to stat booster drugs, you eventually start receiving stat penalties which can only be alleviated by taking more, which became a hindrance, was very expensive, and often led to death.
Many players use games as an escape, similar to non-gamers that use books, TV, music, or work. A key factor to escaping is immersion, which is often successful when giving players lots of choices. If handled correctly, as with Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 (in my opinion), you can enjoy a game without performing horrible acts, or perform those acts and suffer the consequences.
This isn't for Bethesda, though. They have removed harmful drug usage, killing of innocents, and so on. We just have to wait and see how they replace these choices.
Oh, and closer on topic with the article, a thank you letter might be in order for Karraker:
"Thanks for joining the ranks of people who work in the industry that use words that are counter-productive. Please get leave my side, because you make a better enemy than an ally."
I think that made my quote of the day
I aggree with Vance. The fact that console manufacturers and retailers won't let AO anywhere near them is not the ESRB's fault. They could help put pressure on the same to allow it, but the majority of the pressure needs to come from the developers and publishers. Right now it is the developers and the publishers who are censoring their games to avoid the AO rating. If there was an all of the sudden flood of AO games from developers who refused to censor their work, then I am sure that at least one of the console manufacturers would take notice and allow it.
With the current state of affairs, this will not happen. It is not the ESRB's battle. They have told the console manufacturers and the retailers that the AO rating is a valid rating. It is the same's responsibility to do with it what they will. So lay of the ESRB and point the finger atthe real culprit.
That goes to you too, Zippy, and Terrible Tom if you are reading.
I been watching what they are doing with FO I am impressed with how they are handling the real time issues however the content issues leave me cold,since Bioshock would have got a AO for killable children, Oblivion didn't have them it seems things that were once apon a time Mature are to risque for today.
Yuki
you forget the industry is addict to high profits normal ones to fight for the right of art is not good enough for them.
They are a middle man none the less,and need to make it know that things are changing and that its coming and to let the consumers know that this is part of how new media grows,as they are they are now they are doing nothing but solidifying the status qoue and thats only hurting them.
The fact that Manhunt 2 was effectively banned by getting an AO rating was NOT the fault of the ESRB, they rated it AS THEY SAW IT. Blaming the ESRB for the "ban" of Manhunt 2 is just like blaming the MPAA because your 13 year old kid couldn't get into an R rated movie by themselves. The MPAA has no real control over the policies of the movie theatre, just like the ESRB has no control over the publishing policies of the big three or the sales policies of major retailers.
Telling the ESRB to "go easy" on a game and not give it an AO rating just so it will get published would make the ESRB completely ineffective. The ESRB is suppose to act independent of the gaming industry.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again, the real problem lies in the perspective of the public majority, I.E., people who have little to know idea what videogames are. The current view of the public majority is that videogames are "for kids", just big, expensive toys. If any of the big 3 were to put out an AO game, the public outcry would be insane, and there'd be a whole new bunch of legislation up the game industry's ass. THAT'S why the big 3 don't want an AO game on their system.
Want an AO game published on any of the consoles? Then you need to re-shape the public opinion of videogames, and show the public majority games are for adults too.
1) you cannot sue a non-governmental entity on 1st Amendment grounds. The Bill of Rights exists to protect citizens from their government.
2) your argument that you can buy Unrated movies (which are worse than R) actually SUPPORTS my position that we should pressure the game-makers to accept AO and not use it as the auto-fail that it is.
the only games that should be auto-fail in the eyes of the game companies are ones the ESRB refuses to rate.
"the only games that should be auto-fail in the eyes of the game companies are ones the ESRB refuses to rate."
There are no games the ESRB refuses to rate. If a game gets submitted to them, they rate it. It is as simple as that. Right now, only the BBFC in the UK refuses to rate games.
Personnally, I would love to get to the bottom of why retailers will carry unrated movies that would have gotten NC-17 ratings if they wentthrough the MPAA, but won't sell games with a valid AO rating or no rating at all. That is the real double standard.
If your gong to make a game that is heavily geared towards adults and features a retarded level of violence and/or sexuality, I don't want to hear any pissing and moaning when it gets slapped with an AO rating.
Exactly, it a problem with the retailers and console makers more then the ESRB and its ratings. The double standard is pathetic.
Precisely.
But the trick is going to be making them AO games with some redeeming value.
-P
nicely said.
Wise Guy
This has always been one of my main arguments by lump porn into NC17 you defocto ban NC17 (for thos 2who blindly side with teh ESRB on this issue:due try and explain why its not a defacto ban in this screwed up country of the US)
Chance needs to come not in the acceptance of porn but in the understanding that you can not simply lump porn and NC17 into the same rating and think you can cop out by passing the buck!
That problem is evident in a lot of the (failed) legislation recently. You'll never see the word "violent" very far from "pornographic": "We need to protect our children from violent and pornographic media", etc etc. Unfortunately, this ignores the fact that violence is far more widespread and accepted in our media than porn.
the way it works now you need to make 2 version of it to make a profit off it, and with pron being lumped with NC17 in AO its not worth it,if they were to change AO to porn and create a M18+ level for violence then you would see a small change in things.
But seriously...something does need to be done about it.
@Ashla
There's more to it than that. The problem is games with an AO rating are doomed; they probably wouldn't be licensed, and the big retailers probably wouldn't stock them. Now how else could you sell them in an efficient way? You can't. And that forces a game company to either A. go back and censor the game, which could be costly and take even more time, or B. Give up on it altogether, even though they just wasted all that money and time on the game (which are things you cannot simply get back). There's just no way for a game to recover without being censored. And that's the problem here.
Plus, it does come down to this whole game vs. movie standard. Movies that are by far more violent or sexual can be sold in great numbers and are meant for adults, without any real concern by the retailer, but a game that's AO can't. Maybe we should make a new movie rating, that's above R, and see what happens. We can make all the most violent and sexual movies in this new rating (leaving them to argue over "what has the most?").
While you won't find pornography in department stores like Wal Mart and Target, go into a store that sells DVD's (not Blockbuster, but a place that actually sells DVD's and movies and also has concerts on DVD's and a wider selection, and doesn't just stock the most popular shit that will make them the most money in the short term) and you will easily find pornographic films, to cite an easy example I would say the Suncoast Video at the mall by my house has an entire section devoted to it (there's little foam coverings on all the covers save the title.) Now I don't really see the point of having two ratings for violence and sex largely because not all depictions of sex in any medium is "pornography" it could be done tastefully to advance a legitimite storyline and/or show character developement, if we lumped sex in as pornography we'd have to do the same for violence in which case Saving Private Ryan would be on the same level as Saw. Frankly, it should be done just like the movie industry where larger retailers may not have NC-17 or unrated movies but we can count on the specialty retailers to have them, if that was the case we would not have to bother with these "two adult ratings" or whatever.
If it's "age-appropriate", shouldn't I be able to buy something that's more adult? Or do they mean "kid-appropriate".
"but do not want to be associated with material that is gratuitously violent or pornographic."
Somehow I doubt that the PS3 has built in controls that do not allow it to play violent unrated editions of movies or XXX pr0n. So I guess it's okay to watch it, just not to play it...
"for thos 2who blindly side with teh ESRB on this issue:due try and explain why its not a defacto ban in this screwed up country of the US"
I take it I am one of the two you are refering to.
I have never said the AO rating is not de facto ban. I know it is. But it is not a ban instigated by the ESRB. It is a ban instigated by the console manufacturers and retailers. The AO rating was created to be a rating for games that are designed for strictly adults. They planned it that way.
So let's recap. Who rates games AO? The ESRB. Who refuses to liscence AO games? The console manufacturers. Who refuses to sell AO games? The retailers. Who has created the defacto ban? I'll let you answer that one.
I don't think Karraker cares as long as the games get an M rating.
If those three games get a M rating, I really so no point to this statement.
He doesn't want AO games, hes fine with mature. If these 3 games were rated AO, that statement would have a point.
But since they are rated M for mature...it has no point, and makes no sense.
He is responding to this:
"We want to offer age-appropriate entertainment for our consumers but do not want to be associated with material that is gratuitously violent or pornographic"
He does not say they don't want to be associated with AO games. He makes a very broad statement about the content of games. Those three games will all be garuitously violent.
I don't think that's what it's for. We have ratings just to show a general age group. E is good for Everyone, T should be played by teenagers and up, etc. It's not about self-censorship, it's about information.
It's bad for them to NEED to avoid an AO rating, because a game should do well or poor based on how good it is, not on if a retailer would stock it or not, or if a game company would license it or no.
The M rating is what? 17+
and AO is 18?
I mean if i havent got it completely wrong thats enough arguement alone to bring down AO, how much maturity can one gain in a single year? is it really that dangerous to take away such a small timespan? maturity is gained through exposure and understanding of such things, and in that sense, censorship is the exact opposite to its intended purpose.
It's fairy tale time folks!!!
Once upon a time, there were no video game ratings. You could make anything you wanted, and sell it to anyone you wanted. Games like Custer's Revenge could be purchased by a 10 year old.
One day, some people go together and said "We need to make sure that children are playing games appropriate to their age. Let's create a ratings system for different age levels to be used as a guideline on who to sell games to."
So many ratings were created, including one for just for the grown-ups, and all was peaceful in the land. Then one day Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft said "Fee fie fo fum, I smell an adult game! We don't want these games because parents will complain, no more AO games for us!!!"
So you see, the AO rating would've existed first, *THEN* Wal-Mart and the big 3 decided to ban it. The same thing happened with NC-17, by the way. If the ESRB had gotten rid of the AO rating and lumped it with the M rating, what's to stop them from blocking that one? Then our games would be dumbed down to the T rating level...
The ESRB can no more control what the console manufacturers do and do not allow than I can control what you post. The only thing that they can do is to rate the games honestly and objectively. When they see a game where you can castrate someone with a pair of pliers, that says AO to them.
Had they rated it as an M game though, it would be lumped in with the likes of Halo 3, Gears of War, Resistance, Bioshock, etc...then we would be in a bad spot. The likes of Jack Thompson would call for all the M rated games to get banned too, because they'll take the extreme game and apply it across the spectrum. Companies like Wal-Mart will follow suit and ban all the M games, and eventually even the console makers might. Then where will we be?
Oh I agree in the hypocrisy of it. But at the same time, those gratuitously violent games are rated M for mature. Not AO. So in other words, Sony is putting all power, and responsibility, on the ESRB to decide if these games are TOO violent or sexual. If the ESRB says they are ok, so does Sony.
Now sure this takes away Sony's freedom to allow anything they want on the counsel, but at the same time protects them.
If someone tries to attack Sony and says "you allowed a horrifically violent game onto your console, how dare you!"
Sony can simply reply "The ESRB said it was alright, so we went ahead with it. Blame them"
As long as the game gets an M rating, it doesn't matter.
All Sony is doing is covering their butts.
Remeber the gaming industry was given this rather chilling choice by Congress under the Clinton Administration. Make a rating system so children can't get access to mature material or we'll do it for you.
We need to get away from the prention that the ESRB was an active choice. It wasn't a choice, it was that or government regulation, and they're still trying to regulate things; looking for any flaw in the ESRB so that big brother can swoop in and remove control from us and the industry.
Cut the ESRB some slack. They're in a no win situation here. They come underfire for not doing their job from side and they also come under fire from the industry and other gamers when they actully try to do their job. Its high time gamers stopped screaming to have it both ways.
If you honestly have a problem with things, work to change them instead of just complaining about it. Get into politics, run honest campaigns about the issues you believe in but get involved. That would really put people on notice.
For Patricia Vance to say what she said like she takes no part in the video game industry is pathedic, she should at the very leas comment on it as she is relavent in the video game industry. Instead she just goes "OOOO woe is me I'm but a lowley peon who happens to be in charge of ESRB, what do I have to do with the debate?" Of course the big three are more to blame than her but for her to just try and do a little "not my issue" cop-out is complete bullshit, she's a relavent figure in this debate and should take part in it.
The M rating is defined as "people 17 and over are fine playing this game, but if you as a parent want to let you under 17 kid play it then fine."
the AO rating is defined as "No kid under 18 should play this game."
That is the difference. The AO is a strict age rating whil M is a suggested age rating.
I mean sure, any game that is developed/produced by a major corporation, and put onto a console can be limited.
But look at all this user generated stuff? And as more tools and programs and technology becomes available, the more your average computer nerd will be able to distribute his own games.
You can't put a label on their games. In due time, user created content will flood the market and the ESRB will have no clue how to handle it.
This is far beyond the ESRBs inconstancies and more about the political climate of our times. This is nothing more than growing pains and is time and again blown out of proportion. The handful of games this affects are marginal at best imo and fighting for them only elevates the perception that the industry is fighting for "material that is gratuitously violent or pornographic" .
Patricia didn't say "OOOO woe is me I’m but a lowley peon...", she said the following.
"These are business decisions that are being made by retailers and console manufacturers… We assign ratings and then the market determines what’s acceptable."
The ESRB has *ZERO* say in what a console manufacturer will, and will not allow on their console. She has *ZERO* say in what Wal-Mart will, and will not sell. You want to find someone who can make a change, it's easy...look in your wallet.
Wal-Mart is the biggest game retailer out there! YOU and the other gamers allowed that to happen. There's Best Buy, Circuit City, GameStop, EB Games, Fry's, Amazon and any other number of game retailers...yet Wal-Mart sells the most. Guess what, if we all wake up tomorrow and GameStop is the #1 retailer in the US, then we they'll lose that power to decide content.
As for the console manufacturers, get off your ass and write some letters. Tell Sony, MS and Nintendo that you're an adult and you want to play adult games! Tell them to ship their consoles with a default "No AO games" setting that can be disabled by a parent. Give them suggestions on how to *prove* that one is a parent.
Maybe get them to work with retailers on it. XBox has 48 XBox Live subscriptions with many of their games, maybe they could package an AO enabling code with AO games. The code only works once, so it can't be used to unlock your buddy's console, just yours. Or come up with your own system!
Stop relying on organizations like the ESRB to do your work for you. They have a job and they're doing it. They're the *ONLY* thing currently saving the industry from governmental regulation. Would you rather be in the UK where they can just not rate a game and ban it from any kind of sale whatsoever? (And a Non-Rating is different than an AO rating...they can apply it to anything they want and it's a *legal* ban, not a de facto ban because of manufacturer settings.)
Better yet, you're here on GP, why not join the ECA? They're the Entertainment *CONSUMERS* Association...that mean you. Join up, pay your $20, wear a T-shirt and participate. Get on the forums, organize something. Write to your local congressman and urge them not to support these silly laws. Tell them that they will be held accountable for wasting the taxpayers money.
The only bullshit here is the idea that someone else is going to do this for you. YOU have the power to change it, YOU need to do something...the ESRB, the ESA and the ECA are already doing theirs.
Thank you. I agree with you completely. People need to stop complaining and get to work changing things. Change takes work and if you are afraid to work for the changes you want, then you are not worthy of even complaining.
"I take it I am one of the two you are refering to.
I have never said the AO rating is not de facto ban. I know it is. But it is not a ban instigated by the ESRB. It is a ban instigated by the console manufacturers and retailers. The AO rating was created to be a rating for games that are designed for strictly adults. They planned it that way.
So let’s recap. Who rates games AO? The ESRB. Who refuses to liscence AO games? The console manufacturers. Who refuses to sell AO games? The retailers. Who has created the defacto ban? I’ll let you answer that one. "
Yes please porn+NC17=insane ban
NC17+a level on its own= lite ban(with a much higher chance at acceptance)
ZOMG there is a diffrance!
without the step you fall,they can not evolve without the step and thus they fall.
They need to show that they udnerstand the diffrance in porn and NC17 content if they do not they are no better than a goverment program bound to protect adults from maturatiy......
I feel your pain with Blagojevich.
Is it me, or does his hair look fake?
How do you know that? The fact is this: game developers and publishers choose to develop for a console. It's disingenuous, at best, to build something where you know there's restrictions and then complain when they come down on you. It's not the ESRB's job to say "Well, it's crap that the console manufacturers ban AO games, so we'll rate it M instead".
You want to release an AO Manhunt 2? Release it on PC via digital distribution. Rockstar and Manhunt are big enough names that it'd probably work. And if Manhunt wouldn't, an AO GTA4 definitely would (as much as I'd hate any Rockstar title being the herald of a new age of AO gaming). Will it be as profitable as it would be at M? No. But it'll kick the door open for other companies to do the same thing.
What's that you say? Companies don't want to do that because it'll cut into their profits? That sounds like people who care more about their bottom line than their artistic intregrity.
The bottom line is that the ESRB is rating the games. But the people saying "You can't play this" are Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and the retailers, not the ESRB.
-P
-P
Someone needs to show him all the porn DVDs that are playable on Sony DVD players, computers, and TVs.
"Yes please porn+NC17=insane ban
NC17+a level on its own= lite ban(with a much higher chance at acceptance)
ZOMG there is a diffrance!
without the step you fall,they can not evolve without the step and thus they fall."
English Please. I fail to even comprehend any sort of point in this jibberish.
It's all part of his plan...he distracts you with his hair while he raids the education funds to pay for his failed attempt at crushing the First Ammendment. =)
You know what, I wouldn't doubt that.
Whenever he's speaking, I stare at his hair, the whole time.
Mother Trucker has been brainwashing me!!!! With his hair!
False. A movie can get NC-17 rating or skip the rating altogether and still be shown in a movie theater. It will not appear at the major chains, but unaffiliated theaters (the "art house" ones) will pick it up if there's an audience. It will still be sold on video.
When the console manufacturers decide to lock out all AO-rated games, it's the equivalent of banning a movie (no theatrical or video release). Very different from NC-17.
Unfortunately people still like having the useless box to go with their game ;p
Exactly. Can you imagine the money that, say, Rockstar could make if they released a Steam-alike that allowed AO games?
-P
Is the PC not the "art house"? Is digital distribution not the retailer that sells unrated games?
In the early 20th century movies came out and were only whown in theatre. There were only a few big chain theatres to choose distribution through. Many of these chains were owned by the same companies that made the movies. Eentually, these companies were forced to seperate the distribution stream from the production stream. THere still was a lot of power in owning these theatre chains, but in the advent of tv, they lost some of that power. They were still powerful enough. Eventually a thing calle the VCR came out and a new threat happened. Theatres now had to deal with movies that bypassed those theatres and go straight to the viewer's tv. This was a big universal way to distribute movies.
In the early days of games the situation was much like the early days of movies. Atari owned the hardware and software side of gaming. Eventually, people broke away and started third party development. Eventually the the household pc and the internet would come and become the tv era of gaming. At this moment in time we are in the TV like era. The consoles are still going strong, but the pc and internet are fighting back. We have yet to reach the VCR era of a universal gaming standard, but it will come. Until then, we will need to cater to the sometimes ugly demands of the consoles.
how is your analogy any different than an AO game getting released for the PC?
My argument holds TONS of water and no leaks :)
DoctorProctor illustrates the points I'm trying to make far more eloquently and succinctly...
Videogames are still considered by many (most?) to be a scary new medium geared for kids. Console manufacturers, well aware of this fact, do not want the media backlash or moral panic over content on their machines. Hence, they will not allow AO games on their player- like it or not, its just good business.
Someday, provided the Evangelists/Socialist Nannys don't get their laws passed, games will be regarded as a medium on par with books, movies, and music. At that time, console companies will have very few qualms with allowing that content on their players.
I just don't think the bulk of society is ready for AO games. I predict they will be in about 10-20 years...
Well that's essentially what I'm saying. We need to bring this to the big three and retailers, they are primarily at fault, but we shouldn't let the ESRB off the hook. Yes, Vance has nothing to do with the business desisions of the big three or the retailers, but guess what, she's much more involved with the industry and with this particular situation than most if not all of the people posting here, and for her to essentially say "not my decision, not my problem" is a complete cop-out and it is pathedic.
Rockstar,
ESRB,
The retailers,
Sony nintendo and microsoft.
I personally blame the ESRB. For a long time Ao meant one thing and one thing only, porn games, now it's given to titles completely devoid of anything sexual (unless you're sadistic). They know what the consequences of that rating can be, so why do they still keep it? More importantly why give it to Manhunt 2 in the first place. I refuse to believe that ANYONE could create a video game so violent that you're average 17 year old can't handle it. Methinks some other motives are at play.
Then you have Sony Nintendo and microsoft, Sony and microsoft both make really violent games (God of war, and Halo respectively) they sell well and they recieve little backlash for them, so why do they have this draconian policy. Nintendo on the other hand asked Rockstar to make this uber violent game for the wii, now why don't they remove the Ao restriction to prove they want to get rid of their kiddie image (although they could just add blood to brawl get an instant M rating but I digress).
Next you have the retailers, tell me what is the point of allowing Ao games when they don't exist for anything except PC (and the ones for PC, aren't exactly triple A games). If the big 3 allowed Ao games on their systems that doesn't mean they would have to instantly accept every porn game that gets churned out. They can allow certain Ao games to come through (Manhunt 2, Fallout 3, Punisher etc.) and refuse others. So wala problem solved.
Oh and of course there is the option of releasing Manhunt 2 as unrated, but that one probably won't work.
Oh yes, I do not blame rockstar at all for this, if they want to make an uber violent game more power to them.
And Walmart, selling uber-vilent movies, but not uber-violent games? It could simply be behind-the-counter, it wouldn't be that hard....
At Walmart the games are alread ybehind a glass case. The AO games could be kept on the top shelf with only the title showing if that is what they want .Right now you have to get an associate to get the game for you. But with movies they are all out in the open. There is nothing to stop a 7 year old kid from picking up a copy of SawIII unrated version.
Then again if they REALLY wanted to be like the movie industry, they would skip the ESRB rating all together or have Regular Manhunt 2 (M rated) and the unrated version of Manhunt 2.
Also consider this.
Saw II gets made and is shown in theathers.
Manhunt 2 is made and it is just as violent as Saw II and is banned.
The game industry wants to be like the movie industry, and part of that means being able to release uber-violent content. So if they can't do that, they have every damn right to bitch about it.
As long as the game can be played on a PC, sure. However, some games are developed exclusively for consoles and would be nearly impossible to port without stripping out a good deal of content (see: games that rely on the Wii's remote, games that rely on specific pieces of hardware in the PS3) or breaking the bank of the developer (see: small companies). There might also be problems involving exclusive rights, but IANAL. Does anyone know what it would take to void the contract?
I'd love to see games distributed a la homebrew (pay, download, burn), but that requires modding a console and we all know how happy the big three are about that. One could also set up some emulation of the Wii and hack the remote, but that would result in Nintendo squashing the company very, very fast.
games with strong sexual content the AO rating. The esrb is violating our
ammendment right by not letting us play a game like Manhunt 2 just because of violence. The esrb is at fault knowing that these console would not accept AO rated games and they give Manhunt 2 the AO rating.
ESRB, you do not have the right when it comes to American rights to tell companies like Rockstar games that they need to get a certain amount of violence out of the game in order for it to basically not get the AO rating.
The esrb should be taken to court for violation of our rights.
They can't.
First off the esrb is completely voluntary, there is no law saying that a game needs to be rated by the ESRB.
Second, the ban on Ao games, was not made by the government or the ESRB (but I still blame them anyway).
The first amendment applies to the government, not private organizations.
Imagine what rating a Borat or Superbad videogame would get, compared to the R rated movies. Apparently, you can show pretty much ANYTHING in an R-rated movie, except outright porn.
The double standard strikes again.
Rating systems are not the end all be all decider for what is and is not appropiate for people. Nor where they meant to be.
A Pg-13 movie MAY be inappropiate for a 12 year old, they gave it that rating because they thought it would be inappropriate for MOST 12 year olds. Could your 12 11 or 10 year old be an exception to the rule? Of course they can. They are meant to be to be rough guidelines for how inappropriate they are.
It is only a double standard when the same organization does two contradictory things. Movie ratings and video game ratings have nothing to do with each other. There is no double standard here.
@ Micheal
Its pretty bad when the person you are supporting rips your arguements apart. But I must agree and say that the First Amandment does not apply t othe ESRB, the big three, or retailers. The First Ammendment is there to protect speech from the government not private organizations.
I still find the homebrew scene a bit innefficient. They want to make games for these consoles only to not be able to legally do it. What they should be doing is finding ways to bring that functionality to the pc. There are ways to use a tv as a moniter for your PC. There are controlers that you can use. There are rumble controllers for the PC. In the next year you will see motion capture controllers for the pc. The PS3 core is available for PCs. There are programs such as Steam that let you interact with other players much like XBox Live.
If all the stuff that consoles can do are available for the PC, why are these talented people wasting their time on modding consoles. Its all an ego boost. There is no other reason behind it. They only want to be able to say "My game plays on the PS3"
So I think that the homebrew scene needs to just forget consoles and focus on the PC and PC only.
Wasn't that because they thought the ESRB was being too lenient? We're arguing that the ESRB is powerless to bring change.
Oh, I definitely agree that a lot of it is wanting to look cool. However, some of them do it for the challenge, to take a game with them (homebrewing for handhelds), or just because they can.
Whatever, you started saying that you blame the esrb and it looks like you cant even defend your own sayings since you find in fault with me.
You people that are talking nonsense to me evidently are not smart enough to know that if the esrb causes a game like Manhunt 2 to not be released in its full version then they are going against the amendment right.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Congress (the government) shall make no law. Since when has the ESRB been part of the government?
I think you need to read more of the comments above. The ESRB is not forcing Rockstar to change Manhunt 2. Sony and Nintendo are. Sony and Nintendo are the ones saying they won't liscence AO games. They are the ones forcing Manhunt 2 to be edited to get the M rating. Get the story straight.
The handheld scene is the only market where I see homebrew being a valid option. Right now there is not an affordable handheld option for the homebrew gamer. As far as i can tell, Nintendo has done very little to thwart homebrew on the DS. I know Sony has tried on all levels to block it on the PSP. But there are homebrew handhelds out there. They don't have the power and f