Yee: What is ESRB Trying to Hide?
Yee: What is ESRB Trying to Hide?
August 29, 2007
Included in GameSpot's coverage of the Manhunt 2 political fallout are strong words from California State Senator Leland Yee concerning the re-rating of the controversial game:What are they trying to hide? Unsurprisingly, the culture of secrecy continues at the ESRB.
Even individuals within the video game industry are now calling into question their rating system. Parents simply can not trust an entity that is unwilling to disclose or give any meaningful rationale at how they come to their decisions.
The ESRB refuses to use the AO rating for violence despite the descriptor calling for such a rating when there are "graphic depictions of violence." If Manhunt doesn't qualify, what would?
Combined with the use of the ambiguous term "Mature," many parents are left with a false sense of how violent an M-rated game may be; and obviously even many retailers as the Federal Trade Commission secret shopper study suggests. Using the numbers generated by the FTC, 42 out of 100 kids who want to purchase Manhunt 2 will be able to do so.
When weighing in on laws to prohibit the sale of ultra-violent video games to children, the industry has said over and over, "trust us; our rating system will protect children." This latest episode demonstrates once again that the ESRB in fact can not be trusted.
Yee, of course, was the driving force behind California's 2005 video game law, recently declared unconstitutional by a federal court judge.
GP: Presumably for space reasons, GameSpot edited Yee's remarks. We've published the entire statement, which came to us from Sen. Yee's office.
Comments
1pofasgdmao
2dofasgdmao
2wofasgdmao
4fofasgdmao
5hofasgdmao
6yofasgdmao
Bye!!!
Ummmm... Isn't that EXACTLY what they just did? I haven't heard anything about any massive sexual content in Manhunt 2, so I'm going to assume they ramped up the violence too much - hence, the AO rating. I respect Yee in a lot of ways - I disagree with his positions, but I think that he's somewhat more educated and intelligent about them instead of just virulently crazy-like. But in this case, that's just stupid of Yee to say that. The violence level was EXACTLY what got this put into the AO category.
"What are they trying to hide? Unsurprisingly, the culture of secrecy continues at the ESRB. "
Heres my version of this -
What are they trying to hide? Unsurprisingly, the culture of secrecy continues at the MPAA.
Yee continues to prove himself to be an idiot.
Yee: The ESRB refuses to use the AO rating for violence despite the descriptor calling for such a rating when there are “graphic depictions of violence.”
They did, moron. The original version of Manhunt 2 apparently got an AO for that very reason, and you didn't question it then. Yet when Take-Two submitted an edited version and got a M rating, you shed crocodile tears about it.
Yee: When weighing in on laws to prohibit the sale of ultra-violent video games to children, the industry has said over and over, “trust us; our rating system will protect children.”
Yeah, considering the statistics the ESA found, these laws are a complete waste of time
-While the Federal Trade Commission found that minors were successful in buying a M-rated game 42% of the time, they also found that it was 35% of the time in major retailers like Wal-Mart, Best Buy, etc., where most of sales are generated from.
-The ESA reported that a combined 86% of all game sales(combining both computer and console game buyers) were to people over 18, leaving 14% left over to people under 18.
-Of that 14% left over, 91% of those sales were with parents present at the time of purchase, leaving 9% to minors by themselves. Meaning that sales to minors by themselves only represent 1.26% of all video game sales, and if the FTC’s 42% figure were applied to that, it would mean that M-rated game sales to minors by themselves would only account for 0.53% of all video game sales! Though that last figure doesn't take into account other variables(minor returning to store with parent; minor going to another store and is successful)
Shows how unnecessary Yee's legislation really was.
But then, I like having a favorite enemy (JT).
Perhaps Yee likes the suggestions for a replacement put forward by Jon Stewart.
D-Dropout
W-Wastoid
CMB-Child in Man's Body
Seriously, though, how does that give a false sense of anything to parents? How hard is it to figure out that Mature=for mature audiences? Incidentally, parents can just flip the game case over and, in the lower corner there, get a list of descriptors describing the level of violence. Can parents connect the dots and find out that Mild Violence="Not much of it" and Blood and Gore="Lots of violence?" Most people know what the words "gore" and "mild" mean, right? So what's the "false sense" here?
How does this show that the ESRB can not be trusted? Does he even know what Manhunt 2 is about? If he does, I'm sure there are plenty of people here who would love him to share. After all, if the statistics are true, then maybe 1% of sales are to minors by themselves. Does 1% really need that kind of protection?
He would rather us trust him and his government cronies? Sorry, but I don't think so. I'd rather not have the government control my entertainment. What's next? Restrictions on anime?
This statement is nothing but a sad little man trying to make himself look good and justified when he is nothing but a villain.
@ BearDogg-X
Do those figures count E, E10+, and T rated game sales? If only 1.26% of video game sales are accounted for by minors, its possible that the number picking up M rated games is even lower.
Hah
Hah
Hah.
:)
No, I believe that Senator Yee is linked to the CCFC. He's already mentioned them previously and one has to wonder why he is so very interested in pointing them out over the PTC or even GamerDad (who is far more Parent-oriented than the PTC or CCFC and certainly far less biased, practically unbiased, in his ratings than the PTC or CCFC).
Maybe it's Senator Yee who has "something to hide", not the ESRB.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Yep, those statistics encompass all games. That 1.26% figure is sales to minors by themselves without parental oversight.
And it would be even lower than that, even factoring in variables like the minor going to another store and being successful, or returning to the same store with a parent/guardian.
@ Nightwng2000
Yee does have something to hide, since it has been established that he has accepted campaign contributions from the MPAA(which is why he won't complain about the MPAA giving Hostel Part II a R rating).
A NDA might be the reason for the secrecy. I mean I’m pretty sure the ESRB signs those because the developer doesn’t want content leaking out.
“The ESRB refuses to use the AO rating for violence despite the descriptor calling for such a rating when there are “graphic depictions of violence.” If Manhunt doesn’t qualify, what would? “
Umm, how exactly do you know how much graphic violence is in Manhunt 2? You don’t? didn’t think so.
“Combined with the use of the ambiguous term “Mature,” many parents are left with a false sense of how violent an M-rated game may be; and obviously even many retailers as the Federal Trade Commission secret shopper study suggests”
yeah, that’s why several big game chains have changed their policy so that M games can’t be sold without a parent or 17 yr old there on penalty of termination. It’s rated MATURE for a reason. MATURE means you should be MATURE enough to play it.
the industry has said over and over, “trust us; our rating system will protect children.”
Yes, they said something that they actually never said. The rating system isn’t supposed to protect children, it’s there to inform customers on the content in the game, be it a 21 year old gamer or a 12 year old kid.
What makes me sick is that Yee and this stupid soccer mom group don't care at all about the ratings system. They don't care about the system, they don't care about gamers, they don't care about their children really, and the only reason they're involved at all is because of the media buzz around a single game.
Where were all these people when the ratings system was being developed? Where were their demands for evidence when the AO rating was issued in the first place? This is a crock of ****. This goes to show how much contempt these people have for the game industry, because they're willing to make completely insane demands, such as having access to corprorate secrets that they are not entitled to. This would never happen to a movie.
I'm not just upset about this. Yee should resign. This shows me he is not competent to hold public office. Hopefully the folks of California agree.
Like 'WMD' before the Iraq war...
Um, I'm 22 and I never use the ESRB ratings, unless I'm just flat curious as to what it was rated (or buying as a gift for a younger person). Then again, I usually have an idea of what is in a game before I pick it up. I'm less interested in blood and gore and more interested in a good game with solid game-play. If it has blood and gore that's just a bonus (or something like that).
I'm in the same boat, but I mean like the ESRB has said that the ratings are to help parents make educated choices. I don't expect gamers to look at a game and think "I wonder what is in this game, I better look at the rating!" but a parent might have their child hand them a game, and they choose to look at the rating instead of just looking at the name or the back of the case. They might see "blood and gore" and then decide not to purchase it (well, that's the hope at least).
I mean it's not like the ESRB hasn't been trying to make parents more knowledgable about the ratings.
My son, however, doesn't like gore. Blood is ok, but he doesn't like gore. Prey he really doesn't like. But Rainbow Six and Call Of Duty. But he's only just getting into FPS. He's been more RPG (like Final Fantasy series), Street Racing (NFS and Midnight Club) and Card based games, like Yu-Gi-Ho and even Pokemon. He does have his "brain" type games, like Harvest Moon (-I- consider them "brain" games more than RPG) and a few puzzle games. He's also getting into chess but whether that will turn into a like for RTS or not, only time will tell.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Now I can understand Yee's (and many others) complaints. Basically they want proof that the ESRB is playing on the up and up. And because of the secrecy they think it is rigged. (My brother thought boxing was rigged because judge scores weren't announced until after the fight). Ultimately what they are going to have to do is wait and buy it themselves.
Hmm I don't remember the ESRB saying the rating system will protect children. They say its to inform parents what is in the game so they can make the choice if its right for their own children.
And why can't the ESRB be trusted? Cause they won't say what Rockstar did to the game. I'm pretty sure if ESRB did speak out they would be sued by Rockstar and then the game industry won't trust the ESRB in the future with NDAs. Frankly I will stand behind the ESRB being quiet about this as they need to watch both sides with care. Yee and others you should really ask Rockstar what was done to get different rating who knows they might actually tell you.
you say 86% of sales are made of over 18, I'm willing to bet the leftover portion is vastly made up of 17 yr olds, still legal purchasers of M rated games.
And unless you misquoted its game sales in total, so we're not even counting in E rated games are we? The sales to minors could make up a lot of those.
I suspect the figure may be even lower than what youve got if you add in these factors.
It's a pattern I'm noticing. if the system doesn't do ALL of the work for the parent, removing all responsibility from the parent and making it so they don't have to think.
If the system doesn't do those things, it is inevitably broken.
Also, since he is only considering the effects of Yee's law, which only would affect California, you'd also have to consider the % of total video game sales that are made in California, from there, you could extrapolate the total number of people younger than 17 that would be affected by Yee's law.
frankly anyone with half a brain and isnt on the gamehate bandwagon knows the simple truth that most gamers are over 18, the market is geared towards over 18s and games are marketed and sold to over 18s. despite the crap people like Yee and thompson say, this is the truth we know and they dont. And its our responsibility to get that message to the public before the haters indoctrinate them to the 'games are marketed to kids' phallicy. Theyre already not taking the ERSB as seriously as it should be.
I have written before that my major complaint with the ESRB is that it is simplistic and vague. I sympathize with parents who are confused by the system as it is not informational at all. GamerDad.com and other sites exist because of this void. I would rather see the ESRB pioneer a better way to manage a ratings system. Videogames are a new cutting edge entertainment medium, why can the industry not set the example and create the new standard for a reviewing body.
But seriously, we live in the age of Open Source, I am sure the ESRB review process could withstand a little open scrutiny.
As opposed to how abiguous "Restricted" is, when any 12 year-old can buy a movie rated as such? Or how about how violent some PG-13 or PA movies can be, I don't think you want to be slinging such words around, Mr. Lee.
Or he's just choosing to remain willfully ignorant of this so he can keep attacking the ESRB, but then that would mean he's a two-faced ignorant jackass by choice.
Pretty sure it was actually Stanley Kubrick. Clockwork Orange ftw =D (now THERE'S a game that would warrant an M rating...)
Now does it seem fair to take a movie that cost millions of dollars, and release it for free, just to prove that you're not hiding anything? No?
Then why demand that a game be released to the public for full disclosure?
Think about it. If they didn't hand Yee a copy of the game, and a Wii to play it on, they'd be hiding something, right? They can't just give him a copy of a video of the game, because they could hide certain stuff. And in order to be fully disclosing, they wouldn't be able to refuse anyone else who wants a free pre-release try either...
So in other words, the ability for anyone to play a game before it's released, just by saying that you're concerned the rating doesn't tell you everything. Can't it wait until you can pester the guy in the corner game store to load it into the demo station?
The reason the ESRB gets to see this stuff, is that they have strict controls over their raters (NDAs, likely closed testing rooms, etc), and they respect a company's IP to not disclose the contents of the game.
Once the game is released, there's also no point in disclosing everything, because the game is out in the market, you can rent/buy/try out at the store and see for yourself what the content is.
The ESRB is not black and white. It's a judgment call, just like any other rating system. And just like every other rating system, it's not "this is ok/bad for your child", but rather "here's topics of concern you need to be aware of when deciding for yourself if this game is right for your child.
This is because the parents (you know, the people with the money) will buy it for them. Even when retailers go out of their way to inform parents that a game may not be suitable for their children the parents often brush it off. It's not Rockstar's fault that parents don't want to do any actual parenting.
As far as the ESRB disclosing why they gave the rating they gave, does the MPAA give out specifics as to why they rate a movie the way they do? If they do not then there is certainly no reason to expect the ESRB to do so.
"Doesn’t the MPAA similarly not disclose this stuff?"
Nope. Because if it wanted to be fully disclosing to the public, they'd have to release the entire movie ahead of it's release date.
Can't release the "worst" scenes, because that would involve a judgment call, and wouldn't be fully disclosing.
"I am sure there are some NDA issues involved that would prevent the ESRB from releases details PRIOR to a games release, but there should be no reason why the ESRB could not release a more detailed report AFTER a games release. I do not imagine the ESRB review would be any more revealing than a game review."
An NDA can still cover material after it hits the market, because it has a market value, and is the property of the publisher. Game reviewers still have to purchase a copy of the game, or be given a free copy by the publisher. Even unauthorized strategy guides are still limited in how much game content they can "show" in pictures because of Fair Use (word descriptions are ok, but really, do you want to read the 1,000 page summary of all the different scenes in MH2?)
So just because it's released doesn't necessarily free the ESRB from it's NDA.
Remember too that the big stink is that they want MH2 to be rated AO BEFORE it hits store shelves.
"I have written before that my major complaint with the ESRB is that it is simplistic and vague."
But so is EVERY OTHER rating system on the planet. The BBFC ratings, MPAA, RIAA, the AU/NZ ratings, CERO, CSM, etc. EVERY rating system is a judgment call on content made by a group of individuals, either professional, political, or pulled in from off the street.
Yeah some have a little more detail than others, but all still boil down to the "suitable for teens/not suitable for teens", and "has enough boobies to rate 'adult', doesn't have enough boobies to rate 'adult'"...
Pretty much, he wants the support of all the angry soccer moms who know even less than he does. He should really be campaigning for parents to be more cautious with the money they give their kids.
They say that 42 out of 100 kids can buy this game? Well, I don't know or trust where they got those numbers, but as a GameStop employee we NEVER sell M rated games without an adult there and even then we inform the parents or guardian or whoever, this is is an M rated game for Violence, Gore, Sexual theme, Adult Language, and so on. Now, on several occasions, upon informing a parent they'll be completely surprised and not even realize that the M meant that.
Terribly uniformed parents who insist on buying games to shut their child up are quite disgusting to me. It's because of them that we have so many problems and attacks on the ESRB.
The important thing to ask, though, is why are there so many unattended children out there with at least $50-60 in their pockets? Who's letting these kids run free out to the nearest WalMart so they can purchase these "Ultra violent" games we keep hearing about?
Yeah, someone should put some kind of note on the rating that tells you what age it's suitable for...
I remember when I was a boy of 10 years old. On fridays I would jump in my camero and drive down to the strip club where I tended bar. After that I drove to the nearest K-mart to buy a new game, before picking up some Jack Daniels at the nearest State Store and heading home for a drunken gorefest.
The preceding has been complete sarcasm.
"They say that 42 out of 100 kids can buy this game? Well, I don’t know or trust where they got those numbers"
The FTC did a study, and found that teens couldn't buy M rated games 58% of the time, a huge improvement over 36% it was a few years ago. But as BearDogg-X points out, if you take into account how many games are sold directly to minors with zero parental involvement, that 42% accounts for less than a percent of all games sold.
We must be moderate in our opinions - assuming that movies and games are "the exact same thing" isn't genuine.
When you buy a game, what is it you buy? The physical media? The video and sound? The interactive risk/rewards that make up gameplay?
If you disclose (parts of) a movie before its release, you spoil it - you give away everything the movie contains for free.
If you disclose a screenshot, you just make people want to play the game more! Compared with movie trailers, we get much more advanced viewing of games already from the publisher's own channels.
I can imagine that game companies would love to turn the ESRB into a marketing outlet - whoring screenshots of the game suffixed with the content descriptors they earned.
That would, of course, make the ESRB even more dependent on industry funding, and bring into greater question their impartiality.
So the reason why the ESRB shouldn't disclose this information isn't because that would destroy movies and therefore must destroy games (but it won't) - it's because this disclosure channel would destroy the ESRB itself.
Yee, are you fucking dense? Do you not understand what happened here? They did not just change the fucking rating, R* had to resubmit the game re cut with content removed to get the fucking rating lowered.
Why don't you go read the ESRB site, its been rather informative for the last 6 years if you know how to use a fucking web browser. They actually explain the ratings process if you aren't to busy to go and look.
Yea, people should stop giving away these horrible game systems. I mean they cost what $5 for the system and $1.50 for the game. The kid could skip lunch for a few days and buy these things for Christ's sake.
/sarcasm
I swear some of these people think the above. The cheapest I've ever seen a game was $10 and that was a DS game. For that matter, the cheapest systems are over $100 (and those are last gen). The last generation of games was $50 a pop brand new and greatest hits for $20. This generation is $60.
If your kid is able to save up the $500+ to purchase the hardware, accessories, and games, then connect it to a TV, all without your knowledge, you have some problems. Or your kid is the most mature and devious child I've ever met! Or you kid has a job and hence more than likely mature enough to either handle the games, or know which ones not to buy.
I was using movies as an example of how full disclosure allows the entire movie to be seen before it's ready for release. It's perfectly applicable to games too, because in order to be "fully disclosing", you'd have to release the playable game...
You're assuming that screenshots of the game would be sufficient to "fully disclose" the content. I say nay. Remember these people wanted the ESRB to "fully play" the game, so how can you "fully disclose" the content if you don't release the full game?
If the ESRB only released some screenshots and descriptions, they could still be accused of "hiding" details about how the game got it's rating, because they're not disclosing everything.
">You gotta love how the word “Ultra-Violent” keeps coming up in these press releases. What soccer mom thought that word up?
Pretty sure it was actually Stanley Kubrick. Clockwork Orange ftw =D (now THERE’S a game that would warrant an M rating…) "
A Clockwork Orange was a book before Stanley Kubrick made it into a film. It was written by Anthony Burgess as Eric Lamy has already pointed out. But now we're getting off-topic.
2) The more transparency for the ESRB's rating guidlines, the more scrutiny from all sides. Yee and the rest won't be satisfied with knowing how the ESRB rates games, they're going to do everything they can to mold the criteria to what THEY want. Yee could easily call for the FCC to investigate "inadequate" criteria for ratings, even though it would once again be unconstitutional. It's the same reason why the MPAA's criteria for ratings aren't publicly published.
If Yee wasn't attatched to the CCFC, and so zealously out to get unecessary and unconstitutional legislation passed, I'd be able to respect him. Heck, even NIMFL recognizes the gains the ESRB has made, and at least partially favors education before legislation.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/01
1. It's spaced out fairly evenly. Keep the other ratings, but lower what is known as "M" to 15. (E, 10+, 13+, 15+, 18+)
2. Do not use ANY letter/word rating beyond the initial E rating and/or a Reccomended for before the +whatever rating
3. with the 18+, it leaves out the "ADULT PRON LOL XXX" connection, since the word adult is not used.
That way, the ratings appear to be more of a reccomendation AND an enforcement, depending on your understanding of the system.
At least with movies, if content is cut for being too violent, you still have a shot at seeing it in a "Director's Cut" six months down the line, and nobody bats an eye.
Penny-Arcade ftw! I loved that one!
"You gotta love how the word “Ultra-Violent” keeps coming up in these press releases. What soccer mom thought that word up?"
Actually this was from Doom(and I think wolfenstein), I remember it quite clearly since I played it the other day.
We're not talking about what does and doesn't end up in stores at this point, we're talking about what would happen if the ratings criteria used by the MPAA and the ESRB were made public.
What you're talking about can be found here http://gamepolitics.com/2007/08/28/ian-bogost-console-makers-are-the-rea...
see what I posted for Phantom
Won't do any good, there's a decent chance the same kind of person would get the job.
Yee, just like every other "save the children" politician is sorely out of touch with the subject he's trying to legislate, and that won't change anytime soon.
Pitty he does not seem to realize (or care) that the ESRB does not have permission to expose said information.
So which is it ignorance or just saying whatever sounds good in a press release?
Because it isn't as if anyone has ever accused the MPAA of being "unwilling to disclose or give any meaningful rationale at how they come to their decisions." It isn't as if someone didn't make an entire film about how the MPAA ratings are so secret that they had to get a private investigator to find out who the actual specific people that rate the movies are or anything. It isn't as if the MPAA gave that film an NC-17 when they rated the movie or anything which in effect prevented the film from getting a wide distribution or anything...
But yes, let's focus on those damn videogame ratings people because they are the only ones that are bad...
Until then hes just whining and everyone with half a brain knows it.
Perhaps it is simply a matter of it not being his business. Has he purchased a game which was mis-rated? Has there been a spate of games with inappropriate ratings, people complaining?
Or is this more likely a power struggle from a busybody who can't be bothered to address real problems in his state? An appeal to emotion rather than logic.
Can parents disclose any meaningful rationale at how they come to their decisions? I'm a parent, and I can't.
Make the ESRB transparent in the methods. Let anyone who actually wants to see the material the games are reviewed through, see it. Don't hide it. If a game, like manhunt 2, gets re-rated, then let people know -why- and just what changed.
And, damnit, use the AO rating properly. I agree, games that are meant for adult audiences, should be rated for adult audiences. And console makers shouldn't limit that. In fact, if they really wanted to do something about it, limit the systems to T-rated games by default, then have a one-time call-in to unlock the parental controls to M and AO. That way, young kids can't just get their hands on bad games and play away. It makes the parents conscious about what kind of material their kids might be playing, and it just makes adults take 3 minutes, once, to call a toll-free number and unlock.
Don't use the AO as a censor, don't use it as a bludgeon and don't use it as a way to punish companies. Let companies make games that are meant for their audiences. Damnit, let them make an even more explicit version of Leisure Suit Larry, if they want to. The Wiimote would be a -perfect- way to play something like that, and it would get around a lot of those subtle innuendo bits that kids might not get.
If, for whatever reason, a developer wants to make a game about flying cocks and pussy raiding, that should be within their creative rights, and it shouldn't be censored or banned from the market, because a few companies are afraid of letting their hardware be "corrupted". Especially since you can already watch porntube on the Wii browser. That's worse than what you'd see in most games, anyway. :P
Interesing figure. I downloaded the report to make sure I read it correctly not to just take Yee or Thompson's word and indeed, undercover mystery shoppers were able to purchase games 42% of the time.
This number does not indicate real life.
They GAVE kid money and told him/her to go in and buy a particular game. I've yet to see any research that has statistics regarding sales as to an age demographic.
Suffice to say any sales with a credit card were probably not a kid under the age of 17, so then break down cash or gift card sales of M rated games: what does to correlate to? anyone? Then break that down in to age, what do you suppose that number would be? I seriously doubt it would be 42% of cash/gift card sales of M rated games.
food for thought
Make the ESRB transparent in the methods. Let anyone who actually wants to see the material the games are reviewed through, see it. Don’t hide it. If a game, like manhunt 2, gets re-rated, then let people know -why- and just what changed."
Why should the ESRB have to do this? Even when they would do this, they would even get more flack for the rating they gave a certain game. When the ESRB is very upfront about why something got a certain rating, the politicians will still not agree with the rating. This will only give the more ammunition than ever before. Because what the ESRB would deem suitable for minors, other people may completely disagree with.
The politicians just need to deal with the fact that the ratings are guidelines and nothing more. And I really have no clue why Yee is so damn idiotic about this. It is only a difference between 17 and 18 years old, that is it. If it were a game that was AO and got re-rated T, he would have point, but now he simply doesn't. And how hard is it to understand those ratings? It says M and 17 + on the same box. It also tells people exactly what type of content it contains.
And who on earth would even think that a game called MANHUNT could be remotely suitable for children? It is about time that Yee stops helping the parents to be so lazy. Children can't buy games without money. When you give your child money, below a certain age, you should always know what your children spend it on. And when you don't want your 16 year old to play a game such as Manhunt, put their computer behind locks when you aren't home (only give them a laptop, something small you can easily take away). Sure, they could still hide the laptop themselves, but then you have already failed as a parent. A good parent knows that you need to learn your kids everything, BEFORE they become teenagers and not during the teenage years (doesn't work).
As one example, consider a game developer that cuts sections of material present in an early build and applies it to an expansion patch. Anyone who's hacked around with game files from Doom on out knows how many inactive bits of assets are even present in released files that speak to cut or unincluded material.
Those developers aren't going to disclose how many features got cut or reused for another release or even product. Honestly, given their position and in many cases duty to their stockholders it makes very little sense for them to do so.
At the same time, many games need early builds released for rating to allow for readjustment if they should receive a rating that would kill their viability for the intended market. So the developers will hold onto NDAs for reasons that do, in fact, make business sense.
In this regard, there is in fact a greater reason for nondisclosure in a game rating system than in the MPAA.
This argument is in line with many who have said transparency isn't viable due to disclosure affecting sales and I STILL disagree.
Using your analogy of unused assets in the original "Doom" , how would viewing that material NOW cause heartbreak amongst stockholders, or investors? The answer is it wouldn't.
Frankly, the industry is going to come to a point where it can't afford NOT to disclose this information after a certain amount of time because they will be neck deep in frivolous law suits all clamoring to know why their AO rated game got an "M".
It seems to me a small compromise and a show of good faith to keep people like Yee at bey and when I hear that the game developers are unwilling to make compromises, it makes me wonder why I defend them so strongly.
As a consumer, my best interests are served when the game industry and politicians get along well with one another.
I take offense when politicians misuse my tax dollars for laws that would circumvent the constitution and I sure as hell take offense when I give a company hundreds of my heard earned dollars only to hear them say they refuse to make concessions or compromise on such trivial matters... like a label on a box or revealing, after a reasonable amount of time, the process by which their controversial game was rated.
These are small maters that can be addressed without laws, interventions by politicians or threat of legal action or investigations.
Even without creditcard/gift card sales, BearDoggX worked out the numbers to
If the ESRB does not do all of the work, that it eliminates parents having to think and removes all responsibility from the parents, does not ban games THEY find objectionable, if the ESRB does not prevent 100% of mature game sales to minors 100% of the time, then the system is completely and utterly broken.
"It seems to me a small compromise and a show of good faith to keep people like Yee at bey"
But it won't keep people like him at bay.
Imagine the following scenario. The ESRB rates a game "AO", and lists it's reasons for doing so, along with the material that got it the rating. The Yees of the world nod in agreement, because the system works, the horrible game got defacto-banned.
Then the game got resubmitted, with material cut out, and the ESRB rates it "M". The Yees of the world cry foul, because they want it rated "AO".
How does revealing the material cut stop them from continuing to demand it be rated "AO"? Clearly they don't want that material put back, yet they demand to know what it was. It doesn't matter if it's gone right? Confusion FTW.
The other problem is that it then opens it up to nitpicking. Rating is an art, not a science. You can't state "if character X gets throat slit just SO by character Y, and X is a bad guy, and Y is a good guy, and X deserved it, and it was badly lit, and the camera angle was Z, THEN it's AO, but if it was angle Q, it's only M".
Knowing everything still won't let you compare judgment calls, and only gives people like Yee the ability to nitpick. "Well it wasn't badly lit enough by MY standards, so it should have been AO, not M"
How did they come to that number?
you know the other thing is, just because a game is rated M does not mean my 14yo can't play it in my house. I take a look at ALL the games we buy and many we don't [funny how I make purchase decisions by research than gut reaction]
I let him play Halo, I let him play KOTOR, I let him play almost anything he actually wants to play which for him, is usually music related games or games where you play with others, he has not gone on line BTW to play games.
so, how many "M" rated games get sold to minors who are NOT allowed to play that particular game in their own house with parental knowledge.
Thompson & Yee would have us believe that parents everywhere are just clueless. I don't know any parents who are completely clueless and I sure as hell don't know any that let their kids have control of the TV, computer and videogame console in their house.
I don't say that there will be NO investigations but it will shut up people who try to claim the ESRB or Game Devs are "hiding" something if its all out in the open.
nope, still doesn't sway me, Transparency is key here. I'm not the only one who thinks so.
When the MPAA has full transparency and disclosure on its methods for rating movies, and there is full disclosure and transparency on how TV programs are rated, then I will see a potential argument for the ESRB to do so with video games, and not before.
Right now, the biggest noisemakers who are demanding full disclosure (like Yee) are simply demanding something of one entertainment medium which does not exist in others. That is a double standard, and is simply an effort to censor said medium.