Sounds reasonable enough to me. Of course, this means Rock Band will be four-letter word free, unless we sing it instead.

i don't think it's unreasonable to expect all DLC for a game to rate at the same level as the original game.

laying this out on the table now makes sense, since it hasn't happened yet. now everyone is on the same page as far as content is concerned.

On the gambling, I'll admit that's also an AO issue, mainly because only adults are allowed to gamble with real money. As for the "prolonged scenes of intense violence" (as stated by the ESRB website), I suppose that's also covered by the AO, but I don't blame the AO for those types of games not being made (or the console makers, really). Rather, I don't think it would be as lucrative a business choice as some people think, even if stores would carry them. A lot of people are turned off by such intense or realistic violence, even from a gameplay perspective where we run around and shoot virtual people all day. Much in the same way that slasher films don't get a particularly large following compared to the other genres of film.

Besides, I've played many M rated games that had what I would consider "prolonged scenes of intense violence," so it would have to be especially intense to garner an AO. Violence just doesn't get the same attention for AO consideration that sex does. Which is why I keep fixating on "AO being about sex." But I suppose it isn't always true, so I'll try to consider the rating in broader terms from now on.

I'd be interested in seeing a list of Manhunt 2 changes that dropped it from AO to M. So far, the only example I've heard was cutting off a man's testicles.

Meh, I say it seems like a reasonable requirement.

@Cheater87

Too many opportunities for lying. I kind of agree with this. If your going to have a product at a certain rating, shoot for consistency.

@ZippyDSMlee

The reason they don't drop it is because their out to rate all games, period, and some games might not get ESRB certification. The AO rating is to flag pornographic content. I would agree with an OT level. Make it 15.

What's the story with the Gamezone link? It doesn't work, and it comes through on EVERY story.

@ZippyDSMlee

Sorry for the copy and paste, but dropping the AO is a very bad idea. Here's why, from another thread:

"Ah, but the M rating isn’t technically “for adults.” That’s the whole point of it having the 17+ attached to it. By making it one year younger than legal adult age, it opens up minors as a potential market for the M rated games. Additionally, AO is almost exclusively used for porn games, and very rarely for the truly violent imagery of games like Manhunt 2 (and even then, the AO content had to do with cutting off a man's testicles). Basically, the AO is about Strong Sexual Content.

Basically, the one year difference between M and AO (17+, 18+) is a “safety net.” They put the truly objectionable content (porn and hyper violence) in the adult’s only category, which makes M rated games “safe” for sale at stores where people that aren’t legal adults might be able to purchase them.

The point I’m trying to make is, if you eleminated the AO rating, then you leave the M rating open to even more scrutiny. And many more stores would choose not to carry them, just like they don’t carry AO games. I mean, that would basically put games like Call of Duty in the same category as porn games. Considering the US’s attitude towards letting kids get their hands on sexual content, that would be shooting the gaming industry in the foot."

-------------------
Overall, I agree with the article. If you submit a game for review at the ESRB, and get a certain rating, you should keep future content downloads consistant with that rating. Otherwise you are trying to pull a fast one.

Online Experience may affect ESRB rating!

Anyway, I think this is ADDED content and might be subject to be higher than the original rating to the highest rating of M. There's no way we'd see anything higher than AO. Also, how often does the added content differ in ratings? Or are we just saying this to avoid another scandal?

Don't developers usually have to reapply for a new ESRB rating with each expansion anyway? I know we're not talking about off-the-shelf here, but what difference does it make?

What concerns me is the possibility of a game the ESRB rated T, but which was right on the border of M (or E, right on the border of T). I'd personally want to be able to tell the ESRB, "Give me the higher rating so you don't hamstring me on DLC." If the ESRB offers that option, great, no problem. If the ESRB says, "No, your game got a T, and that's what it got," that creates a problem, because then if my borderline game gets some borderline (on the other side of the rating) I may have to censor it.

I understand what they're going for. I just hope they're going to allow publishers to opt for a higher rating if they have DLC planned that might not fit the lower rating. It's not as cut and dry as I think the ESRB wants to make it.

@AM

I think that the point they were making is that if DLC has content that would need a higher rating than the original, then the game would be rated higher.

@LoopyChew

I thought that T games could have everything but the F-bomb.

I wonder, did this came out BECAUSE GTA is so near?

Possibly. Will GTA4 have DLC? If it does, then considering how much publicity GTA gets, then it's understandable that this was brought up beforehand.

Or it could just be a coincidence.

I like it.

Any idea what this might mean for User Generated content? I mean, lets say someone builds a map in the Make Something Unreal tournament, and somewhere in the map is something (like an image or whatever) that would increase UT3's rating. If Epic were to then encourage people to download it free of charge to vote on the winner, what then?

[...] wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt This morning we posted a story from from MTV Multiplayer regarding the ESRB’s position on downloadable content (DLC). We heard back from the ESRB with a clarification from president Patricia Vance (left): Companies are free to offer downloadable content to their games as long as the pertinent content is the same as the core product. If it isn’t, they have to submit it to the ESRB. [...]

Sounds perfect!

@Stinking Kevin

Her only enforcement power is to change the rating.

I don't see why both gamers and nongamers are still making a big deal out of the rating system.

Leave it alone. It is fine where it is at.

Man,everyone is making a huge fuss over GTA.

I really won't be paying attention to it,as I don't care for GTA.

@Stinking Kevin

In this particular situation the content can be recalled far easier. They don't have to rennovate discs unless they plan on keeping the content. I doubt that any developer would add something that would change the rating. I figure that would change the tone, which isn't what a developer usually wants.

I agree with the comments agreeing that DLC should conform to the game rating, but here is another example:

In Forza Motorsport 2, there is an extremely versatile graphic editor for creating car designs, which you can then trade and auction within the game using money earned in the game. Essentially you are downloading 'skins' for the cars (as well as ownership of the car itself). Now the thing is, because of its power for graphic design, many MANY designs go way beyond M rating, featuring graphic and extremely explicit sexual images (which I have no problem with) but these would certainly raise the E for everyone rating the game has at least to M if the designers had included any of these skins. So now, since you have adult material available via download through the game itself, should this change the rating, even though these were user generated?

(This example does not take into account the moderation by Turn10 employees who do what they can to restrict the trade and posting of pornographic cars.)

This is interesting. I wonder if a company will ever decide to sell an almost empty game (the basic core) for full price, with the intent to release free DLC that is of varying flavors and ratings? Allowing them to sell the core game at E rating lvl, distributed by all major stores, in most regions... and then with simple credit card or whatever check the user can DL the beef of the game in E up to M or even Ao versions as DLC.

It's an interesting concept. And I know it's almost useless as a "why not just do full digital distribution?". And the reason would probably be that currently, DD isn't going to sell as much to as many.

Just an intriguing thought..

From the Article: If the downloadable content earns a more restrictive (higher) age rating, and it is of an optional nature, it must display the new rating prior to the user downloading it. The core product’s rating won’t change, unless the new downloadable content is part of a required patch, as is typically the case with MMOs that must be patched in order to play.

Doesn't this already happen with XBOX Marketplace? In the little side bar with the information, it lists the rating for the new content, or has the DLC for it been allowed to add the original rating unchecked?

It ALSO sounds like a DLC can be made (if Microsoft would publish it) to raise the rating from M to AO. The one thing this might mean, is that it gets more intrusive. For example, you choose to download something that has a content rating not in the original (the DLC has L for language, or even a full AO rating), you click the button to download it, the screen goes white, shows the AO in the left half, have the right half have all the content rating and descriptors with boxes like
[ ] I hereby declare that I read and understanding the ratings.
[ ] I do not wish to download content with vile language.
Or, you know, maybe more of "Agree" "Decline", making another screen you have to click through when you buy something.
However, with the rise of false currency, like the WII Points (no DLC there yet though), or the Marketplace Credits or whatever they are called, does that mean you can no longer give your kids credits and say go wild? (Though that WOULD be the parents responsibility not any of the companies.)

So, am I completely misreading what it means, since everyone else seems to say it HAS to confine to exactly the same rating and descriptors or raise the overall rating, the last part seems to refute that?

@Ebonheart
I think WarOtter has established that he understands what user generated content is. I think his point is being missed: If the publisher can be seen as officially publishing downloadable content, what difference does it make who originally generated the content?

It seems to me the question is not just about who created the content, but also about who is distributing it. If you are saying that DLC and "UGC" are mutually exclusive, I disagree.

Unless I misunderstand, that Forza content is not being downloaded independently, through some third-party, from the open wilds of the internet; it is being distributed exclusively through Microsoft's private, fully controlled, subscription-based, walled-garden Xbox Live service.

I'm not sure how the ESRB should handle the Forza content (if at all), and I'm not sure where you draw the line between "online play" and "downloadable content," but I am pretty sure it's not so simple as publisher- vs. user-generated.

I don't think any publisher can be held accountable for user created content.

Let's face it, what will happen is what I'd like to call the Gabe Incident. Pretty much it theorizes that if anything user created can be formed into a wang, it will be.

I have to agree with E. Zachary Knight. There's nothing wrong with the AO rating. It's simply a label for nudity and on-screen sex at this point. If you really want those things, then it's not the ESRB you have to convince, but Sony, Nintendo, and Mircosoft. If you can plead the case that there's a big enough market for pornographic material (big enough to outweigh the public outcry that would follow), then they'd probably do it. You'd also probably have to find a way to make sure minor couldn't buy them at stores, considering that ESRB regulation at stores is currently voluntary (as it should be). But parents are definitely not going to be happy if 14 year olds can take an AO game to the counter and buy it on their own.

Or you could just buy a goddamn computer and stop belly-aching about it. The PC has a lot of games with pornographic material, and most of it isn't even submitted to the ESRB for ratings.

E. Zachary Knight
I disagree,even with AO being a bastardized NC17 we still need a solid 15/16 level, there are to many titles that can go vaguely in either direction, like E10 we need a mid step to Mature from teen,otherwise throw out E10 because there is no need for a "middle" rating level under any circumstance.

Are'el
Whos talking about pornography here? I am talking about letting games mature to a level equal to film.

Cheater87
Well I would suspect some retail chains would not sell them but the industry is blocking the exsistance of NC17 games so there is no pass go there is not get out of jail card..

I just think it would be cool if the ESRB had a 15+ rating for sci-fi games like HALO and Mass Effect, that are a little more than T, but not really M worthy.

@GRIZZAM 512

Especially when it's rarely the case. Most of the people I saw playing HALO were 14-16.

@ Are'el

It is possible for a game to get an AO rating without nudity and sex. A game can get AO for extreme amounts of violence and gore as well as real gambling. So AO is not just for "porn" games.

@ Zippy

I never said that adding a T15 rating is bad. I am saying that messing with the AO rating won't get us anywhere except maybe a few steps back.

I think T+15 would be good.

@Are'el

I guess they'd call it T15+, kinda like E10+.

E. Zachary Knight
I might be projecting my discontent alil,still the ESRB is unhelpful by remaining silent over it.
they should say ever once and again over what the console makers are up to and if consumers want it they should beg them for it.

Are'el
this is true and if you look at a lot of games like castlvina for instance its not much more rough than a PG13 flick but because tis a game its M.

Halo is also something that is not quite M un less you count the racist and cussing 13 year olds online, Metroid prime 2 could well fit into a T15 level, look at PEGI and some of your other ratings boards across the world,ya that got issues but most openly use a mid teen level and some of your ESRB M games winde up there more often than not.

There really is a need for for it IMO and it will aid M being more "mature" without crossing past the NC17 line easily, one of the things holding down M is that covers everything above 13,if we can take some pressure off it and slot less graphic content into a 15 level I feel the industry will automatically right itself and start handling M more maturely .

Currently we have 6+,10+,13+ and 17+ as the mainly used jumping points for age ranges,I believe a 15 level would really polish up the system, its true AO is not fully their fault but by ignoring it and not stating that the console makers have to agree to use it, it just makes my blood boil.

I find it funny MS is not actively using AO they have many games that could use T&A/basic nudity and high gore to push products why they are not using it I do not understand.

MS dose have a solid enough platform if they would stick their buts from their ears and fix it and use AO in a immaturely mature fashion(lets face it T&A is inmature :P) you would create a platform for interactive media that more devs would come to so they can not be as heavily censored on it as they are on other consoles.

And just so you know I am not talking about porn, even if DOA vollyball went topless or had full nudity the lower part would be bear like a doll, they are glorified dolls after all, and this is titlation not porn a huge diffrance, this could open up more small nude roles in games, sex not so much,even on the big screen its frowned on,nudity is a bit easier to do.

"Porn" on mainstream consoles wont be happening in the US anytime soon, even I get that and that I can live with it( I have board band after all lulz), however pushing games to be "equal" with film is something I just will not let go.


MH2 the kill scenes go to black and white or look away and other tricks to lessen the visual gore,they cut out 2 or 3 scenes, all in all who are they kidding who are they protecting calling something mature AO, for me high detail bodily functions/ serving,de bolwing,ect,ect would be AO,the dark cartoon(engine used is slightly cartoony or dated) style of violence in MH2 just dose not cut to be ZOMG AO.

IMO for gore to be AO you are going to need high detail,tossing a mobster into a wood chiper and have 100% hamburger come out thats not even close to ripping bowles out or the details in beheadings and what not.

Hell zombies( any and all T-M)are more gory than MH2 UNCUT!

meh zippy rantage is over 9000

DarknessDeku
No....its just to better slot the medium to age ranges,something the ratings system is..I dunno...suppose to do in the first place...