FCC to Study Universal Rating System… Video Game Biz Objects

The Federal Communications Commission will evaluate the potential for a single content rating system that would span various forms of media, including video games, movies, TV and music.

Bloomberg reports that the FCC will study the issue at the direction of Congress:

The FCC action follows congressional queries into whether children are harmed by inappropriate content, such as sex, violence and obscenity. Senators want to know whether revisions are needed to the law to protect children, said Senator Jay Rockefeller…

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski told Congress in July he was “hopeful that the evolving media landscape” will enhance parents’ power “to pick and choose” what their child sees and hears.

Not surprisingly, game publishers lobbying group ESA is opposed to the idea. Kotaku has comment from ESA VP RichTaylor:

The ESA appreciates the FCC and its important role. However, the ESRB rating system is considered by parents, family advocates, the Federal Trade Commission, and elected officials as the gold standard in providing caregivers with the information they need to make the right choices for their families. Universal ratings will, in the end, only serve to confuse consumers, violate the Constitution’s first amendment, and are a solution in search of a problem.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    It goes without saying that they can nto do much, more to the point we need a uni system and the ebst direction for that is to exspand what the ESRB covers, it is withotua doubt far supierror than the MPAA.

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  2. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    The FCC may have had a small say in the creation of the ESRB, but the ESRB is still an organization that has no government oversight and is operated by the gaming industry, much like the MPAA is in the film industry.  To have the government say that they are going to destroy the ESRB for no reason than to create their own rating board may or may not be censorship, but it is in fact the government looking to control the industry.

    When government officials complain about GTA4, the GP boards overflow with protest.  Does anyone really think that GTA5 would be able to be sold in the US if those same government officials are allowed to rate games, thereby run the industry?

    He was dead when I got here.

  3. 0
    Stinking Kevin says:

    Going by what I gather from this post, you do not understand the FCC report and you do not understand the purpose of the ESRB. I like your spirit, but you should not be calling people stupid.

  4. 0
    JDKJ says:

    Garden variety pornography isn’t obscene and therefore that it is obscene can’t be and isn’t the reason for restricting its availability to minors. Rather, it was found that the claim of pornography posing a risk of harm to minors was not without some rational basis. This claimed risk of harm is the justification for the restriction.

  5. 0
    Bigman-K says:

    I do agree with you about the MT15+ (Mature Teens 15 and older) rating being added to the voluntary ESRB rating system.

    "No law means no law" – Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

  6. 0
    Bigman-K says:

    Because such speech would most likely fall under the legal definition of "Obscene to minors".

    "No law means no law" – Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

  7. 0
    Adamas Draconis says:

    For all intents and purposes, if is shows genetalia and/or shows and/or describes the act of intercourse it is considered "porn" and therefore legaliy restrictable. It’s a line that retail-sold console/PC games try not to cross. (with the exception of certain PC and flash games only available online)


    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  8. 0
    V4nI114 Ic3 says:

    lies. you hit the gas button and dont hit walls.  that not very difficult ;p

    a secondary rating system for difficult is stupid.  a kid could just as easily play forza or ninja gaiden or whatever as anyone else, and likewise, an adult could play the same 2 games worse than any 5 year old could.  difficulty level is pretty objective and arbitrary.  some people thought dead space was insanely hard and scary; i breezed through that game with no problem.  does that statement make my perspective correct? or does it make someone else’s perspective correct.

  9. 0
    V4nI114 Ic3 says:

    i hate the FCC and tipper gore.  the FCC has no business trying to enact any type of censorship or ratings on any form of video game, or cell phone application, or whatever.  their sole purpose is to ensure that antitrust laws are not being broken by internet service providers, broadcast companies, or telecommunication companies, as well as regulate practices such as affirmative action laws.

    the FCC trying to enact a ratings board is the closest anyone can get to governement regulation of video games without congress outrightly doing it.

  10. 0
    SpaceGhost2K says:

    The ESRB does indeed need to make changes to its ratings system, but here’s the thing: both the ESRB rating system and the MPAA rating system are copyrighted by their respective organizations. They can’t, by law, use each others’ system.


    Now I suppose the FCC could come in with their own rating system, but they coudln’t force publishers to use it because of the First Amendment. And who would use it voluntarily? If they wanted to offer it as an "additional source of information" on a government website, to me, that just sounds like a HUGE waste of taxpayer’s money, not to mention reinventing the wheel.


    If people are confused, it’s because they’re stupid, and the government can’t regulate "stupid." God knows they try.


    Anyway, the ESRB needs to apply two ratings to their games. One rating is for content, and one rating is for difficulty. For instance, Forza may be "E" for "Everybody" but it’s really too complex for kids. Many "E" rated games that look like juvenile games require a LOT of reading.

  11. 0
    MrKlorox says:

    My Aunt keeps theirs in their kitchen. Well it’s technically on the dining area side since it’s all in the same room.

    Who sits down for family dinner anymore? Put electronics in that wasted space!

  12. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Well the say they got was to get the ball rolling whatever is created next will have to be far from the goverment tit and pupet masters, but the ball needs to start rolling sometime soon.

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  13. 0
    Stinking Kevin says:

    I don't think so. Threats from senators like Lieberman and Kohl spurred the establishment of the ESRB but they didn't really have any "say" in how the ESRB was established, or in how it works. I don't think the FCC had anything to do with it at all.


  14. 0
    Father Time says:

    If the FCC actually goes through with this be on the lookout for media to get rerated after only a few complaints.

    Seriously it only takes about 20 complaints for the FCC to do something and they can be form mail.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  15. 0
    Stinking Kevin says:

    According to the Bloomberg article, this is really just about a report on a study being conducted to satisfy "congressional inquiries." If you read the report, it doesn’t promote a universal ratings system, it just examines parental controls for movies and television programs on different devices.

    The FCC is conducting this study because congress told it to. A 2007 law called the "Child Safe Viewing Act" mandated that the Federal Communications Commission investigate content- and ratings-based blocking technologies across multiple platforms, and that’s mostly what this report is. The section on video games is only about 4 pages of about 200, and most of it is spent commending the ESRB and explaining that video games do not really fall under the study’s purview, anyway.

    If we hear anything else about a universal ratings system, it will be coming from somebody running for congress, not from the FCC. Blaming video games and movies for social problems makes for good politics (Senator Jay Rockefeller, chair of the commerce committee, says his constituents are "horrified" by the programming they see) but not for good legislation.

  16. 0
    JustChris says:


    By definition, isn’t the FCC solely meant for only regulating communications that travel by air, wire and satellite? Video games do not fall under this kind of classification. They are self-contained and sold to individuals. (Though one may wonder if digital distribution over the internet falls under the FCC’s area of control) I can see them only being able to judge and consider the universal rating system, but they cannot be in control of media that is made for private exhibition.

  17. 0
    Adamas Draconis says:

    the ESRB is a volentary system,so is the MPAA, and that is the issue. The FCC basicly wanting to replace them with their own rating system, which would have govermental force, is an attempted end-run around the first-amnedment. That and when was the last time you seen a game WITHOUT a ESRB rating in a store? Most stores won’t sell an unrated game.


    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  18. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Ya the FCC dose not need to lead or have any control over it that goes withotu saying but they and other parts of the goverment did have some say in the ESRB.

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  19. 0
    Wormdundee says:

    Uh yeah, that’s the point. The free market is already taking care of it themselves, there’s no need for a federal entity to create a universal rating system. It would be illegal for the government to do this since it would be restricting free speech.

    It’s perfectly fine for the industry to have a rating system since they are essentially restricting themselves, but do you really want the government to have any say in what rating something gets?

  20. 0
    wintermute says:

    If PUBLISHERS want said media rated under one blanket rating system, then what the hell, at least everything would be consistent.  The moment the FCC throws all the other ratings systems out the window and creates their own, they run headlong into a brick wall named the First Ammendment.  The government can’t use the FCC to create and enforce a new rating system, that would automatically be listed as censorship and get the entire system thrown out.

    As far as the FCC forcing the entertainment industry to come up with a new, independent rating system that would cover all forms of media (games, movies, TV, music, ect), I’m not 100% sure on the legal end, but I think it would put everyone into a quagmire.

    The FDA can force food companies to put certain info into the nutrition lables on food because, in valid cases, there is a health concern/risk that should be noted.  Same with the FCC and electronic communication products.  If, and only if, it’s proven that cell phone use could increase the chance of a person getting brain cancer, than it would be up to the FCC to mandate a new warning label on all cell phones.

    This has already been noted in a previous comment here, so I’ll just summarize it, all of the studies done on the affects of violent media on children has been observational only, and has not shown any direct health concern or risk.  No causal evidence has been found linking violent and/or sexual media and violent / sexual actions carried out in real life.  Since there is no absolute direct sicentific proof that playing violent videogames would directly cause the player to perform a violent act, or watching porn would directly cause someone to go out and commit violent / illegal sex acts, the FCC has no real weight to force the entertainment industry to create an all encompassing rating system.

    And for the record, weather it be created and/or enforced by the FCC or not, a blanket rating system would not shut up the people who whine about violent or sexualized entertainment.  There will always be a very vocal group that will find something wrong with the system.  There will always be moral crusaders who won’t be happy until everything is rated G.  There will always be people too lazy to actually be parents and adults, and will complain that the government should do more to protect the children, becuase they don’t want to, and there will always be politicians who will be more than happy to pony up to these groups, because it will get them more campaign money and more votes.

    Yes, a blanket system would be convenient, very, very convenient, but it still won’t solve the real problem, the only thing that will would be if the people in power grew some brass balls, and told everyone else to STFU and handle domestic problems in their own homes.

  21. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Well what it boils down to is you may have a orginization like the ESRB handling rating all media if publishers want said media rated.

    And in that it would level out issues sex and violence issues with games and film and that is worth making a new rantigns board over.

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  22. 0
    gamadaya says:

    "We’re doing this for the children!" -What you hear right before your government fucks you up the ass.


    Believe in something! Even if it’s wrong, believe in it!


    -Glenn Beck

  23. 0
    Snakestream says:

    The problem with this whole thing is that it is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE to gain any absolute research findings that would suggest that media affects children (and adults by implication), given today’s technology. This is mainly due to the fact that you can’t have a true experiment, where all variables except for one (here it would be exposure to various kinds of media) are identical between test groups. The only way this will ever be put to rest is when we can develop a software program that can realistically simulate a child’s developing brain and the way it interacts with its environment (and it’ll be a really long time before that happens if you ask me). With this, we could create two identical "people" and manipulate media exposure as the variable and see what is different.

    Until then, all of this observational research is completely useless for forming any sort of generalized rulings or laws. Frankly, any law based on this kind of research is and forever will be foolish, fear-mongering garbage that likely passed due to political exaggeration and general ignorance on behalf of citizens. Honestly, there are more important things to worry about than censorship, and the government wastes time violating our first amendment rights in the name of "the children", just like they did in the 50’s with McCarthyism and the FCC, *ahem* I mean the Bureau of Censorship.

  24. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Yes but it dose not nesscerially means the FCC would run it, goverment has to moan and then do soemthign like the ESRB which was created from a bunch of moaning and some goverment help.

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  25. 0
    BearDogg-X says:

    The FCC is a government body with its members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

    Therefore, it would be unconstitutional.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.

    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(0-3), LSU(3-0)

  26. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Well they have to rate stuff on TV having a universal system would help them in that, they might not should have control over it but they should have a say at least as far as "hey this is a good idea" idea shearing,ect.

    Now currently you can not release a game on the console without a rating so the market itself already dose that, all the government can do is get together with business to start a new thing, basically take the ESRB and open it up to all media then they can compete with the MPAA and hopefully drive them out of the movie rating  business!

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  27. 0
    BearDogg-X says:

    Automatically unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech, but I thought the story originally said that movies weren’t going to be included, otherwise it would have also violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.

    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(0-3), LSU(3-0)

  28. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    Video games are not a broadcast medium, so what makes the FCC think it has any jurisdiction whatsoever over video games? This strikes me as nothing more than another FCC power grab.

    Also, what makes the FCC think such a rating system would pass constitutional muster? If you can’t publish your game until it’s been granted a rating it becomes a form of prior restraint, and if you can’t publish at all without a rating it becomes compelled speech.

  29. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    This would be a good thing actually take the ESRB with government support (since it started with government help anyway) and expand it to film,music,magazines books anyone willing to pay the fee to get their stuff rated will those who don’t wont.


    There is no down side to it since it will get rid of the MPAA unfair and lax rating system and even out game rating issues and they would even be able to rate stuff that much better with a 15+  level in the teen tier.


    Since you are taking how the ESRB dose things opening it up for all forms of media there is no down side sicne its volentary to go to to pay the fee to have it rated.

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  30. 0
    nightwng2000 says:

    Leland Yee, the Eagle Forum, and CA as a state should be fighting this as well.

    According to Leland Yee, et all, computer/video games are unique from other forms of media because of their interactive nature (though he only had his opinion and no actual research, vaild or otherwise, to back up the claim).

    If the FCC or any government agency creates a unified rating system, then it’s a government admission that ALL forms of media, interactive or not, have the exact same effect (or lack of effect) on the users of that media.  Thereby blowing the claims of Yee, the Eagle Forum, and CA, among many others, out of the water.


    NW2K Software


    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  31. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    I suppose, joking aside, that it is, at least, better than putting it down in the basement where the parents can’t see what their child is doing.

  32. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    Must admit, I wondered that myself, maybe we’re talking really dumb parents who think it’s a microwave and have spent the last 6 months trying to open the monitor to put the food in?

  33. 0
    Bigman-K says:

    Here is part of the ruling here that pertains to this issue:

    Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when government seeks to control the flow of information to minors.

    "No law means no law" – Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black

  34. 0
    Bigman-K says:

    A government enforced rating system violates the First Amendment as it would restrict the dessimination of Free Speech media to individuals. (and yes this includes minors as well as minors have First Amendment rights and rightfully so eg. read the Supreme Court ruling in Ezrnonzik vs. City of Jacksonville.)


    "No law means no law" – Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

  35. 0
    axiomatic says:

    In todays terrible economy is "reinventing the wheel" for something that works pretty well (ESRB) financially responsible? Don’t we have more pressing battles to fight? Like maybe US broadband speeds and cable/telco monoplies?

    I think you have enough on your plate already FCC. Stay focused on the important things. This "Universal Rating System" one is not so important.

  36. 0
    JDKJ says:

    The ESA appreciates the FCC and its important role.

    Translates out of lobby-speak and into plain English as: "The ESA thinks the FCC are a bunch of political hacks and we have never been able to figure out what useful purpose they serve."

  37. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    “Parents worry not only about the TV in the den, but about the computer in the kitchen, the gaming console in the basement, and the mobile phones in their kids’ pockets,”


    The mobile phone argument is about acceptable, what with the Browing phones that are available now, but, seriously, the other arguments are confusing to me, parents put computers where they cannot see them, do not avail themselves of the multiple passwording and parental protection features available on just about every game system on the market, and then wonder why little Timmy is browsing Porn sites?

    To paraphrase Frank Boyle:

    "Here’s a bit of advice for parents, read the fucking manual!"

  38. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    You’re right, a rating system from the highly politicized FCC would be a great idea.  Because, as we all know, government is the answer to all problems, especially made up ones.  Isn’t that right MrKlorox?

  39. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    You would believe that. Do you really think that the FCC would do any of those things?  If so, you need to pull your head out of your ass.  The only reason the government wants a hand in it is so they can create and enforce laws that are, in fact, unconstitutional at a later date.

  40. 0
    MrKlorox says:

    What? Dude… if it’s going to be a universal rating system, they would have to ban ALL 18+ media for what you to say to happen. And it won’t.

    All this would mean is that if they have an adult content rating AND a porn rating for video, they’ll have both for videogames also — with the consoles likely banning the porn rating only. If you’re using the Australian OFLC debacle as reason to think this; don’t. The OFLC system isn’t universal, which is precisely WHY they can get away with denying gamers an 18+ rating.

  41. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Agreed, this is government censorship in leiu of Britain and Australia, and I want no part in it at all.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  42. 0
    thefremen says:

    Even if the FCC was a totally non-politicized entity this wouldn’t be a good idea, but since it is highly susceptible to being politicized it’s an even worse idea. The FCC that handed out insane fines for the Janet Jackson fiasco would be handing out game bans left and right (since the senate subcommittee on games would decide that adults shouldn’t play games, therefore no 18+ rating needed) whereas an FCC similar to the one during the Clinton administration would just ban everything that didn’t have oral sex in it.

  43. 0
    MrKlorox says:

    Seems like the opposite to me. This should provide the middle rating needed between 13 and 17/18 as well as provide an acceptible adult content rating that’s separate from a porn rating.

  44. 0
    Bigman-K says:

    It’s funny that at a time where there are so many important problems like dealing with a budget crisis (What is the U.S. $4 trillion in debt to China) and a bad economy and lack of jobs, the government is worrying about teens watching movies and playing video games that they find unsuitable for them. If they go through with this (although i feel they won’t, thank God) it will be more taxpayer’s money down the toilet for something that is gonna end of being found unconstitutional anyways. Seriously, we need to get rid of the Republicans and Democrats in power. Isn’t there a viable Third Party that actually respects the constitution and not wasting our money on useless and unnessasary shit.

    "No law means no law  – Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

  45. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    This seems less like an attempt to help anyone and more like a step toward banning games. People are very comfortable with MPAA and ESRB ratings (except for people who don’t know how to raise their children, but hey, they didn’t care in the first place), so there’s no real rational reason to force a universal rating system made by the government except to grow the government some more.  And that is something we definitely need less of these days.

  46. 0
    MrKlorox says:

    I happen to think the ESRB is a little broken. AO is still a console ban (only slightly less worse than your RC), and there’s a massive gap between T and M.

  47. 0
    Arell says:

    Not exactly.  Back in the early 90’s, some Senators told the video game industry that they needed a ratings system, or the government wouls do it for them.  Thus, the ESRB was formed.  As far as I recall, the FFC has never made any real effort to try and replace the ESRB, though they do occasionally threaten to increase regulation from time to time.

    However, this might be changing.  Here in the US, the Courts have more or less stated that the government cannot pass laws based on the ESRB, because the ESRB is privately run (so in theory, a store can legally sell GTA to an 8 year old, just most don’t).  So, some people at the FFC might be thinking that if they could help create a "universal" ratings system, then the government would be free to regulate video game sales and content.  They’re not so much trying to "fix the system," as they are trying to get their foot in the door to attack media content with legislation.

    It likely won’t happen, though.  At least from the video game standpoint, the ESRB really is a huge success story, and is well established.  Trying to replace it would be clumsy and confusing to consumers.

  48. 0
    TBoneTony says:

    Isn’t the FCC the same organisation that tried to say that the ESRB system was broken? And that when they tried to make their own rating system people eventually found out that the ESRB was better?

    Hey, if the ESRB is not broken, DON’T fix it.

    Also the ESRB has always worked for me, even though I am an Australian and follow the OFLC that is not really that complete but at least games with a 17+ rating are ok in america, so I follow the internet and go by the ESRB.


  49. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Yes sir, the Libertarians ^^

    Though really, choosing Bob Barr was a very bad choice, he worked for the freaking CIA. Many Libertarians think that the CIA shouldn’t even exist.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  50. 0
    Vake Xeacons says:

    Besides allowing for government intervention where they don’t belong (House of UnAmerican Video Games Committy?) this wouldn’t work for anybody who tried to establish a universal ratings system:

    Every medium is different. That’s why there’s a different one for each.

    The ESRB tends to be more strict than the MPAA because of games’ interactivity. Content that would be PG-13 level may get an M rating. If a system rated both, how many M-rated games would end up with an NC-17 rating?

    No. Wouldn’t work…

  51. 0
    JDKJ says:

    Plus, the MPAA and the ESRB are unlikely to sit by quitely while the government does them all out of a job. I’d imagine they’d fight tooth and nail in opposition.

  52. 0
    Cheater87 says:

    The US government can not censor or ban video games so that makes me happy.  But what if they come up with an AO like rating and the consoles ban it. :( 

  53. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    I say they should adopt a system that looks identical to the BBFC. Not because of any love for the BBFC on my part, just that it would be absolutely hilarious to watch Larouchites spontaneously combust as the news spreads 😉

  54. 0
    black manta says:

    This again?  The whole idea of a universal ratings system gets floated once every few years, usually out of the same concern over the perception of an "alphabet soup" of ratings that comprise movies, TV and games.  Although this time it appears that they’re being more serious about it than usual.  Still, I don’t expect them really to get any farther in it than the other times in the past.  While the idea all looks good on paper, in practice it would run into some First Amendment problems as others have noticed.  All that said, I think the ECA also needs to get involved in this and voice their opposition as well. 

  55. 0
    Bigman-K says:

    Well, if anything a universal rating system would be too confusing to parents as they’d go from the MPAA rating system for movies which so many of them are used to after what, 40 plus years to something entirely new. Also the ESRB rating system is becoming more and more knowledgeable to parents after being around for the last 15 years.

    Of course then there is the whole First Amendment question. Which makes a government enforced rating system unconstitutional as hell as no matter how you put it such as proposal is a restriction on Free Speech. Really the nanny-state has no business deciding for anybody whether adults or minors what they can or can’t watch, play, read or listen to. That is the sole decision and responsibility of the individual parent when it comes to their child and nothing more. A rating system as a a mere guild to parents, fine. A rating system as a form of nanny-state censorship and restriction, hell no.

     "No law means no law" – Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

  56. 0
    CyberSkull says:

    In no frelling way, shape or form do I want any government related content ratings, registration, stamp, approval, disapproval, ticket, marker, indicator, nod, recommendation or ban.


  57. 0
    Evildude151 says:

    I dunno, how would people be confused by a universal rating system? It seems like a decent idea at first glance. Maybe then nongamers will come to accept "M" games are no worse than "R" movies.

    Then again, people still have trouble swiping a debit/credit card at the store is still a challange for a lot of folk.

Leave a Reply