We’ve all seen them, the little black and white labels on the outside of a game package. Some of us pay attention to them some of us may not.
Those curious little squares with a capital letter E, T or M tell us the games’ rating. But where do they come from? Who decided that one game is safe for everyone, while another game should be for mature gamers only? Why should I even care? As many of us are aware, the Entertainment Software Rating Board, or ESRB determines these ratings.
The ESRB was established in 1994 by the Entertainment Software Association as a non-profit self-regulatory body. Their self-proclaimed mission is to provide consumers with accurate and objective information about the age suitability and content of computer and video games to assist consumers in making informed purchase decisions. They accomplish this by independently assigning game content ratings and enforcing industry adopted advertising guidelines. The ESRB created a two part rating system which includes both a rating category that suggests age-appropriateness, as well as content descriptors to indicate what content may have triggered the rating or may be of concern to the consumer.
So, why should we as consumers, gamers and parents be concerned about the ESRB and the ratings they bestow on our beloved games? Well, as parents, these ratings are a great place to start when selecting games for our children to play. At a quick glance we can instantly see that Condemned: Criminal Origins is rated M and therefore probably not suitable for our 8-year-old to play. Upon closer inspection we see that the reason this game is rated M is because of blood and gore, intense violence and strong language. We can then decide if these specific reasons for the M rating are enough to not let our 16-year-old play the game. The ESRB rating system should not be taken as a hard and fast rule however, since there are some apparent anomalies, or ratings with which you may not agree. For example Halo2, a game most of are familiar with, is also rated M. The reasons cited for this rating are blood and gore, language and violence. On the surface, not something we’d want our children to play. However, most of us probably don’t equate the alien blood spatters in Halo 2 with the graphic depictions of bludgeoning another person to death found in Condemned: Criminal Origins. Other games like Elder Scroll IV: Oblivion received a rating that many felt was not strong enough. Originally, Oblivion was rated T, meaning it was deemed acceptable for players as young as 13. Contents of the game were listed as blood and gore, language, use of alcohol and violence. The game was later given the M rating because of a hack that would allow people to show the female characters topless. Some review sites also thought the original rating was too low. Colleen Hammon of Gamerdad.com writes, “The real trouble here is in the actual game itself. It's all up to the player and their choices. You can play the game like a heavily armored Boy Scout and avoid a lot of it (questionable content), but not all. Going through one of the Gates you're supposed to close means you're headed off to this world's version of Hell. It's not like this game is dropping bloody zombies all over the place like Doom, but it still gets intense. And you will run into some sticky situations just talking to people. If you don't want to be a Boy Scout, it's even easier to find the interesting stuff. If you're off doing the Dark Brotherhood quests, you're going to be assassinating people. Fighting in the Arena means tromping upstairs through the Bloodworks. There are some very mature topics you run into in here.” So, taken as guidelines within which we can begin our gaming research instead of rules to be followed without question, we can find value in the ESRB rating system.
All is not without controversy though. The now infamous “Hot Coffee” scandal has brought the topic of mature themed video games into the limelight. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was a blockbuster game released by Rockstar Games in June of 2005. It was initially rated M for blood and gore, intense violence, intense language, drug use and sexual content. Mature content aside, a downloadable modification that could unlock sexually explicit mini-games had the National Institute on Family and Media claim that the game was now “over the edge.” Rockstar Games was not the only organization in hot water over the “Hot Coffee” scandal. The ESRB took almost as much criticism as the games creator. To their credit, the ESRB did change the rating of the game from mature (M) to adults only (AO). But some viewed this action as too little too late. Some politicians accused the ESRB of collusion with the publisher, who pays dues to the ESA, who in turn supports the ESRB. Detractors of the ESRB claim that they are deferential to members of the ESA and, in the case of the “Hot Coffee” mod, they failed to act swiftly, or at all.
This perceived lack of action on the part of the ESRB has prompted a series of lawmakers to take matters into their own hands. In July 2005, Hillary Clinton called for a Federal Trade Commission inquiry into the “Hot Coffee” mod. That investigation reported that the publisher “ failed to disclose important information about the games content to consumers” and then warned Rockstar Games not to misrepresent the content of their games. No fines were levied. On February 24, 2005, lawmakers in the state of Michigan introduced Senate Bill 249 that would bar the sale or rental of restricted video games (those rated M or AO by the ESRB) to minors. This bill eventually passed and was then found to be unconstitutional by a federal judge, and is currently under appeal. California, Illinois, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota and Louisiana have all passed legislation restricting the sale of violent or explicit games to minors. Some of these laws have already been overturned or are on appeal on the basis of their questionable constitutionality.
California State Assemblyman Leland Yee is perhaps the most vocal critic of the ESRB saying in an interview with Gamespot, “I hope that there are more investigations. The ESRB is not an appropriate forum to rate any of these games whatsoever. There’s a conflict of interest. It’s the fox guarding the henhouse. …If you have the industry paying for the rating, and your salary comes out of their money, the last thing you’re going to try and do is upset them. The last thing you’re going to do is limit their market share by rating a game AO.”
When asked in an interview on Gamespot if the ESRB could effectively regulate the gaming industry, President of the ESRB, Patricia Vance, responded, “I think it’s a very strong statement about the self-regulatory system and how independent it is…I think if nothing else, the industry and others view these actions as serious and effective in terms of addressing the issues. We should all be proud as an industry that this was the outcome (the changing of GTAs’ rating to AO). It was dealt with swiftly.”
One thing that these gaming laws have in common, regardless of their constitutionality and the eventual outcome of their respective court cases, is that they all seek to make some game sales and/or rentals restricted to consumers under a given age. They all rely on the ESRB to determine which games should be regulated. This may partly be because the ESRB is the only game in town, but none of the proposed legislation provides, or even suggests that there needs to be, an alternative to the ESRB. Even Assemblyman Yee, the most outspoken critic against the ESRB, has not provided any suggestions for improvement or alternative ratings systems. One thing is clear. The ESRB is the fulcrum upon which the entire issue of government regulated video game sales and rentals rests.
Pandering politicians aside, some important questions have been raised. Does the ESRB operate in a fully autonomous capacity free from the influences of the gaming industry? Does the ESRB have the credibility and respect of the politicians and society at large to be the definitive standard in video game ratings? Concrete answers to these questions may remain elusive, but one thing is certain. The ESRB will have a tremendous impact on the future of gaming.
The ESRB was established in 1994 by the Entertainment Software Association as a non-profit self-regulatory body. Their self-proclaimed mission is to provide consumers with accurate and objective information about the age suitability and content of computer and video games to assist consumers in making informed purchase decisions. They accomplish this by independently assigning game content ratings and enforcing industry adopted advertising guidelines. The ESRB created a two part rating system which includes both a rating category that suggests age-appropriateness, as well as content descriptors to indicate what content may have triggered the rating or may be of concern to the consumer.
So, why should we as consumers, gamers and parents be concerned about the ESRB and the ratings they bestow on our beloved games? Well, as parents, these ratings are a great place to start when selecting games for our children to play. At a quick glance we can instantly see that Condemned: Criminal Origins is rated M and therefore probably not suitable for our 8-year-old to play. Upon closer inspection we see that the reason this game is rated M is because of blood and gore, intense violence and strong language. We can then decide if these specific reasons for the M rating are enough to not let our 16-year-old play the game. The ESRB rating system should not be taken as a hard and fast rule however, since there are some apparent anomalies, or ratings with which you may not agree. For example Halo2, a game most of are familiar with, is also rated M. The reasons cited for this rating are blood and gore, language and violence. On the surface, not something we’d want our children to play. However, most of us probably don’t equate the alien blood spatters in Halo 2 with the graphic depictions of bludgeoning another person to death found in Condemned: Criminal Origins. Other games like Elder Scroll IV: Oblivion received a rating that many felt was not strong enough. Originally, Oblivion was rated T, meaning it was deemed acceptable for players as young as 13. Contents of the game were listed as blood and gore, language, use of alcohol and violence. The game was later given the M rating because of a hack that would allow people to show the female characters topless. Some review sites also thought the original rating was too low. Colleen Hammon of Gamerdad.com writes, “The real trouble here is in the actual game itself. It's all up to the player and their choices. You can play the game like a heavily armored Boy Scout and avoid a lot of it (questionable content), but not all. Going through one of the Gates you're supposed to close means you're headed off to this world's version of Hell. It's not like this game is dropping bloody zombies all over the place like Doom, but it still gets intense. And you will run into some sticky situations just talking to people. If you don't want to be a Boy Scout, it's even easier to find the interesting stuff. If you're off doing the Dark Brotherhood quests, you're going to be assassinating people. Fighting in the Arena means tromping upstairs through the Bloodworks. There are some very mature topics you run into in here.” So, taken as guidelines within which we can begin our gaming research instead of rules to be followed without question, we can find value in the ESRB rating system.
All is not without controversy though. The now infamous “Hot Coffee” scandal has brought the topic of mature themed video games into the limelight. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was a blockbuster game released by Rockstar Games in June of 2005. It was initially rated M for blood and gore, intense violence, intense language, drug use and sexual content. Mature content aside, a downloadable modification that could unlock sexually explicit mini-games had the National Institute on Family and Media claim that the game was now “over the edge.” Rockstar Games was not the only organization in hot water over the “Hot Coffee” scandal. The ESRB took almost as much criticism as the games creator. To their credit, the ESRB did change the rating of the game from mature (M) to adults only (AO). But some viewed this action as too little too late. Some politicians accused the ESRB of collusion with the publisher, who pays dues to the ESA, who in turn supports the ESRB. Detractors of the ESRB claim that they are deferential to members of the ESA and, in the case of the “Hot Coffee” mod, they failed to act swiftly, or at all.
This perceived lack of action on the part of the ESRB has prompted a series of lawmakers to take matters into their own hands. In July 2005, Hillary Clinton called for a Federal Trade Commission inquiry into the “Hot Coffee” mod. That investigation reported that the publisher “ failed to disclose important information about the games content to consumers” and then warned Rockstar Games not to misrepresent the content of their games. No fines were levied. On February 24, 2005, lawmakers in the state of Michigan introduced Senate Bill 249 that would bar the sale or rental of restricted video games (those rated M or AO by the ESRB) to minors. This bill eventually passed and was then found to be unconstitutional by a federal judge, and is currently under appeal. California, Illinois, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota and Louisiana have all passed legislation restricting the sale of violent or explicit games to minors. Some of these laws have already been overturned or are on appeal on the basis of their questionable constitutionality.
California State Assemblyman Leland Yee is perhaps the most vocal critic of the ESRB saying in an interview with Gamespot, “I hope that there are more investigations. The ESRB is not an appropriate forum to rate any of these games whatsoever. There’s a conflict of interest. It’s the fox guarding the henhouse. …If you have the industry paying for the rating, and your salary comes out of their money, the last thing you’re going to try and do is upset them. The last thing you’re going to do is limit their market share by rating a game AO.”
When asked in an interview on Gamespot if the ESRB could effectively regulate the gaming industry, President of the ESRB, Patricia Vance, responded, “I think it’s a very strong statement about the self-regulatory system and how independent it is…I think if nothing else, the industry and others view these actions as serious and effective in terms of addressing the issues. We should all be proud as an industry that this was the outcome (the changing of GTAs’ rating to AO). It was dealt with swiftly.”
One thing that these gaming laws have in common, regardless of their constitutionality and the eventual outcome of their respective court cases, is that they all seek to make some game sales and/or rentals restricted to consumers under a given age. They all rely on the ESRB to determine which games should be regulated. This may partly be because the ESRB is the only game in town, but none of the proposed legislation provides, or even suggests that there needs to be, an alternative to the ESRB. Even Assemblyman Yee, the most outspoken critic against the ESRB, has not provided any suggestions for improvement or alternative ratings systems. One thing is clear. The ESRB is the fulcrum upon which the entire issue of government regulated video game sales and rentals rests.
Pandering politicians aside, some important questions have been raised. Does the ESRB operate in a fully autonomous capacity free from the influences of the gaming industry? Does the ESRB have the credibility and respect of the politicians and society at large to be the definitive standard in video game ratings? Concrete answers to these questions may remain elusive, but one thing is certain. The ESRB will have a tremendous impact on the future of gaming.
