223: Obsolescence Pending: Rating the ESRB

[Sara Grimes]

@Nutcase - not really - but they have been given that role and portend to be, so why not call them on it?

But if you don't think the ESRB controls anything, that's a mistake too. What's Nintendo's rule about AO games? which retailers will agree to sell games that don't have an ESRB rating (which you must pay for to obtain)? there is already massive amounts of censorship going on, innovative games with mature themes that aren't even allowed to see the light of day, and indie designers have to spend huge chunks of money to get their games (often made for free) onto major console systems or sold in big box stores.

And as for iPhone apps and the new systems - I definitely see this as one of the key challenges that will bring the ESRB system down (again - just because i'm calling it a challenge doesn't mean i think the system can or should overcome it). But they're on it - can a game be sold on Wii Ware without an ESRB rating? And the org. has announced plans to expand its presence in mobile gaming to include PSPgo and iTune App Store games.

To date, however, the ESRB has only rated about 70 mobile games - I can't see how they could possibly fulfill their mandate to create a real presence in this area of gaming using their current system (let alone workforce).

 

[Sara Grimes]

@Virgil I completely and utterly agree - had I more space in the article the mobile game/direct download issues and the indie game issues would have appeared alongside the others. The indie games industry is a particularly excellent example of what can happen in a post-ESRB landscape. For years now, indie game developers have had to weigh the benefits of an ESRB rating (access to distribution, etc.) with the relatively steep cost of submission, as you've outlined above. Although the ESRB offers small budget games a reduced rate, it?s still more than a lot of independents can afford. Some indie developers opt to proceed without the ESRB rating, distributing their games online or through niche retailers. Others rate themselves, highlighting any content that might be deemed child-inappropriate. In many, many cases this self-rating system (which the ESRB is supposed to be anyway, right?) has worked quite well...I think that very few developers want kids/parents to play games that aren't for them, and it can be part of the marketing of the game to describe how scary/mature/violent it is.

I am very interested in seeing where the indie ratings attempts go in the future, and how they might be used as a model for a better system (this is all based on the assumption that kids and parents still need a system, which I think they do, even if the larger gamer community feels a bit stifled by it). One attempt is TIGRS, The Independent Game Rating System (http://www.tigrs.org/), a free, self-rating program for internet-available games. TIGRS draws crowd-sourcing in an attempt to create a more responsive system, and i'd love to see an alternative to the ESRB that parents could contribute to themselves.

What I like most about these particular developments is that they don't just present challenges to the system, but are started to provide alternatives.

 

[Sara Grimes]

@karkashan i'm of the mind that kids shouldn't be banned from online experiences just because they need some extra protection and consideration. there are already a large number of developers putting considerable effort into making their online interactions kid-safe... it might not always be ideal for the kids' play (and believe me, some of the restrictions are insane), but at least if parents could get some real guidelines for figuring out which games contain the right safety mechanisms for them (e.g. live moderation services vs. programmed restrictions, etc.). there are so many benefits associated with social play - pulling the plug is certainly an option, but i don't think it's in the best interest of the kids or their play. sadly, many parents still don't understand anything about gaming - they'll see one game with some bad language or sex talk and then disconnect the Wii forever. so sweeping - so misinformed - so sad for the kids who want to play mario kart online.

again, though, i don't think the esrb could really fill this role - their past track record for understanding the nuances of content and language is terrible. i'd hate to see what they would come up with if they were given the responsibility of rating content without massive, massive restructuring and consultations with kids' online game designers/e-moderation experts.

 

[SaintPeter]

I don't see the point of the article if the author is not going to offer suggestions on how they could solve this problem. It's not just the ESRB that is in trouble, if this is a real issue, it is everyone who is in trouble. For the ESRB to be obsolete, that would suggest that there is some entity that is capable of replacing it.

From my perspective, it is not a solvable problem. Period.

The only area where I could see the ESRB being able to apply a quantitative rating to a game would be by rating the type and amount of oversight the company gives to the online portion of the game. For example, if you have simple keyword chat filtering, that's pretty low level. If you have a human actively monitoring many channels, that's quite another. If user generated content is reviewed by the company before it's posted, that's another level of oversight.

The bottom line is, though, that no matter what a company does, unless they completely remove your ability to contact other humans, you're always going to find someone who wants to screw around. I'm sure you can find people using Hello Kitty Online for Cybersex.

 

[Sara Grimes]

And how is the ESRB supposed to confront the problem of pre-emptively reviewing non-static content, if not by declining to review it? Perhaps they ought to use a time machine? The article offers no solutions.

So true. What do you think of the possibility of reviewing the moderation and screening systems? If not the ever changing content, then what about the mechanisms in place to filter out certain words, actions, content forms, etc. I haven't spent much time thinking through the solutions...a major weakness of much of my academic work as well, I'm afraid...but am very interested in this, esp. within the context of an alternative, and much more "democratic" system (one that includes players themselves, as well as both indie and major players in the industry).

 

[Sara Grimes]

The only area where I could see the ESRB being able to apply a quantitative rating to a game would be by rating the type and amount of oversight the company gives to the online portion of the game. For example, if you have simple keyword chat filtering, that's pretty low level. If you have a human actively monitoring many channels, that's quite another. If user generated content is reviewed by the company before it's posted, that's another level of oversight.

The bottom line is, though, that no matter what a company does, unless they completely remove your ability to contact other humans, you're always going to find someone who wants to screw around. I'm sure you can find people using Hello Kitty Online for Cybersex.

Also thinking along those lines (reviewing moderation) - this type of discussion wades a bit too far into speculation for what i had in mind for this article, but i am well aware that outlining solutions is much more helpful than providing criticism alone. but I suppose the point of the article was to dispel recent press and analysis claiming that the ESRB had finally hit its stride - they've been getting a lot of accolades, esp. around their birthday this summer, and i saw this as an opportunity to highlight some (not all) of the main reasons why i think their current success will be (already is) short lived. so, my intention was to be critical, not to offer solutions, but that doesn't mean i'm not interested in finding out more about alternative models and possible solutions. my own feeling is that players (including child players) and parents themselves have a lot more to offer in this regard.

 

[Sara Grimes]

I just don't understand why ESBR don't say you kid needs to be above a certain age to play online. Think about social networking sites, or think about the Escapist. Don't you have to be atleast 13 years old to get an account on here? I think you do.

That's because there is some sort of law in the USA that doesn't allow sites to collect information from people younger than 13 without parental consent. That 13 and over rule is on many, many sites, not just the escapist.

The ESRB does claim to require COPPA compliance (that rule about collecting or displaying personal info of people younger than 13), but it's not clear how this factors into their E and E10 ratings. Actually, VanityGirl, I think that this is what a lot of online games have decided to do...officially "ban" kids to avoid having to deal with all the legal requirements and parental scrutiny. I suppose this is a solution if you don't think kids should be allowed to play online -- i don't really think this is fair or even feasible.

 

[slopeslider]

I have a few Ideas.
For online interactions there could be a new rating category.
Moderated/unmoderated user-generated content.
Moderated/unmoderated player chat
For multiplayer online games maybe a special moderated chat line for kiddies. It would be moderated, but the rules would be soo strict that it wouldn't be a problem moderating 2% of the overall game chat. I know if they had this most people A. dont want to talk to little kids and B. don't like super strict speech guidlines. That means they wouldn't have to moderate 1 million people chatting online at once, more like 10,000.

 

[Ivan M.]

Very pointed observations in your article, Miss Grimes. I have little to say on the matter other than agreement, so I'm going to comment on something else:

I do concur that the ESRB, in the greater scheme of things, doesn't control anything. They are a creature of the ESA, lest we forget; and the membership of that parent organization includes the console manufacturers themselves. What's more, when explaining the tendency for certain types of content to always produce particular ratings, the ESRB has repeatedly reminded us that they don't create the social standards of our society (however bizarre) but that they merely follow them.

However, I would contend that the ESRB is at least complicit in the de facto censorship of content in the games industry, chiefly through the farcical "Adults Only" rating.

The console manufacturers and retailers may be the ones who summarily ban AO titles from commercial release, but when I look at the rating, I find myself hard-pressed to dismiss the ESRB's role in this nonsense. The "Mature" rating supposedly covers games appropriate for individuals seventeen years of age or older while AO is somehow exclusive to those of us at least eighteen years of age? Absurd.

How can any entertainment ratings system possibly be accurate enough to advise consumers on suitability of product content to within an age gap of one year? Even more ridiculous, it is implicit in the mission and rhetoric of the ESRB that the suggestions their ratings offer are universally applicable to all families. The perceived difference between M and AO is essentially arbitrary, exactly as the ESRB has designed it.

For all intents and purposes, the AO rating is nothing more than the broom that the ESRB uses to sweep potential troublemakers under the rug.

 

[Xandre]

Well, it's impossible for the ESRB to rate the online. I play CSS a fair amount. I've heard what could only be kids playin the game. And it has a teen rating. I've chatted to a hell of a lot of people. Most of them are okay, but the language that would come from some are something that would put a Billy Connoly performance to shame. I don't know if it's unique to Britain, but parents just don't care. The problem with rating online is that there will always be that one **** somewhere. It's as inevitable as the flipping tides that said **** will cause an uproar when he appears in a game for minors making obscene references.

It's the ESRB's job to warn the parents, and the parents should consider these warnings. A rating is, in my opinion more along the lines of a maturity guide. If you think that your kid's mature enough that he won't be affected by the contents of the game, then it's okay to buy it. Don't want them online? Disconnect whatever the kid's using from the internets before letting them use it. It's simple logic. If the parents don't want their kids online, it's down to THE PARENTS To enforce this. Not a ratings board, not a shop, not the kid. The parent. I think the ESRB can only not rate online. Rating online is impossible. The sheer number of idiots (and no, I'm not referring to the parents, folks) out there make it as futile as explaining advanced mathematics to a special needs Year Two class and expecting them to pass the test.

 

[SaintPeter]

...but I suppose the point of the article was to dispel recent press and analysis claiming that the ESRB had finally hit its stride - they've been getting a lot of accolades, esp. around their birthday this summer, and i saw this as an opportunity to highlight some (not all) of the main reasons why i think their current success will be (already is) short lived. so, my intention was to be critical, not to offer solutions, but that doesn't mean i'm not interested in finding out more about alternative models and possible solutions. my own feeling is that players (including child players) and parents themselves have a lot more to offer in this regard.

I disagree with you on a few points here.
1) I think the ESRB has been amazingly successful and deserves the accolades they are receiving. Based on the compliance reports from last year, it appeared that the ESRB rating were applied better than the MPAA's ratings. IE: kids were blocked from buying inappropriate contents more than getting into 'R' rated movies.

2) As someone else pointed out earlier in the thread, the MPAA is not criticized if someone sneaks into a 'G' rated movie and shouts out bad things. I don't see it as being the ESRB's role to rate or police that.

3) Based on 2), If no one expects them to do what is essentially an impossible task, I don't see how they're going to be obsolete in the future. They will continue to provide a valuable service in rating the content of games. For non-gamer parents, this is a valuable tool.

--

It just seems cheap to me to snark the ESRB for doing what they say they'll do and then predicting that they will wither and die because they cannot do the impossible.

 

[Stinking Kevin]

Is the MPAA less relevant because people aren't paying to have their videos rated before they post them on YouTube? Or because it didn't warn theater-goers that they might overhear someone engaging in risqué conversation in the seats behind them? I find this critique of the ESRB to be equally absurd.

Regardless of how it may appear to an uninformed consumer's point of view, the ESRB is not a regulatory body established to label every piece of software ever created. It is an advisory committee, established to provide content-based age-appropriateness suggestions for mass-produced games from major publishers, based on a subjective but (hopefully) consistent set of criteria. That is how it was always supposed to work and that is how it does work, no matter how those suggestions may be enforced elsewhere in the games industry

The ESRB received the praise and accolades noted in the article for doing what it was set up to do, not for overstepping its mission or interfering with First Amendment rights, as the author seems to hint she thinks it now should consider. As long as there are kids who want to play those games, and as long as there are parents who are concerned about the content those kids may access, the ESRB has its relevant purpose.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

I have a few Ideas.
For online interactions there could be a new rating category.
Moderated/unmoderated user-generated content.
Moderated/unmoderated player chat
For multiplayer online games maybe a special moderated chat line for kiddies. It would be moderated, but the rules would be soo strict that it wouldn't be a problem moderating 2% of the overall game chat. I know if they had this most people A. dont want to talk to little kids and B. don't like super strict speech guidlines. That means they wouldn't have to moderate 1 million people chatting online at once, more like 10,000.

That actually doesn't sound like a bad Idea. If they were to display a prominent warning about 'User made un/moderated content', specifically stating that 'users of varying ages can createj online content, which may result in inappropriate content being generated and played before it attracts moderator attention', then it would go a long way towards helping to assess the interactions that they cannot (but probably can hazard a guess) predict.

What they would need to do is put out a psa, or something, a short commercial, to be aired on the big channels--wouldn't have to be long, just a minute or so, alerting parents to the new type of content, and to look at the rating on the box, and that they should use their judgement when purchasing--Games rated T and M might feature more mature subject matter in the online play from both adolescents and adults, which would expose their children to such. It could also encourage parents to ask a salesperson at a retailer about the game, whether it would be appropriate or not for thier child to play.

 

[Sara Grimes]

The ESRB received the praise and accolades noted in the article for doing what it was set up to do, not for overstepping its mission or interfering with First Amendment rights, as the author seems to hint she thinks it now should consider. As long as there are kids who want to play those games, and as long as there are parents who are concerned about the content those kids may access, the ESRB has its relevant purpose.

Hmmm - are you gleaning this from the forum posts, or from the article? Because my article merely addresses the ways in which the ESRB has elected to respond or not respond to new developments in game design and game culture, and the future relevance of its existing ratings system... I am certainly not advocating for censorship, and personally have a huge problem with the often arbitrary mobilization of the AO rating and the current silence on the ways in which AO games are shut out of (many) major consoles and distribution systems. In fact, one of the main concerns with the ESRB refusing to step in on behalf of the industry AS A WHOLE in its offloading of key responsibilities onto console manufacturers and individual game developers is that this runs a high risk of furthering censorship rather than preventing it. So no, that's definitely not what this article about...the online interactions issue is just one among many issues that the ESRB has remained silent on, the potential for new forms of censorship through non-transparent and undisclosed "self"-ratings is, as you point out, very tangible and strengthens the overall argument of the article.

Or did you mean the first amendment rights of children who should be allowed to swear and talk about mature content? Because THAT is a very interesting ethical debate that I would very much like to hear more on.

Does the MPAA become less relevant as a result of new distribution channels (youtube, snagfilms.com) that allow film makers to bypass the stranglehold that the MPAA has on cinemas, retailers and movie rental service, which together oblige movies to be rated so that they can arbitrarily censor non-status quo content through the use of their extremely controversial NC-17 rating? Absolutely! And thank goodness too! Are parents likely in need of a more responsive self-ratings system that will help them navigate this? Yes!

 

[Sara Grimes]

It just seems cheap to me to snark the ESRB for doing what they say they'll do and then predicting that they will wither and die because they cannot do the impossible.

Fair enough - but is that really what's happening here?

In terms of the 3 points you've listed...
1) ok, but how does this provide evidence to refute the proposition that as an increasing number of games feature content that is not rated, and as an increasing proportion of individual game content also fits into this category, the total volume of game content NOT being rated will surpass the volume of content that IS being rated, thereby limiting the authority and scope of the ESRB as a "game" ratings board? Just think about it in terms of volume alone. Or think about your own arguments re: compliance rates. Do you really think that compliance rates reflect non-rated content? if so, how do you suppose they measure this exactly? What is currently included and not included in these measurements...and how might the disparity between what IS being rated/measure and NOT being rated/measured continue to grow as a larger percentage of game content is "not rated". And what does this "do" to their overall relevance?

2)3) - as much as going to the cinema might be "just like" an online game, we all know that it's not quite the same. you say that assigning a rating to a kids' online game/content would be impossible, but look through the comments above - there are already some great proposals here e.g. see slopeslider's post above: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.149258#3481451. I think that many parents and kids would appreciate knowing just which of these "cinemas" have been programmed in such a way that shouting out "bad things" isn't allowed by the design (or by the moderator).

Again - not that this would apply to all games/pretend cinemas - but it would be immensely useful to parents to know if an E rated game will suddenly become a free-for-all online, or if the online interactions are E rated as well. And seriously, some already are - there are plenty of kids' games that already heavily moderate and manage their players and successfully create very kid-friendly spaces...they just aren't being acknowledged within the current system.

Lastly, my comment that it's "too bad" the ESRB isn't doing more to help parents in this regard isn't a call for some sort of sweeping classification of everyone's online interactions - but if there is a way to provide some guidelines about how parents can approach and deal with online content, the ESRB WOULD seem to be ideally positioned to evaluate moderation services/restrictions because of their established relationships with industry members (and overlaps between the two groups) and because of their high compliance rates among game developers. But if you've read the article, you already know that I don't really think that any of this is going to happen - the current system is too static (for all the reasons you and everyone else has listed above), it's a top down system operating in an increasingly decentralized gaming environment that seems to be screaming for a much more responsive, inclusive (i.e. many voices) and user-driven alternative anyway.

 

[Sara Grimes]

I have a few Ideas.
For online interactions there could be a new rating category.
Moderated/unmoderated user-generated content.
Moderated/unmoderated player chat
For multiplayer online games maybe a special moderated chat line for kiddies. It would be moderated, but the rules would be soo strict that it wouldn't be a problem moderating 2% of the overall game chat. I know if they had this most people A. dont want to talk to little kids and B. don't like super strict speech guidlines. That means they wouldn't have to moderate 1 million people chatting online at once, more like 10,000.

That actually doesn't sound like a bad Idea. If they were to display a prominent warning about 'User made un/moderated content', specifically stating that 'users of varying ages can createj online content, which may result in inappropriate content being generated and played before it attracts moderator attention', then it would go a long way towards helping to assess the interactions that they cannot (but probably can hazard a guess) predict.

So clever. What would you think if the system also enabled users to actively submit their content for some sort of peer-reviewed or moderator rating? For instance, if you think your game level should be rated E, you could flag it so that it gets some special (or more immediate) attention - perhaps through some kind of volunteer (or nominated, if the community is large enough) parent-gamer group. Parents could then set up child accounts that can only access content confirmed as appropriate.

Or something along those lines.

 

[Beery]

In my opinion, the ESRB has never done a good job, because in effect its job is to take away the parents' responsibility to monitor their children's play. No ratings board can do that - nor should they try to. The ESRB, the MPAA and every other ratings organization hurt much more than they help. The faster they're done away with, the better.

 

[Beery]

The ESRB doesn't try to control anything.

It exists as a rating system so that parents have a vague idea what kind of games are right for their kids.

That IS an advisory role.

Any organization that rates media based on content is a de-facto censor. You can pretend it's not, but if anyone pulls boxes off shelves due to an ESRB rating, that's censorship - and it's censorship in which the ESRB plays a major role.

 

[Stinking Kevin]

I am considering comments such as "...it seems more interested in repositioning itself as an educator than sustaining its role as regulator." I don't need to glean anything: You state clearly here your conception that the ESRB acts (or is supposed to act) in the role of a regulator. I think that's just plain wrong.

I find "often arbitrary mobilization" to be a very opinionated accusation to throw around without any support. According to the ESRB's stated purposes and functions, "AO" is as valid a rating as any other, with criteria just as clear and consistent. The fact that most of the big publishers which can afford to have their games rated in the first place are hoping to sell those games at WalMart and Target does absolutely nothing to mitigate that validity.

Again, we disagree on the purpose of the ratings board. I maintain that, as detailed on its website and through 15 years of press releases, the ESRB was established to provide consistent, transparent age-appropriateness ratings, while you now seem to be arguing its job is to act as some sort of crusader for under-represented content.

It is the retailers who decide whether or not to sell "AO" rated games or unrated movies, and I assume those decisions are ultimately based on market forces. I see very little hope of the ESRB, or another such agency, in regulating those.

 

[RedBaron19]

I have a few Ideas.
For online interactions there could be a new rating category.
Moderated/unmoderated user-generated content.
Moderated/unmoderated player chat
For multiplayer online games maybe a special moderated chat line for kiddies. It would be moderated, but the rules would be soo strict that it wouldn't be a problem moderating 2% of the overall game chat. I know if they had this most people A. dont want to talk to little kids and B. don't like super strict speech guidlines. That means they wouldn't have to moderate 1 million people chatting online at once, more like 10,000.

That actually doesn't sound like a bad Idea. If they were to display a prominent warning about 'User made un/moderated content', specifically stating that 'users of varying ages can createj online content, which may result in inappropriate content being generated and played before it attracts moderator attention', then it would go a long way towards helping to assess the interactions that they cannot (but probably can hazard a guess) predict.

What they would need to do is put out a psa, or something, a short commercial, to be aired on the big channels--wouldn't have to be long, just a minute or so, alerting parents to the new type of content, and to look at the rating on the box, and that they should use their judgement when purchasing--Games rated T and M might feature more mature subject matter in the online play from both adolescents and adults, which would expose their children to such.

Good KISS (Keep it simple, stupid) solution. Any more complicated a type of solution is just going to make everyone miserable and confused in the long run.