223: Obsolescence Pending: Rating the ESRB

[BehattedWanderer]

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.

I agree with you up to the point of peer review--that's all well and good, and could work pretty well, as long as there is unbiased review as well--it randomly picks someone from the review board (whom you don't know), and gives you a rating and a review from there, if not a quick chop from the cutting axe for trying to post an overly sexually-themed level in the 'E' category. Each review board is accompanied by one moderator, just to ensure fairness. After two or three of these random and anonymous reviews by the peer review or moderator groups, the rating is affirmed, and put into it's appropriate category.

The part I have a bit of issue with, however, is the latter part--specifically the child accounts. Parental settings are fine and dandy, and work on occasion. But the issue with that is that children are devilish when the want to be, and most can figure out how to either get around the parental controls, or flat out just change the parental control settings so that they have their own access. What's more, for every child account that is created and ahered to, dozens more won't even be created, leaving unfiltered settings for the child to browse. Most parents (I'm talking about those not that familiar with online play, mostly the older parents) wouldn't know to filter the content online, not expecting there to be such content so readily available within the game. It's for that reason I propose the ads--just to draw attention that their children might be accessing this kind of content without their knowledge. It's that age old idiom of "knowing is half the battle"--most aren't even aware there's an issue of unrated and unfiltered content.

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.

Which is, coincidentally, where the problem with the growing obsolescence lies--some things are too complicated, and require too much attention. Between knowing your audience and addressing the issue, something gets lost or mistranslated, and it's part of the reason we've ended up with the situation we have now.

 

[Stinking Kevin]

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.

The only time a game has ever been pulled off of a store shelf due to its rating was when GTA:SA was re-rated "AO." The ESRB played a major role in that, to be sure, but it's completely backward to blame the board of censorship.

Let's say some hotshot reviewer at IGN gives an over-hyped game a really, really bad score, and the gaming community picks up on that opinion, and in response, GameStop regional executives reduce their orders or drop the game completely from inventory. Is IGN now playing a "major role" in censorship as well?

So what then, should the IGN reviewer be prevented from expressing his qualified opinion, even though it's his job to express it, simply because it might make it harder for you to buy that game? Wouldn't that be censorship too?

 

[Nutcase]

In this day and age, you could derive a quite accurate community rating by picking a number of people at random who have bought the game, and asking them to fill a ratings questionnaire. This job would naturally fall to game vendors because they are the only ones who know who has bought what. To increase confidence in the ratings, stores like Amazon could offer this only to people who have bought the game two weeks ago or more. Steam could go further and actually observe that the person has played the game for X amount of time.

Well, this kind of rating might have trouble catching spikes of content that come late in the game (70 hours into a JRPG...) or by random (an unmarked location in a sandbox game you might find or not...) but it would produce good ratings for the great majority of games. One can think of additional mechanisms specifically to deal with these cases.

This system would follow the actual audience attitudes closely without getting "stuck" in the morality of any given group. Also, the system would not need to flatten the results in one rating (though it could also do that for at-a-glance reading). Most of the actual data could remain browsable online with various filters, with only identity-compromising information stripped. The implications of half the audience rating something AO and half rating it T are quite different from everyone rating it M, though dumb averaging would make these two cases look the same. It's also to be expected that ratings vary depending on geographical area; for most people the ratings would be more accurate if they could use ones from their own area instead of all ratings.

 

[Sara Grimes]

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.

Cut and paste from http://www.esrb.org/ratings/faq.jsp#1
What is the ESRB?
The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) is a non-profit, self-regulatory body established in 1994 by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), formerly known as the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA). ESRB assigns computer and video game content ratings, enforces industry-adopted advertising guidelines and helps ensure responsible online privacy practices for the interactive entertainment software industry.

 

[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.

Cut and paste from http://www.esrb.org/ratings/faq.jsp#1
What is the ESRB?
The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) is a non-profit, self-regulatory body established in 1994 by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), formerly known as the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA). ESRB assigns computer and video game content ratings, enforces industry-adopted advertising guidelines and helps ensure responsible online privacy practices for the interactive entertainment software industry.

Wow. Really?

Surely you are not confusing "self-regulatory" (meaning not having to answer to its industry-sponsored parent company or any other external authority), with "regulatory" (as in regulating the industry, as opposed to playing an "advisory" or "educational" role).

If you intended the meaning "self-regulatory" in all the places where you used the word "regulatory" in the article, well, I guess the article was much more confusing than I realized at first. I shouldn't have even bothered.

 

[Sara Grimes]

If you intended the meaning "self-regulatory" in all the places where you used the word "regulatory" in the article, well, I guess the article was much more confusing than I realized at first. I shouldn't have even bothered.

While you're very right that self-regulatory is not the equivalent of governmental regulation, there is nothing about the term itself that necessarily implies the later. I'm certainly not convinced that the term "regulator" can't apply to self-regulatory boards and industry self-regulation, nor is this idea supported by the wording found in either policy documents or in the academic literature. If this is a convention that you are familiar with, it's certainly not universal.

But just because the terms and relationships that make up regulatory regimes are complex doesn't mean you shouldn't bother to think about and challenge them, or to challenge other people's interpretations of them. It's actually a real breath of fresh air great to see nuances such as these discussed in a public forum, so no need for the sarcasm, there's much to learn from even casual forms of debate.

 

[SaintPeter]

I went back and re-read the article with a bit more attention to detail. Upon further consideration, I'm not sure that I completely disagree with you thesis. However, I think you could have more carefully elucidated it. The bulk of your article addresses the history of the ESRB and it isn't until the end of the second page that you launch into your rationale of why the ESRB is approaching obsolescence.

Looking at the last page, I see the following points:
1) The ESRB does not and has no plans rate Online content
As I've previously stated, I don't believe that it is reasonable to expect the ESRB or any organization to rate online conduct. It may be possible to rate the protective measures employed, but even the most vigorous methods that I've heard of still fall prey to the ingenuity of griefers and those who seek to subvert the various games.

Moreover, I don't hear a great hue and cry for online content to be rated. Parents either don't yet care or understand that everyone little billy is playing MGS4 online with swears like a sailor. If there is any awareness of what goes on, I imageine it is perceived as being a "bad neighborhood" rather than being the fault or responsibility of the game developer.

In this area, the biggest concern seems to be about mythical "online predators". Could games be rated "NMOP" for "Not Many Online Predators"? MySpace doesn't seem to be having much luck there. I am skeptical that this is much of a real threat or that it could be confidently addressed if it were.

2) The ESRB can't/won't weigh in on user generated content.
There are much clearer solutions for moderating user generated content. However, I'm not certain how a rating could be applied to these methods. Assuming that there was a call for this sort of rating, I'm not sure it would be possible to distill an array of screening/moderating methods down to a single rating. The devil will be in the details.

3) The ESRB doesn't rate Content distributed by Media/Platform Specific platforms.
This is your strongest argument. The ESRB has been focused on the old school "go to the store and buy a box of discs" type distribution. However, some online stores like Steam still prominently feature ESRB ratings.

Every online distribution channel that I've heard of requires the use of a Credit Card, which means that an adult will most likely be involved in purchase. I believe many sites have parental controls built in. If anything, digital distribution channels can ensure a perfect compliance rate for parents who set them up properly.

--

The bottom line, for me, is that the ESRB will rise to these challenges when the industry which supports it demands changes. The industry will only demand it when either consumers demand it, or legislators mandate it. Until that time, the ESRB is doing a very respectable job on rating the content of single player and mutiplayer games, at least with regards to gameplay mechanics and artwork.

Until such time as no game contains single player content I doubt that the ESRB will be obsolete.

 

[matsugawa]

The ESRB is responsible for developers, not players. The "game experience may change during online play" is a good, all-encompassing warning that basically says, "Look, we can tell you about the game, but we can't tell you anything about the people playing it." And that's perfectly reasonable; there's no good way to predict what kind of demographic shifts can take place in the life of an online game.

I think the idea of the ESRB seeing itself as an educator rather than a regulator is a far better resource for parents. It's like something a spokesman for the MPAA said at a hearing about film ratings, "We can help parents, but we can't BE parents."

 

[matrix3509]

Most importantly, the system appears to be connecting with its primary clientele - parents.

Lolwut?

Semi-related story:
When I worked at my local movie theater, there were endless numbers of parents that took their five year old (or similar) in to see movies that obviously are not for kids. I'm assuming this theater is not an anomaly, and that all theaters have to deal with shitty parents.

In the rare case, after seeing some of said movie, parents would barge outside (where the ticket window was) and demand their money back because nobody told them how inappropriate the movie was (even though info about the rating was posted literally everywhere). One time I actually lost my temper with one of the "so called" parents and told them they were stupid. I very nearly lost my job, but because the manager had some common sense, I wasn't. The managers then told us to describe material in the movie to every parent that was trying to see an inappropriate movie with their young children. I eventually got to where I tried to explain things to parents as sarcastically as I possibly could (straining my sarcasm skills to the breaking point I might add).

My point is that most parents, at least the parents I've come across, don't want to be held responsible for making bad decisions for their kids. Thats why they go berserk every time a bare ass is shown on the television. Rating systems are futile for these parents, because they don't care, until the responsibility finger is pointed at them that is.

 

[Malkavian]

I am probably repeating what may others have said, but I think you are being a fair bit unrealistic when you adress the problems that the ESRB face. While I agree that they are at a paradigm shift, where games are moving to the digital platform, I can't see how it can ever be the ESRB's duty to rate online experience.

For one thing, almost any game will have talk that is not for kids. Even more interesting, the most uncivil, I find, is usually the kids. I guess you can rate how a company maintains and enforces civility and PG language, but as many games are starting to utilize voicechat instead of written chat(and therefore, lack of proof if any player ever reports another), there's not a lot companies can do. And if that's the scenario, and it IS, as any console FPS'er will be able to tell you(I thank Infinity Ward that I have a mute option in Modern Warfare....), then you'll end up having to give every single online game the same rating of "online interaction not suitable for minors". Wouldn't it be easier to instruct parents instead, how online communication is?

When I play Modern Warfare on the ps3, I find that 70%(yes, I pulled that number out of my arse) of the people with mics are kids. While you might here the more gruff or hard voices of mature players laugh and say teasing and friendly comments. The kids and teens are the ones that will polute the game with their whiny, soft pre-adolescent voices, telling others how they are gonna "fuck them up" and that they are fucking loosers".

I fear I might have sidetracked a bit from what I originally wanted to say, so I'm gonna stop now, but´, in conclusion, online interaction is simply impossible to rate in any useful fashion.

 

[SoulChaserJ]

Is it just me in thinking that the ESRB is wasting their collective breath? Every "M" rated game I've played with chat capability seems to have more children under 16 spouting their dominance and how everyone else is a "n00b". For the most part, parents don't seem to care what their children are playing. I however enjoy the ESRB and can use it against my children to keep them from playing games with "mature" content. But I feel like I'm in the minority, especially when I'm buying the latest "M" rated game for myself and I'm behind a mom/dad buying the same game for their 8 year old.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Yeah, I'd have to state that online interactions are going to be almost impossible to moderate, and even if you have mods on every game 24/7, people still have to change their avatar to something obscene, or yell 'fucking asshole ******' before they'll get kicked, and by then any parent in range is going to decide that it's the game's content and the fault of the game.

I think firstly, all parents need to be aware that being online is unmoderated and not a place for children to have unrestricted access to, I'm guessing you wouldn't leave your kid to browse the horror or adult sections in Blockbuster while you were choosing the dvd for family movie night, so you shouldn't be letting them wander the internet unaccompanied either.

However, short of censoring the internet, heh, lets see that work, it all comes down to parents needing to maintain some control over what types of content their children view and consume.

I would however like a leaflet included in all console and new PC sales, explaining about online gaming, that while it's a fun and generally safe thing to enjoy, there are people out there who can abuse it, and sharing the experience with your child is far more sensible than leaving them alone. It could also back up the current ratings, over here in the UK, I've been fully in favour of 18 ratings on games like Manhunt, GTA, etc, as it means they're able to sell them to adults who wish to play them, while at least showing people with a clue that we're not trying to sell them to kids.

In summary: Parent's, people forget that parenting well can be one of the hardest jobs in the world, but in the end, it DOES come down to you, it's your responsibility to make sure your child isn't watching or playing stuff that is not suitable for them. If it says M or 18 on the box, it's not a suitable babysitter for your 5 year old.

 

[Fenixius]

Be glad that your ratings board -has- a rating for every game. Mine does not, and it's the cause of nation-wide anxiety when a popular, yet risky game faces the censors. They don't call them censors, of course, they call them "Classifiers", but since they lack the ability to "classify" everything, and have a status "refused classification", it's censorship.

I think the ESRB does quite a good job, though. I've been alerted to their educational advertising on multiple occasions by independant sources, and I feel that, were I a parent in the US, I could make an educated decision based on the rating given, and cursory research on my part.

Videogame ratings and classification is a complicated issue, but it's not solely up to the Board to ensure that people do the right things. As a game retailer myself, I actively and deliberately will ask for photo ID, I'll ask for parental consent, and inform of "restricted" level ratings. Admittedly, that's the law in Australia, but I'd do it anyway, I think. It's not often that I see a parent ask independantly what the content of a game is like, or see them turn a game down based on my advice. That's fine, though. That's their choice. It's not the responsibility of any Board, Council, Group, or Government to parent people's children for them.

And ultimately, that's the point of the ESRB - To be an aid for parents. Whether or not this is achieved through regulation or education isn't the point.

 

[DanDeFool]

Let me just throw in here that the only reason the ESRB was ever necessary was because during the dark days of MK 1 three things were true:

1. The predominant market for home video games was young children and early teens (the 8-16 year old demographic), so even developing mature content-laden video games in the first place may have been a bit ethically questionable.

2. It was difficult to get information about a new release without subscribing to an (often very expensive) video game magazine.

3. Parents of that day and age had (mostly) never experienced video games for themselves (unless you count Pong, of course), and thus had no idea what they were getting themselves (and their kids) into when they brought home that SNES or Sega Genesis for little Jimmy's Christmas present (packaged with Mortal Kombat, of course).

However, in today's era:

1. The predominant market for video games now goes all the way from under 8 years old to 30 years old and up; a much wider demographic with much a wider range of maturity and tastes in entertainment.

2. Detailed information about any video game is easily had on the internet, for FREE, from a variety of sources (trailers, plot synopses, reviews, previews, etc.)

3. The generation that grew up in the SNES and Genesis era is now approaching their child-rearing age. They know what games are all about, what kind of experiences they offer, and know what to look out for. These people UNDERSTAND video games.

I'm not saying the ESRB isn't useful, and that it shouldn't be making an attempt to address online interactions, but, as I always do in these sorts of situations, I am making the point that the parents of the next few generations should be much better prepared to make responsible decisions about which video games they buy for their children, even without ratings.

Bottom line, it is, and has always been, the parent's responsibility to filter what content they feel their children should have access to, but whereas the parents of my generation were justified in feeling blindsided by mature video games, the parents of the next few generations won't be able to blame this sort of thing on the industry anymore.

Of course, that's not to say that they won't. I guess my other point here is that the ESRB's main job in the future will be protecting the gaming industry from the parents and not the other way around.

 

[Overseer76]

The ESRB needs to stay, probably now more than ever. The ESRB has been gracing boxes for years and it provides a vague description of what is in the game for any worried parents out there - and because of the longevity of the ESRB - the parents know what to look out for.

Getting rid of the ESRB will only serve to confuse the responsible parents.

However, if there is an alternative form of censorship is to be made. May I suggest an in-game censorship option?

Games like Duke Nukem had the ability to turn off blood and sexual images. With the power of modern consoles and computers - perhaps various levels of parental censorship can be set. Turning off sexual images while leaving the blood and gore to keep the gamer happy.

However, where my suggestion fails is that there are so many parents out there who are too lazy to do spend some time with their kids and actually take control of their children's lives in terms of what they can and cannot see. So I wouldn't expect the parent to spend 5-10 minutes setting censorship options.

Alas, when it comes to online gaming - the parents are once again too absent to listen what their little darlings are saying into their headsets.

I should end this post before I start ranting on about younger gamers.

I only read some of the posts so far, but I felt a couple of things needed saying (before I forget them).

Firstly, the article doesn't suggest that the ESRB be abolished, just that it needs to address growing problems before they get out of hand. If and when they do get out of hand, the ESRB will have a hard time staying relevant to actual gaming behavior.

Secondly, a ratings board will not disappear. 'No Blood' filters and the like are good, but who's going to make sure they're there? What impetus would a developer have to write the code that would filter offensive content? The ESRB doesn't regulate the industry, and they shouldn't (hear that MPAA??!); but they do add a level of expectation through the review process. Even if violence filters become all the rage, there would be no way to know if the particular game you're considering buying (physical or digital) complies with the industry standard.

Thirdly, since the ESRB IS in the business of letting people know what to expect, it would be prudent of them to indicate what type of filter/parental control/live moderation (if any) is available in-game.

 

[mattag08]

The ESRB's regulatory authority is non-existent. I'm not sure why the author implies the board has any governmental authority. The gaming industry follows the board out of fear of government intervention (see: Australia) not for fear of legal action.

At the end of the article she mentions that they are setting themselves up as an educational tool not as a regulator. I'm confused by this because I've always assumed the ESRB was an educational tool for parents(and I was old enough to remember the ESRB's beginnning).

Advocating the ESRB becoming a regulatory authority is the same stupidity that leads to a nanny state. Remove the parents from the equation and use government regulation as our new mother and father. It is a sickening trend and poorly thought out contrivance.

Perhaps the ESRB should just push these new online game retailers to publish the ratings before selling the game like they've always done. Then parents can see the rating and make their own decisions for their own kids like they've always done.

As far as the "online content not rated," I think we just need a change in the phraseology and have it say something like, "online interactions cannot be regulated and may contain obscene or graphic content." Done.

 

[Gunner 51]

Spoiler

The ESRB needs to stay, probably now more than ever. The ESRB has been gracing boxes for years and it provides a vague description of what is in the game for any worried parents out there - and because of the longevity of the ESRB - the parents know what to look out for.

Getting rid of the ESRB will only serve to confuse the responsible parents.

However, if there is an alternative form of censorship is to be made. May I suggest an in-game censorship option?

Games like Duke Nukem had the ability to turn off blood and sexual images. With the power of modern consoles and computers - perhaps various levels of parental censorship can be set. Turning off sexual images while leaving the blood and gore to keep the gamer happy.

However, where my suggestion fails is that there are so many parents out there who are too lazy to do spend some time with their kids and actually take control of their children's lives in terms of what they can and cannot see. So I wouldn't expect the parent to spend 5-10 minutes setting censorship options.

Alas, when it comes to online gaming - the parents are once again too absent to listen what their little darlings are saying into their headsets.

I should end this post before I start ranting on about younger gamers.

I only read some of the posts so far, but I felt a couple of things needed saying (before I forget them).

Firstly, the article doesn't suggest that the ESRB be abolished, just that it needs to address growing problems before they get out of hand. If and when they do get out of hand, the ESRB will have a hard time staying relevant to actual gaming behavior.

Secondly, a ratings board will not disappear. 'No Blood' filters and the like are good, but who's going to make sure they're there? What impetus would a developer have to write the code that would filter offensive content? The ESRB doesn't regulate the industry, and they shouldn't (hear that MPAA??!); but they do add a level of expectation through the review process. Even if violence filters become all the rage, there would be no way to know if the particular game you're considering buying (physical or digital) complies with the industry standard.

Thirdly, since the ESRB IS in the business of letting people know what to expect, it would be prudent of them to indicate what type of filter/parental control/live moderation (if any) is available in-game.

You raise some pretty good points there...

First Point: Having re-read my post, I do seem to have misinterpreted the article to a degree. Thanks for calling me out on it.

I cannot see the ESRB getting out of hand - they would surely need power to do this.

As far as I know, they have no real say in what goes into a game. Which I guess is the way it should be - because if they have the power to censor things, then they would have too much power. (And like any other organisation with power, they will want more and more as time goes by.)

Second Point: I don't think there would be any real way to make sure that any in-game censorship options comply with an industry standard short of going to a government censor's office or setting up another independent organisation to do this - which adds to dev costs, pushing up the price of the game. (And cue many unhappy gamers.)

I had wondered if the ESRB could do this because they know what goes into the game. While they would keep costs down and make sure the devs include the in-game censorship options - but as my above point mentions, giving them power to do this could prove to be detrimental in the long term. (Could make them want more and more power.)

Third Point: I think the ESRB do very well on single player games in terms of letting the parents know what goes on. However, there is no way to know just who is playing the games online let alone set some kind of censorship thing on it.

If a parent decides to implement a "no swearing" feature of the game - there's no way to stop a human opponent from doing the same during online play. But you can disable microphones from the games console itself if I remember rightly. However, that would then fall into the jurisdiction of the console's creators than the games devs.

 

[mattttherman3]

Ok well if you want to rate online interactions for XBL than you would have to rate every game with online capabilities M or maybe AO, HAVE YOU HEARD THESE PEOPLE? They are nuts.

 

[LeonLethality]

with all these games saying "online not rated by ESRB" and online growing ever more popular something has to be done before something bad happens I rather like ESRB they seem fair as a rating system

 

[Royas]

I don't believe the ESRB was ever meant to do anything except rate the actual game experience, and it does that well. The online aspect of the game is still well represented, what they can't rate is the other players. That is to say, the game still has the same amount of blood, gore, sex and violence as it always had, but now you have other players running around, doing whatever. The ESRB was never designed to rate the players, just the game, and that is just as it should be. Common sense should tell anyone with more brains than a rock, you can't predict people, and they will do stupid things. Especially anonymously, especially online.

As far as the lack of ratings on the (for example) iPhone: Every one of those developers has the option to submit their games to the ESRB and have them rated. They don't because it costs money and they already have to jump through regulatory hoops far more stringent than anything the ESRB has ever had, in the form of Apple's puritanical value system. Admittedly, this is one area that the ESRB could make themselves more relevant to today's games. By allowing a smaller fee for app store or small market games specifically, they could encourage these small developers to submit more of their games to the board. Right now, the fee is way too high for a small game like what the iPhone tends to have.

The ESRB could also try to work with Apple on this subject. Maybe have Apple do the rating, licensing the rights to use the rating system. That would keep the ratings consistent, still give the ESRB control over the use of the logos and possibly even increase the comfort level people could have about the games on the store. Just a thought.