My opinion is that the ESRB should just be removed completely and 99% of people don't care what they say anyways. The only people who do care are overprotective parents that think if their son plays GTA he is going to steal cars and shoot up da hood with a gattling gun, laughing hysterically as he mows down innocent bystanders until he is eventually stopped by the military.

Moving this to the VG forum.

The ESRB is seriously important for parents... who apparently don't know how to fucking USE it, because they buy the rated M games for Billy anyways.

My opinion is that the ESRB should just be removed completely and 99% of people don't care what they say anyways. The only people who do care are overprotective parents that think if their son plays GTA he is going to steal cars and shoot up da hood with a gattling gun, laughing hysterically as he mows down innocent bystanders until he is eventually stopped by the military.

That's a horrible %, considering our government very much so cares what they say, as well as good (hint: it's not being overprotective) parents. Guess my parents are overprotective not letting my 10 yr old sister watch a XXX movie, right?

The ESRB needs to do two things:

1. Have staff actually play the games rather than asking the publisher to send them videos of "what is representative of the most graphic material in the game" (as they put it).

2. Reduce their fees.  This means that they have to run a more efficient company.  It costs thousands and thousands of dollars to have a game rated by the ESRB.  This is a little silly when you consider that the rating official spends all of 10 minutes watching a short video sent in by the publisher.  Where is the money going?  Like many nonprofits, the ESRB doesn't bother controlling costs because they aren't legally allowed to collect profits.  However, their extremely high fees are not good for the industry.  Not only are many independent developers shut out, but some big developers are affected too -- I've heard it suggested that the decreasing number of Virtual Console games is related it the exorbitant fees involved with getting a rating for the game (in order to cover a $10,000 investment to collect a rating, your Super Turricans and R-Type 3s have to sell thousands of copies).

Although I don't have many ideas on how to improve the ESRB, whoever said we should trash it is completely idiotic.  Game companies get blamed already for their games when parents buy them for their underage kids, think about how bad it would be if there WEREN'T ratings.  At least this way companies can say "well, we told you so".

I just read through a wiki about the movie industrie's rating system, and it seems even more broken than the ESRB.  The difference is, parents are used to the movies rating system, but they don't know what the ratings for games even mean!

A parent sees an R rated movie, and instantly knows that it probably isn't something Billy should watch.  The R rating is very well known, even among parents.

A parent sees an M rated game, and doesn't know what to think of it.  They just figure "It's just a harmless video game." and buy it for Billy.  After they see the boobies and blood flying in every direction as they glance at the game Billy is playing, they go ballistic and complain to the government, the ESRB, game designers, and God, when it was their own ignorance that caused the situation in the first place.

While I do believe that a pool of 6 is not nearly enough, and the rating system should be more democratic, IE: a large pool of raters vote to decide a rating.  I think that the biggest issue lies in educating ignorant parents about the game ratings system.  Perhaps a massive television ad campaign explaining the ESRB is in order.  It can be played during Oprah, the View, and other shows that such moms watch.

Or, we could wait for these moms to die off, and the new, gamer generation of parents will know full well what the ratings mean, much like the movie ratings of today.

I just read through a wiki about the movie industrie's rating system, and it seems even more broken than the ESRB.

The only thing I think it has over the game rating system is that a movie, if it goes too far and is higher than an R, can be unrated. And most film places carry unrated titles. But if a game goes too far and gets an AO, nobody anywhere will sell it. Like, you can buy Requiem for a Dream at BlockBuster, but it's against Gamestop policy to carry AO games.

So it seems like games are maybe limited a little more than movies are.

I think the article said that the ESRB as a company is just around 30 people.  Even if they offer payroll it can't be that expensive so as you said.. where is the money going?  I had no idea it was that expensive for someone to get a rating (thanks for that).

Who cares where the money is going? When you're the only ratings board approved by the government and stores everywhere (you won't get a game on the shelf of any popular store in America without an ESRB rating.) you can set the toll to the bridge as high as you want, since everyone is forced to pay.

Who cares where the money is going? When you're the only ratings board approved by the government and stores everywhere (you won't get a game on the shelf of any popular store in America without an ESRB rating.) you can set the toll to the bridge as high as you want, since everyone is forced to pay.

My original point is that the exorbitant fees are too much for some small developers or publishers to pay.  EA or Capcom could really give a damn about a few thousands of dollars, but retroactively getting ratings for low-print run games or Virtual Console releases and the like is sometimes not economically feasible.  I have heard that the high prices of getting ratings for Virtual Console games has has specifically been one of the major factors contributing to slower releases.

My original point is that the exorbitant fees are too much for some small developers or publishers to pay.  EA or Capcom could really give a damn about a few thousands of dollars, but retroactively getting ratings for low-print run games or Virtual Console releases and the like is sometimes not economically feasible.  I have heard that the high prices of getting ratings for Virtual Console games has has specifically been one of the major factors contributing to slower releases.

Well I do not even know if they have high prices, but 99% of all amateur games right now get picked up by bigger publisheres (generally the company of the system they're released on) which would pay these costs anyways probably.

It's not like you "really" need a rating for an online only game anyways....

Well I do not even know if they have high prices, but 99% of all amateur games right now get picked up by bigger publisheres (generally the company of the system they're released on) which would pay these costs anyways probably.

It's not like you "really" need a rating for an online only game anyways....

You're missing the point.  The point is that the fees are high enough to do damage to at least one or two small projects which is in its own small way bad for the industry.  While high fees would make sense if the ESRB were atually DOING something with the money, it doesn't appear like they are spending it on rating the games.  My argument is that they should reduce their fees for the good of the industry or that they should keep the high fees but invest more work into rating the game.  As it stands, the publisher is left basically to perform the task of rating (they are the ones that decide which content to video and submit) and they pay a fee to have the ESRB agree with them.

If digital distribution is supposed to be the future, then rated digital destribution will come with that.  Independents won't be able to take part in the obvious benefits digital distribution offers them if it is not economically feasible to get a rating.  If an indie developer hopes to sell his game for $5, then he will have to sell several thousand additional units to account for the cost of the rating alone.  Since indie game budgets often do not exceed $10,000 in the first place, the rating fee can inflate development cost to the point of discouraging some from independent development altogether.  You argue that the larger publisher that scoops up the smaller developer will be able to pay the fees, but if they don't see that they will sell enough thousands of copies to cover costs (such as the rating), the publisher may not reconsider picking up the indie game altogether.

I'm not arguing that this is a huge phenomenon but I can imagine that it has or will be a problem in at least a handful of cases.

You're missing the point.  The point is that the fees are high enough to do damage to at least one or two small projects which is in its own small way bad for the industry.  While high fees would make sense if the ESRB were atually DOING something with the money, it doesn't appear like they are spending it on rating the games.  My argument is that they should reduce their fees for the good of the industry or that they should keep the high fees but invest more work into rating the game.  As it stands, the publisher is left basically to perform the task of rating (they are the ones that decide which content to video and submit) and they pay a fee to have the ESRB agree with them.

If digital distribution is supposed to be the future, then rated digital destribution will come with that.  Independents won't be able to take part in the obvious benefits digital distribution offers them if it is not economically feasible to get a rating.  If an indie developer hopes to sell his game for $5, then he will have to sell several thousand additional units to account for the cost of the rating alone.  Since indie game budgets often do not exceed $10,000 in the first place, the rating fee can inflate development cost to the point of discouraging some from independent development altogether.  You argue that the larger publisher that scoops up the smaller developer will be able to pay the fees, but if they don't see that they will sell enough thousands of copies to cover costs (such as the rating), the publisher may not reconsider picking up the indie game altogether.

I'm not arguing that this is a huge phenomenon but I can imagine that it has or will be a problem in at least a handful of cases.

Well, I have taken the time to research this, and I have found zero evidence that getting your game reviewed by the ESRB costs any money at all. They can fine you for up to 1,000,000$ if they find out that there is content in the game that you lied about (recently enacted after the Hot Coffee fiasco) but other then that there is no mention of any fees associated with their rating system on their site, Wikipedia, etc.

Unless if you have other sources....?

Noone pays attention to the ratings anyways.

I propose that they get rid of all letter ratings made by the ESRB, and keep the list of

Realistic Blood and Gore
Suggestive Themes
Use of Alcohol
Mature Language

and various others.  That way the concerned parents can still deny their kids their precious M rated gore-fests, or let the developers make the rating.  Either they do that, or they make the entire BOARD, a group of gamers as opposed the group of dick holes they are now.

Well, I have taken the time to research this, and I have found zero evidence that getting your game reviewed by the ESRB costs any money at all. They can fine you for up to 1,000,000$ if they find out that there is content in the game that you lied about (recently enacted after the Hot Coffee fiasco) but other then that there is no mention of any fees associated with their rating system on their site, Wikipedia, etc.

Unless if you have other sources....?

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/vista-not-so-beautiful-say-casual-devs/69922/?biz=1

This interview gives a range of $2000-$3000.

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=428244

This is a forum discussion so it's probably not a great source but someone claims that it is $2500.  This is a game development forum though so it has a little bit of weight.



Anyway yeah the fine folks at 1Up podcasts said that it was $10,000 so I guess that maybe I have learned not to believe everything I am told!  Fancy that.  In any case, it's still cost-prohibitive for independent developers who are hoping to secure shelf space at local stores. 

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/vista-not-so-beautiful-say-casual-devs/69922/?biz=1

This interview gives a range of $2000-$3000.

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=428244

This is a forum discussion so it's probably not a great source but someone claims that it is $2500.  This is a game development forum though so it has a little bit of weight.



Anyway yeah the fine folks at 1Up podcasts said that it was $10,000 so I guess that maybe I have learned not to believe everything I am told!  Fancy that.  In any case, it's still cost-prohibitive for independent developers who are hoping to secure shelf space at local stores. 

That's assuming it even exists, because quite frankly there is a huge difference between 2k-3k, 10k, and a bunch of other k's, and no one has a precise # there. Either it's widely dependent on a ton of factors (developer size, etc?) or people are just making it up (which I still go with since they literally don't mention any fee at all associated with getting your game rated on their site)

That's assuming it even exists, because quite frankly there is a huge difference between 2k-3k, 10k, and a bunch of other k's, and no one has a precise # there. Either it's widely dependent on a ton of factors (developer size, etc?) or people are just making it up (which I still go with since they literally don't mention any fee at all associated with getting your game rated on their site)

there is a fee. however you cannot view this because you need an account at the esrb site (which can only be obtained via mail). people don't really talk about this because only TECHNICAL people do this shit and people in the industry don't need to worry about this because as you have mentioned, publishers take care of this. here is an article that shows the 2003 fees:

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/letter_display.php?letter_id=505

it would be a safe bet to assume the fees have went up, given how even in that article it says the fees have been restructured in 2003.

i also heard 1up podcasts talk about the fees being somewhere around 10K, and while this may or may not be true, one hinderence they were reffering to was ratings on virtual console games. nintendo needs to get every game they put on the virtual console rated and you can imagine how this would greatly deter them from releasing lesser known or unpopular games because it only means they need to sell more of the game to make a profit.

i am pretty sure everyone in the gaming industry knows the esrb is bullshit. the whole "voluntary" aspect of it is bullshit because retailers won't touch an unrated game. to bring up something, that i think really shows how ridiculous this system is, is that only until recently have games been putting the esrb rating in the game itself and not just the box (and not everyone is doing this). we all know it's possible to buy a game without the box (used), or to simply illegally download it, and in this event you would never know the game rating. so why has no one complained about this? it's pretty obvious the esrb was made just to appease the VIDEO GAMES ARE EVIL crowd so they don't get sued.

as for improvements, "adults only" is a joke because the age difference is only one year. i guass in that year of time people can somehow handle that otherwise would have left them emotionally crippled. also this:

I propose that they get rid of all letter ratings made by the ESRB, and keep the list of

Realistic Blood and Gore
Suggestive Themes
Use of Alcohol
Mature Language

quoting this from earlier because this is what the esrb should do. as long as they list everything in the game there is no need to say HEH ONLY MATURES PEOPLE CAN PLAY THIS. by virtue of even listing these things with the current letter system the esrb recognizes some parents are fine with certain things (this applies to the 1% of people who cannot obtain games without their parents permission). that and lower the fee because holy shit is 3K for rating bullshit and so is shit like this:

g. A $250 fee will be charged to issue a rating certificate for a product that has previously been rated but will be re-released without any content changes under a new title, by a different publisher, or on a new platform.