What are your thhoughts on the AO rating?

[davepesc]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/07/news_6128702.html

Should games like GTA get the dreaded AO rating?

Personally, I think that M is enough, but the ratings should be enforced better.

[Daria]

Depends... what are the sex mini games mentioned in the article?

[Slimedog]

Lord, what a jackass. The M rating is fine for this game and it shouldn't be sold to kids under 17. He is freaking out because of the "sex minigames hidden in the game's code that can be unlocked by a third-party mod. " That content isn't part of the game so there is no way the ESRB could be expected to take that into account when handing out ratings. Thats like giving Tomb Raider an AO rating because of the Nude Raider hacks. Pretty much any game with female characters could have the models hacked out and have their clothes removed, so I guess all games need to be AO. What a loon.

[Mr.FoodMonster]

I bet someone just made a mod using the engine or something, and its not hidden in the code somewhere. Meh.

[Daria]

Is this it?

http://www.games-digest.com/2005/06/san_andreas_has.html

[davepesc]

(Warning-adult content)
http://www.gtagarage.com/mods/show.php?id=28

I've only seen screenshots, but supposedly if you hack the code, you get to play a minigame that involves having sex with a girl from behind.

Mind that this was not in the final version of the game, but remained hidden in the code.

[davepesc]

Here are the screenshots:
http://www.gtagarage.com/mods/screens.php?id=28

[Daria]

Alright one one hand it's unlikely any child's ever going to unlock those. On the other it's irresponsible of Rockstar to have left the code in at all if they didn't want anyone to see it. So if they get an AO rating, it's their own damn fault.

[Griking]

I'm all for the game being rated AO

It seems like some people want to have their cake and eat it too.

I've heard plenty of people here defend the game by saying that it wasn't intended for children to play. Well if that's truely the case isn't that what the AO rating is for? It does stand for adults only after all.

And by the way, the AO rating isn't only for games with sex or nudity in it.

ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

Can anyone here really say with a straight face that many of today's games including GTA don't contain intense violence?



He is freaking out because of the "sex minigames hidden in the game's code that can be unlocked by a third-party mod. "

If it were a 3rd party add-on then you'd have a good arguement but you can only "unlock" something that's already included in the game. If the sex games is indeed an unlockable then that means that Rockstar intentionally put the code into the game which makes them responsible in my mind.

[The Plucky Little Ninja]

From what I understand of the GTA crack, it is actual code left in the game by the programers. The mod is just the only way you have to access it. I don't think there is any way to unlock this feature from within the game. Chances are with the number of sidequest mini games set throughout GTA some of the programers tossed this one in as a joke figuring no one would ever track it down. I've seen the actual game footage of it and god knows it's explicit enough to warrent the AO rating. Still, there's no way in hell the ESRB can be held responsible for this. Are they supposed to check through every line of coding in every game they rate?

The fallout from this little controversy falls squarely on the shoulders of the folks at Rockstar, and even then It's really not that big a deal. Any kid old enough to figure out how to work the mod is probably up to their ears in internet porn anyway. Not like a little polygonal bumpin' and grindin' is going to warp them anymore.

[Haoie]

I second the porn comment.

There was a docu on underaged kids playing stuff that's beyond their rating a few weeks ago. The thing is parents often don't know, or care, about video games content. So who's fault is it that their offspring are subject to unsavory behaviour?

[Neil Koch]

I wouldn't mind if stuff like GTA got an AO rating. But it's kind of like the NC-17 rating, people just automatically equate that with porn and dismiss the movie based on the rating. Most of the "big box" retailers have already stated that they will not carry AO-rated game either.

Still, I'd rather have the AO rating used and enforced (even if the games could be bought just in specialty stores) rather than outright banning the games...

[SoulBlazer]

The problem is that any game with a AO rating is right away lumped into the same catagory as a X rated movie -- it's considered VERY bad for anyone and can't be sold in public.

I've only bought two AO rated games -- Singles and LSL:MGL, both for the PC. Both were downloaded from the publishers website cause I could'nt buy them in a store.

Unless something is done to change the rating system, no one is going to want to use the dreaded AO rating for a game.

[Cmosfm]

I condone giving it the AO rating, and I also condone slapping a huge red banner across AO rated games that specifically say "ADULTS ONLY". These games aren't for kids and they shouldn't be played by kids, parent's need to understand this isn't 1985 anymore.

[PC-Famicom64]

Ther PC-98 will git alot of AO games if The ESRB was ther at the time and in Japan .

:)

[Mr.FoodMonster]

I second the porn comment.

There was a docu on underaged kids playing stuff that's beyond their rating a few weeks ago. The thing is parents often don't know, or care, about video games content. So who's fault is it that their offspring are subject to unsavory behaviour?
THIER OWN! How freaking hard is it to look at a letter on a box on a game and say 'Hey, this says 'Extreme Violence, Profanity, and Sexual Content', maybe my son shouldn't be playing this!'. Dont blame that kind of shit on the game makers, ESRB, or anyone other then the parent.

Anyways, what I said earlier was wrong, so I take that back. And besides, the AO rating has never been used, and if it was people would over-react to it and all that thing. Remember Mortal Kombat? Imagine that, only with a good reason.

Also, in 'God of War' arent there sex minigames build into the PLAYABLE version? Why didn't that get the AO rating? What about BMX XXX? The ESRB needs to start using the AO rating, even if these games werent hidden somewhere in the code.

[stuffedmonkey]

All of this ends up being brilliant marketing. First they release a game that they know is going to sell millions of copies. Now they have that same game back in the news *again*. If it somehow does get banned, every kid that hadn't allready played it will surely go borrow a copy. Rockstar's "brand" is hugely dependent on being something your mother would disapprove of. Every time a politician spouts off on the GTA series, or 60 Minutes does an expose on video game violence - they sell more games.

[The Plucky Little Ninja]

Rockstar's "brand" is hugely dependent on being something your mother would disapprove of. Every time a politician spouts off on the GTA series, or 60 Minutes does an expose on video game violence - they sell more games

True, true, and true. People need to start treating ESRB ratings with the same respect that movie ratings get. It's getting to the point that the "M" is about as effective as those stupid "parental advisory" stickers on CD's. I'm sick of people getting shocked by sex and violence in video games when the games themselves are clearly marked as having sex and violence.

[calthaer]

I condone giving it the AO rating, and I also condone slapping a huge red banner across AO rated games that specifically say "ADULTS ONLY". These games aren't for kids and they shouldn't be played by kids, parent's need to understand this isn't 1985 anymore.

For once, I concur with Cmos - call a spade a spade. If it means Wal-Mart won't carry it, so what? That's what ordering over the Internet is for.

[Mangar]

Because perhaps the company in question wants Wal-Mart to carry their game? Who are you to say they should lose millions in revenue because you dissapprove of polygon boobies?

They shouldn't be forced to apply an AO rating because the game quite frankly isn't for Adults Only. If a parent feels that their 16 year old son is mature enough to play GTA, then thats their right and more importantly for this discussion: The ratings system gets it right. Any parent knows exactly what to expect by simply looking at the box and reading the warnings. A Mature rating is acceptable.

Parents need to be parents. Period.

[emumuumuucowgomoo]

Alright one one hand it's unlikely any child's ever going to unlock those. On the other it's irresponsible of Rockstar to have left the code in at all if they didn't want anyone to see it. So if they get an AO rating, it's their own damn fault.

Just a question - but why the hell do people get so freaked out over the possibility that a child might witness a sex act?

WARNING, THIS POST CONTAINS WORDS LIKE "PENIS" AND "BOOB" AND "VAGINA" AND MIGHT OFFEND SOME PRIMITIVE PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE A PENIS, BOOB, OR VAGINA OF THEIR OWN!




Face it - they're going to grow up and do it. Doesn't matter if it's glorified in the music they listen to, the TV they watch, the games they play. Doesn't matter if it's vilified by their small minded community, or built up until they need to know about it to be accepted by their "open minded" community. Doesn't matter from what walk of life they've come from. I personally know a girl who was raised in a strict Mormon household - no TV, no videogames, until she was 10 she was not even allowed to read any books that weren't Bible / Faith based. She turned 18, swindled her way out of state, and is now "shacking up" with more guys than I can count. A friend of a friend came from a similarly small minded household and ended up doing porno work - and no, not the tame Vivid stuff either, I'm talking full on anal. You can't prevent it, you can only educate them and let them know of the risks, and how you'll personally feel. If they grow up and care about you, they'll run the risk of losing your acceptance. That's assuming they can't bear to keep a secret.

You can't keep your kids from knowing about sex unless you shoot them in the head once they turn 13.

So who cares? Little Junior might figure out some internet hax0r to pump a blocky polygon sprite in the butthole. Whoop de doo. Let's get all sincerely motivated and far reaching and fault the companies for not being "mature" and "civilized" (ie, "brainwashed" and "fearful"), instead of ourselves for the way we take offense at what in more civilized countries passes with barely a blink of an eye.


Girls have vaginas, they grow and get boobies and learn to put things in their vaginas to stop them from bleeding. Boys have penises. Everyone has an ass. Boy oh boy what a shock to find out about them. GOSH GEE DAMN I WAS BORN WITH A CHASTITY BELT ON AND WORE DIAPERS UNTIL I WAS TWENTY AND NEVER WAS ALLOWED TO BATHE AND THEN I VISITED LONG BEACH AND I SAW A HOOKER!!! I WAS SHOCKED AND MORTIFIED!!! WHEN I HAVE SPROG I WILL MAKE SURE THEY NEVER VISIT LONG BEACH OR PLAY VIDEOGAMES ABOUT LONG BEACH, THAT'S SURE TO KEEP THEM FROM BEING SHOCKED!!!!

[Muscelli]

porn rules, so i like the ao rating

[pragmatic insanester]

gta's violence is rather comical. i wouldn't call it intense by any stretch. even most of sexual content is pretty tame. if you're going to slap an ao-rating onto something, wait until they start showing the actual sex footage of hooters and girlfriends.[/code]

[Haoie]

I think this conversation's going a bit 1 sided, seeing we're all adults here who've seen our fair share of 'phenomenon' in our lives.

Hmm, it'd be nice to get a kid's opinion.

[Griking]

The problem is that any game with a AO rating is right away lumped into the same catagory as a X rated movie -- it's considered VERY bad for anyone and can't be sold in public.

I've only bought two AO rated games -- Singles and LSL:MGL, both for the PC. Both were downloaded from the publishers website cause I could'nt buy them in a store.

Unless something is done to change the rating system, no one is going to want to use the dreaded AO rating for a game.

Hey, the videogame industry created the rating scale and their descriptions on their own. They have nobody to blame but themselves if one of their top of the line games end up getting stamped with the dreaded AO rating.

If the videogame industry manipulates the rating system just to allow high profile games to get a desired M rating instead of a deserved AO rating then the government is 100% correct when they say that the industry is unable to police themselves.




Hmm, it'd be nice to get a kid's opinion.

I'm sure we already know what most kids opinions will be.

No kid is going to approve something that will make it more difficult for them to get something that they want

[boatofcar]

I think this conversation's going a bit 1 sided, seeing we're all adults here who've seen our fair share of 'phenomenon' in our lives.

Hmm, it'd be nice to get a kid's opinion.


Marty?


*ducks*

[Slimedog]

Buying AO games might be fine for us, but as a developer, you realize that the AO rating will really rip into your sales. Having your software treated like porn really will help keep it out of kids hands. This makes perfect sense... if your software is actually porn.

We already have a perfectly good rating system for movies. Nobody is up in arms about what constitutes an R rated move and the perception needs to be extended to video games. If you see a possibly objectionable scene in a game, ask yourself if seeing that in a movie would qualify it as an NC-17 movie. If yes, then the game deserves an AO rating. Every game with sex in it does not need an AO rating. Hell, Golgo 13 got lucky and he sure doesn't deserve AO.

If I have an objection to the ratings given to games, its games given an E rating when they should be T. I've seen lots of E games that contain mild swearing and/or violence that I'm not sure every 9 year old should be seeing. If the parents can't trust the earlier ratings, why should they think they can trust the M rating?

[Griking]

Buying AO games might be fine for us, but as a developer, you realize that the AO rating will really rip into your sales.

Simple, then don't make games that qualify for the AO rating under the current guidelines.


Having your software treated like porn really will help keep it out of kids hands. This makes perfect sense... if your software is actually porn.

I'll repeat it again in case you didn't pay attention to my first response, the AO rating isn't just for games with nudity or sex in them. Violence can earn a game an AO rating as well.


We already have a perfectly good rating system for movies. Nobody is up in arms about what constitutes an R rated move and the perception needs to be extended to video games. If you see a possibly objectionable scene in a game, ask yourself if seeing that in a movie would qualify it as an NC-17 movie. If yes, then the game deserves an AO rating. Every game with sex in it does not need an AO rating. Hell, Golgo 13 got lucky and he sure doesn't deserve AO.

Movies are edited all the time to get a 'R' rating instead of a NC-17 rating. In most violent movies that earn an 'R" rating the actual mutilation of bodies usually isn't shown but implied. For instance in a 'R' rated movie you may see a person get shot but but in a current 'M' game you'll not only see someone get shot but you'll may also get a slow motion close up of the bullet exiting the back of the victim's head. There is a difference there.

Perhaps the gaming industry will learn and tone the violence in their games down a bit if they're aiming for a younger crowd and don't want an AO rating. On the other hand, if a developer is designing their games with adults in mind then an adult only rating shouldn't be a problem or a shock to them.

[Wavelflack]

Because perhaps the company in question wants Wal-Mart to carry their game? Who are you to say they should lose millions in revenue because you dissapprove of polygon boobies?

They shouldn't be forced to apply an AO rating because the game quite frankly isn't for Adults Only. If a parent feels that their 16 year old son is mature enough to play GTA, then thats their right and more importantly for this discussion: The ratings system gets it right. Any parent knows exactly what to expect by simply looking at the box and reading the warnings. A Mature rating is acceptable.

Parents need to be parents. Period.

And?
As someone else said earlier, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

If they (Rockstar, or whoever) know that Wal Mart won't carry AO games, AND they want Wal Mart to carry their games, then they have to choose between making the game more "edgy", or having a massive sales outlet.
They would not be forced to lose "millions in revenue". That would be an option of their own making.

As for the "some 16 year olds are mature enough" argument, well, I still don't see the problem. As you stated, if a parent feels their 16 year old is mature enough (etc.)---fine. The parent will certainly be able to purchase an AO rated game and present it to their child, correct?

So did you have any other ideas as to why it shouldn't be AO? Your first offering didn't work out too well.

[Gamereviewgod]

Seriously, this isw such a huge deal to people only to scare them using something they're already familiar with. You can blow peoples heads off, but having sex is apparently "going too far." Idiots.

Besides, the M rating is for 17 and up. AO is for 18 and up. If you're kid is old enough to handle the M, he can surely handle the AO. It's one year. No big deal, and unfortunately, retailers make it out to be. Retailers are not parents.

[Teo]

poster is right people are goiong nuts over it.

[Daria]

GTA is the one game that probably wouldn't be affected by losing Wal-Mart's support. It's so damn popular everyone would just shop elsewhere for it. Or Wal-Mart would cut a side deal with RockStar for their own exclusive edited content version.

[Slimedog]

Simple, then don't make games that qualify for the AO rating under the current guidelines.

I think we are on the same page here. Game developer don't want to make AO games. The AO rating is the kiss of death to sales just like the NC-17 rating means a movie will never achieve mainstream success. Just like movies, they trim back the graphic content to skirt the edge of the M-AO rating.



I'll repeat it again in case you didn't pay attention to my first response, the AO rating isn't just for games with nudity or sex in them. Violence can earn a game an AO rating as well.

The NC-17 rating isn't just for sex either. The unedited version of Robocop got an X (forerunner of the NC-17) rating and there wasn't a boobie in site. I just saw an interview with Rob Zombie (Henry's Film Corner on IFC) where he comments on having to edit down the violence to avoid an NC-17 rating. If a game is violent enough to justify the AO rating, give it the rating. I'm sure developers know exactly how violent they can be without crossing the line since nobody wants an AO.



Movies are edited all the time to get a 'R' rating instead of a NC-17 rating. In most violent movies that earn an 'R" rating the actual mutilation of bodies usually isn't shown but implied. For instance in a 'R' rated movie you may see a person get shot but but in a current 'M' game you'll not only see someone get shot but you'll may also get a slow motion close up of the bullet exiting the back of the victim's head. There is a difference there.


Have you ever seen CSI? Plenty of slow motion exit wounds and thats just TV. Again, I think we are basically in agreement here. Anything that deserves an NC-17 rating in a movie, deserves an AO rating as a game. I don't think any of the current crop of M rated games deserves an AO rating. Even considering the sex minigames in GTA, can anybody honestly say that the back of a woman's head or fully clothed dry humping is worse that what goes on in an R rated film?

[Dart]

Politicians need to stay away from video games. (Most of them are idiots who have never even actually played a video game before.) They're already regulating so many other aspects of our lives, and the last thing we need is for them to start strictly regulating video games. Let the video game industry rate itself.

[calthaer]

Because perhaps the company in question wants Wal-Mart to carry their game? Who are you to say they should lose millions in revenue because you dissapprove of polygon boobies?

Not disagreeing with your "parents should be parents" statement, but Wal-Mart's decisions are Wal-Mart's alone. Finagling the ratings system so that one can make more money is neither ethical nor just. Besides - if the AO rating is never used, and enough people get sick of "video game violence," then maybe Wal-Mart will just ban all "M" games instead.

[Nz17]

Here's something I wanted to mention: remember how SEGA dropped the Streets of Rage games from Sonic Gems Collection so that it could get an "E" rating for the compilation instead of a "T" rating? Same thing with GTA:SA. Like "R"-rated movies that try to slip just under the taboo "NC-17," Rockstar wanted to push the envelope as far as it could go without getting the "AO" rating.

When it went for review by the ESRB, the mini-games were just too much to stay with the "M" rating. Instead of spending man hours going into the game to remove the content (and possibly breaking existing code and introducing new bugs), they simply added a bit of extra code to lock the games out.

What I imagine this code to involve is a simple variable in the save games. When switched to 0 (off), the mini-games are unlocked. When switch to 1 (on), the games are locked. What these hackers probably did was simply change the variable to 0 to unlock the games. Whether turning off the sex games was ever going to a choice in the game's options menu may never be known.

Just my two cents as a former DigiPen student.

[davepesc]

This is what I love about the free market. Rockstar is free to make whatever game they want.
Wal-Mart is free to carry it or not, regardless of rating, hell, they've only been selling "radio safe" versions of CDs for years.

I'll bet, though, that if the games Wal-Mart were not offering were selling millions, Wal-Mart would carry them.

[Nz17]

I'll bet, though, that if the games Wal-Mart were not offering were selling millions, Wal-Mart would carry them.

They have in the past. Wal-Mart is a real player, that one. They'll sweet talk conservative America, saying they won't sell music, videos, or movies that promote violence, hatred, gun use, or extra-marrital sex, that they employ the elderly and the disabled, and that they are good for small towns in America.

Then they'll turn around and abide by those rules. Well, except that the elderly and disabled are only allowed to be door greeters, they sell the actual weapons that can be used for crime and violence in the back, they undercut the lowest prices from any of the stores in town with their bulk buying power, and they carry the music, videos, and video games that have "explicit content" when they are popular million+ sellers.

x_x

[goatdan]

If the videogame industry manipulates the rating system just to allow high profile games to get a desired M rating instead of a deserved AO rating then the government is 100% correct when they say that the industry is unable to police themselves.

Just wanted to quote that because it bears repeating...


They shouldn't be forced to apply an AO rating because the game quite frankly isn't for Adults Only. If a parent feels that their 16 year old son is mature enough to play GTA, then thats their right and more importantly for this discussion: The ratings system gets it right. Any parent knows exactly what to expect by simply looking at the box and reading the warnings. A Mature rating is acceptable.

So if some people felt that buying hardcore pornography and giving it to 12 year olds was okay, then all hardcore pornography should be rated essetentially "PG-13" instead of being put behind counters and only available to those over the age of 18? Please.

If a parent feels that their 16 year old son is mature enough to play an AO rated game, then thats their right and they can still buy the game for their kid.


I think we are on the same page here. Game developer don't want to make AO games. The AO rating is the kiss of death to sales just like the NC-17 rating means a movie will never achieve mainstream success. Just like movies, they trim back the graphic content to skirt the edge of the M-AO rating.

But do they really? The ESRB system can be manipulated very, very easily. I actually am a member or whatever it is called of the ESRB, and I could submit games for them to judge. How is this done?

I make a video tape of what I feel are the most graphically intenese sequences of the game, while also showing them what the gist of gameplay is. I send them this sampling of gameplay along with these graphically intense segments on tape, and they have independant people watch them and rate them. I believe the number of raters is three. Then, the ESRB sends me a rating.

So how do I get a lower rating for my game than I deserve? I send in a video that has graphically intense parts in it, but not the absolute worst graphically intense parts. I create the part of the tape that is supposed to be the sampling of gameplay to be the most non-violent, non-intense segments of the game. And I send them that. One scene of violence wouldn't get me an AO rating, and if I represented the rest of the game to only be stealing cars and driving around in them, then it could easily get a lower rating.

I'm not saying I think that the newest GTA needs the AO rating. Quite frankly, I haven't played it and being able to unlock with a code these minigames doesn't change anything... and it isn't like the ESRB would have seen that anyway. Not just was it not in the video for the ESRB, it was not supposed to be part of the game.

I do, however, think that they purposely left these in there. Not because it would've been easier than deleting the code, but because they knew that someone would find it, unlock it and there would be another big deal made about the game. Look at this - we're two pages into it, and I'm sure that a lot of people are thinking, "Holy crap! Sex minigames! I wanna try that!" and will look for a copy of the game. It was a marketing scheme that worked rather well, and I doubt it will be enough to earn the next GTA an AO rating either.


The NC-17 rating isn't just for sex either. The unedited version of Robocop got an X (forerunner of the NC-17) rating and there wasn't a boobie in site. I just saw an interview with Rob Zombie (Henry's Film Corner on IFC) where he comments on having to edit down the violence to avoid an NC-17 rating. If a game is violent enough to justify the AO rating, give it the rating. I'm sure developers know exactly how violent they can be without crossing the line since nobody wants an AO.

The problems with the AO video game rating is what I just outlined above. Even with movies, they can skirt the line. Ever heard the story of how the South Park movie got to be rated R? It is though a lot harder to abuse the movie rating system. The ESRB, by the fact that they can't have 100 people play the game for 100 hours apiece, is extremely easy to fool.

Again -- I'm not saying that anything should've deserved the AO rating here, but that if something did, the company could've easily skirted the line. Either game companies need to be more diligent about sending what the actual gameplay content is like to the ESRB -- perhaps with the threat of fines if the content is found to be significantly different than the content submitted -- or the ESRB needs to change their review system, which would be a horrible thing to do to smaller developers in my opinion.

[SoulBlazer]

Perhaps that's what we need -- 100 people playing games all day to really get into them and be able to give a fair accirate rating on the game.

Having the rating scale revised would help also.....create some kind of rating that is higher then M but lower then 'AO' (which is REALLY the same thing as triple X, hence why no one wants to USE it). Basicaly, you'd have four ranges -- children under 6, kids from 6 to early teens, late teens to 21, and 21 and over ONLY.

[Wavelflack]

Incidentally, Robocop DID have "boobies in sight".
See the cop locker room at the beginning of the movie.

[Griking]

Having the rating scale revised would help also.....create some kind of rating that is higher then M but lower then 'AO' (which is REALLY the same thing as triple X, hence why no one wants to USE it). Basicaly, you'd have four ranges -- children under 6, kids from 6 to early teens, late teens to 21, and 21 and over ONLY.

No, no, no. I totally disagree here. AO does not equal XXX.

Adults only means exactly what it's called, adults only. There's a lot of things that may only be appropriate for adults. Porn is only one of them.

You see, no matter what system you want to use and what you'd like to call the ratings there's always going to have to be a rating for games that should only be purchased by and played by adults. And no matter what you call that rating, no company is going to want their game to get it because it's going to drastically limit their audience. Simple solution? Stop making games that the ratings board will thinks that children shouldn't play if you're making a game that you're marketing towards children.

If you really think that there's that much confusion between AO games and XXX then leave the current rating the way they are and just add one more rating that basically means that the game contains nudity or porn. Personally though I really don't think it will make any difference since the violent AO games will still be off limits to children which is really what everyone is trying to get around here.

[goatdan]

Perhaps that's what we need -- 100 people playing games all day to really get into them and be able to give a fair accirate rating on the game.

The problem is that to pay 100 people to play games all day to rate them would cost a TON more to get an ESRB rating. The ESRB ratings are voluntary, and so far, they have been _excellent_ at keeping the price within reason. I've been debating getting ESRB ratings for the next Dreamcast games I'll be publishing because they are affordable.

If you take the ESRB ratings and make them into something more expensive, a lot more companies will not voluntarily put them on their products, and the meaning will be lost.

I'm all in favor of _fining_ game companies that abuse the rules to skirt the ESRB ratings, but only if in definite ways. I am NOT in favor of aving to spend an outragous amount of money to get your game rated.

[goatdan]

And with the site going down, I post again...

[goatdan]

...And again...

[Nz17]

I've been debating getting ESRB ratings for the next Dreamcast games I'll be publishing because they are affordable.

Oh Dan, the GOAT Store's games are always affordable! :P

Seriously though, ESRB ratings would make the games seem much more professional and "like real games."

[goatdan]

Oh Dan, the GOAT Store's games are always affordable! :P

Seriously though, ESRB ratings would make the games seem much more professional and "like real games."

There was actually quite the thread on this before, and while the ESRB ratings are affordable, most people stated that they don't really care that much about them. Even with them being affordable, we're not exactly making enough money from the games that it wouldn't be all coming directly out of our pockets.

Also, considering the fact that a person very high up in a certain company told me that they counted the games as full releases, as well as the fact that a bunch of other companies have contacted me to discuss our publishing model, I think they are being taken seriously enough as it is :)

[Gamereviewgod]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/13/news_6129021.html

Hiliary Clinton is calling in the FTC. Obviously, there's nothing else important to do.