GTA:SA
I decided to write a post about Grand Theft Auto being re-rated by the ESRB. I did some resarch on it as i didn't know aht much about it, and developed half an opinion on it. Its long, so have a
Today, the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) changed the rating of Take-Two's latest Grand Theft Auto game due to adult content hidden in the game. This widely covered "Hot Coffee" mini-game allows the player's character to participate in sexually explicit acts with the characters girlfriends. This gameplay/content is hidden until the user enters a specific code (Many of these codes have become popular in games like this, allowing unlimited health, bonus weapons, etc.) This is not to be confused with a 'Mod' like those developed by private developers and 3rd parties for many popular games that change the appearance of characters, add levels, and enhance gameplay. The "Hot Coffee" content was included with the game as it shipped, it just needed to be unlocked.
So how does the ESRB fit into this? The self governing board has been reviewing and rating the content in computer and console games since 1994, and has a decent rating system that most people believe in and trust. Games are not required to be rated by the board, but parents are probably more likely to buy games that tell them something about the game, so game makers have been publishing the organization's rating with most games since 2000. The ESRB site provides the following info about their process:
How are the games rated?
To get a game certified with an ESRB rating, publishers fill out a detailed questionnaire explaining exactly what's in the game, and submit it to ESRB along with actual videotaped footage of the game, showing the most extreme content and an accurate representation of the context and product as a whole. Working independently, three trained raters then view the game footage and recommend the rating and content descriptors they believe are most appropriate. ESRB then compares the raters' recommendations to make sure that there's consensus. Usually, the raters agree and their recommendation becomes final. However, when the raters recommend different ratings, additional raters may be requested to review the game in order to reach broader consensus. Once consensus on a rating and content descriptors is reached, ESRB issues an official rating certificate to the game's publisher.
When the game is ready for release to the public, publishers send copies of the final product to the ESRB. The game packaging is reviewed to make sure the ratings are displayed in accordance with ESRB standards. Additionally, ESRB's in-house game experts randomly play the final games to verify that all the information provided during the rating process was accurate and complete.
How is the rating system enforced?
As the game industry’s self-regulatory body, ESRB is responsible for the enforcement of its rating system. Every publisher of a game rated by the ESRB is legally bound to disclose all pertinent content when submitting the game for an ESRB rating. After a game is publicly released, ESRB testers review the final product to ensure that all pertinent content was fully disclosed. In the event that material that would have affected the assignment of a rating or content descriptor is found to have not been disclosed, the ESRB is empowered to compel corrective actions and impose a wide range of sanctions, including monetary fines. Corrective actions can include pulling advertising until ratings information can be corrected, re-stickering packaging with correct ratings information, recalling the product, and other steps the publisher must take.
-http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_faqs.asp
So what happened here is that knowingly or not, the game publisher neglected to provide full information about the content of the game, and so the board responded to large negative publicity by enforcing the terms of their agreements.So who knew about this content, and why was it (a)included in the game, and (b)not disclosed to the ESRB? Certainly, the Software Engineer(s) who coded the "Hot Coffee" mini-game knew and withheld info about its existence(most likely from Take-Two, because I doubt the producer would risk its reputation and successfull franchise with a small scene that gamers can find numerous other places).
There has been some talk on gaming blogs recently about how to improve rating systems and what the responsibilty of the involved parties is. I think right now, the ESRB is doing the right thing. Simply entering a short code to unlock already written code should count in the rating of the game, while online play and additonal mods should be mentioned in a disclaimer (I'm 90% sure thats how its done now). And the reporting of game content does lie with the game's producer - they made it, they know the worst content of it much better than the raters. The system has worked very well so far, and the unethical decision of one or more programmers shouldn't bring down a working system. Perhaps the responsible programmers should stand up and take responsibility for their mistakes - They wont be able to pay for the expected losses, but they might be able to save the face of a company already being watched closely by the media for its genre-shattering games.
Today, the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) changed the rating of Take-Two's latest Grand Theft Auto game due to adult content hidden in the game. This widely covered "Hot Coffee" mini-game allows the player's character to participate in sexually explicit acts with the characters girlfriends. This gameplay/content is hidden until the user enters a specific code (Many of these codes have become popular in games like this, allowing unlimited health, bonus weapons, etc.) This is not to be confused with a 'Mod' like those developed by private developers and 3rd parties for many popular games that change the appearance of characters, add levels, and enhance gameplay. The "Hot Coffee" content was included with the game as it shipped, it just needed to be unlocked.
So how does the ESRB fit into this? The self governing board has been reviewing and rating the content in computer and console games since 1994, and has a decent rating system that most people believe in and trust. Games are not required to be rated by the board, but parents are probably more likely to buy games that tell them something about the game, so game makers have been publishing the organization's rating with most games since 2000. The ESRB site provides the following info about their process:
How are the games rated?
To get a game certified with an ESRB rating, publishers fill out a detailed questionnaire explaining exactly what's in the game, and submit it to ESRB along with actual videotaped footage of the game, showing the most extreme content and an accurate representation of the context and product as a whole. Working independently, three trained raters then view the game footage and recommend the rating and content descriptors they believe are most appropriate. ESRB then compares the raters' recommendations to make sure that there's consensus. Usually, the raters agree and their recommendation becomes final. However, when the raters recommend different ratings, additional raters may be requested to review the game in order to reach broader consensus. Once consensus on a rating and content descriptors is reached, ESRB issues an official rating certificate to the game's publisher.
When the game is ready for release to the public, publishers send copies of the final product to the ESRB. The game packaging is reviewed to make sure the ratings are displayed in accordance with ESRB standards. Additionally, ESRB's in-house game experts randomly play the final games to verify that all the information provided during the rating process was accurate and complete.
How is the rating system enforced?
As the game industry’s self-regulatory body, ESRB is responsible for the enforcement of its rating system. Every publisher of a game rated by the ESRB is legally bound to disclose all pertinent content when submitting the game for an ESRB rating. After a game is publicly released, ESRB testers review the final product to ensure that all pertinent content was fully disclosed. In the event that material that would have affected the assignment of a rating or content descriptor is found to have not been disclosed, the ESRB is empowered to compel corrective actions and impose a wide range of sanctions, including monetary fines. Corrective actions can include pulling advertising until ratings information can be corrected, re-stickering packaging with correct ratings information, recalling the product, and other steps the publisher must take.
-http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_faqs.asp
So what happened here is that knowingly or not, the game publisher neglected to provide full information about the content of the game, and so the board responded to large negative publicity by enforcing the terms of their agreements.So who knew about this content, and why was it (a)included in the game, and (b)not disclosed to the ESRB? Certainly, the Software Engineer(s) who coded the "Hot Coffee" mini-game knew and withheld info about its existence(most likely from Take-Two, because I doubt the producer would risk its reputation and successfull franchise with a small scene that gamers can find numerous other places).
There has been some talk on gaming blogs recently about how to improve rating systems and what the responsibilty of the involved parties is. I think right now, the ESRB is doing the right thing. Simply entering a short code to unlock already written code should count in the rating of the game, while online play and additonal mods should be mentioned in a disclaimer (I'm 90% sure thats how its done now). And the reporting of game content does lie with the game's producer - they made it, they know the worst content of it much better than the raters. The system has worked very well so far, and the unethical decision of one or more programmers shouldn't bring down a working system. Perhaps the responsible programmers should stand up and take responsibility for their mistakes - They wont be able to pay for the expected losses, but they might be able to save the face of a company already being watched closely by the media for its genre-shattering games.