The ESRB does the games industry proud.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I've read many instances that tout the ESRB's rating and descriptor systems and often refer to how much more useful they are than MPAA ratings. But yesterday I ran across this article that presents some numbers that help quantify just how great a job the ESRB system really does, either on its own or comparatively versus MPAA/music ratings.

http://dubiousquality.blogspot....html

It offers numbers showing the percentage of underage buyers able to purchase either M games, "explicit" CDs, or R or unrated movies. It also points out the (surprisingly huge) gap in the percentage of successful underage game buyers at different retailers. And it offers contrastic percentages for ten years ago versus now (a HUGE improvement).

Here are the overall numbers for comparison:M-rated Video Games: 20%R-rated Movie Tickets: 28%R-rated Movie DVDs: 54%Unrated Movie DVDs: 58%Explicit Content Music CDs: 72%That's the number of under-rated-age buyers who were able to successfully purchase the product. Games do pretty well...CDs definitely don't.

The article mentions Target specifically, and I can confirm that Target is very strict about underage M game purchases. In fact, even though I'm 25 and have a valid ID to show, I have to go through rigamarole requiring a Manager authorization code because I have an old-format driver's license with no bar code for the machine to scan and insta-verify. Which is annoying for me, but great for Target and ESRB effectiveness.

I remember back in 98 or 99 I just walked into Kmart and bought Duke Nukem 3D. It had the old "thermometer" style content descriptor on the cover, and listed nudity, profanity, violence, blood, etc. I was probably 13 or 14 and bought it no problem.

BUT I also remember having to have my dad buy DOOM for me for my 32x because it did have an ESRB M rating and Kmart wouldn't let me buy that one.

I think one of the best aspects of ESRB ratings for parents is that modern consoles all support some form of parental controls. So parents can restrict by rating. Of course, the restriction could exist otherwise, but the ESRB system packages it in a uniform standard, which makes it easy to understand and universal across all platforms.

And, slightly related, if you're ever in need of a laugh, go read the ESRB's EXTREMELY DETAILED game content descriptions that can be found on the organization's website. They're much more than a list of types of potentially questionable material...they'll describe game segments in detail, often ending up more graphic than the game itself.

I think it's great to have a system that does such a good job on the side of a media that is so heavily criticized for being a threat to children. I think it does both the industry and consumers a lot of good.I don't think it's perfect, though, although part of the blame for the imperfection lies in the enforcement by retailers. My old rant about the modern misinterpretation of the AO rating (very similar to what happened with X back in the '70s. It was intended to be a way to identify more mature (not restricted to erotic) content to adults. But the meaning warped and it became the "erotic" or "sex" rating, which led retailers to refuse to carry it. Which has actually harmed the mature rating structure as a whole, because Mature is now effectively the "top" maturity level, which it was not intended to be. And that leads developers to avoid AO content even in their adult-oriented games, which is unfortunate for adult gamers (who are actually the majority...apparently the average gamer in the US is 35 according to the ESA).

So, the ESRB is doing a great job of creating a clear system of ratings and content descriptors, but retailers (in a free-market society) are overzealous about interpreting those ratings, which harms the system. The solution is obvious, though: create an "R" games rating. 18 or 21+ (I would prefer 18 because legal adults are legal adults, and games are not a substance which can, for instance, impair driving or threaten lives through lack of responsible use). Let R stand where AO was supposed to, and let AO become the p0rn rating.I honestly think it is "wrong" to refuse to stock games on a by-rating basis, and it's something that could get out of hand in a hurry. What if stores were to feel "afraid" of selling M-rated games? things could get even more broken. But the image of selling AO games is seen as too damaging to retailers, which is unfortunate. I'd love to have a chance to correct that misunderstanding, but sadly I think most of the general public is too malinformed when it comes to games and mature content. I think the average age of 35 should hold more weight to retailers than it does...I suspect if it were explained to them, they would disagree on an individual basis or simply state that it doesn't mean children are not at risk (which would be accurate). But true or not, I think that when the ESRB rating system prevents 80% of underage buyers from purchasing games they shouldn't be able to, there's no reason AO games can't appear on shelves. Of course ultra-explicit cover art should be forbidden or obscured (as with sexy magazines in supermarkets) but I honestly think there's no valid reason for retailers to fear the AO rating if they continue to be effective at enforcing buyer age.

I definitely didn't originally intend for this to be such a long post, but I'm interested to hear what others have to say.

[Alfador]

ESRB > MPAA and CD warning labels by far.

That said, a lot of this rests on the shoulders of retailers. They're the ones that ultimately enforce these rules.

The ESRB still has its issues though. They have a lot of trouble staying consistent. They can't decide if they want to rate a game for what's playable, what's on the disc but not playable (see hot coffee mod from GTAIII:SA however many years ago) and completely user generated content not on the disk at all (see user generated content and such).

IMO either of the first 2 would be acceptable ratings criteria if they would just commit to one and stick with it. The third really scares me. That's the Jack Thompson-esque setup that pretty much would make any game a potential M rater. Sadly, this actually gets serious consideration by people who think its their job to make those decisions.

The one thing that really ticks me off about ratings is having to plug my DOB into all the sites for M rated games just to view content. It's not like that's actually effective.

[MinisterofDOOM]

The one thing that really ticks me off about ratings is having to plug my DOB into all the sites for M rated games just to view content. It's not like that's actually effective.

That actually has nothing to do with the ESRB beyond using their system as a standard. It is the FTC that instituted that requirement. It actually works like this:FTC does not require websites to utilize age gates and will not directly go after individual websites.Instead, the FTC enforces age gates through publishers. Any publisher who finds that one of their M-rated videos is being displayed without an age gate is required to request that the displaying website either remove the video or add an age gate.

They are retarded, though. It's easy to lie and I'm sure everyone does. The most irritating thing is that the drop-down menus generally show far less than 17 options, and start with TODAY, rather than 17 years ago, so you have to manually scroll or hand-type to get to your age if you really ARE old enough. Why not have the blasted things operate intelligently and display the exact date 17 years ago as the top option to minimize the scrolling required to reach your birthdate if you are over 17? Or, better yet, why not just ask "are you over 17?" That wouldn't be any less easy to lie to.