[quote][B]ESRB expanding to mobile, digital platforms[/B]
For more than two decades the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) has been guiding consumers and parents on age appropriate content in video games at retail, but as more and more game makers are now pushing their content globally across digital platforms, it's important for parents to still be able to make decisions on what games their kids can and cannot play. To that end, the ESRB and the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC) are pushing out a global rating system, along with other rating authorities in other parts of the world, including PEGI in Europe, ClassInd in Brazil, USK in Germany, and the Classification Board in Australia (more are expected to join in the future).
Importantly, the IARC (founded in late 2013) has gotten the ratings authorities to "agree on a unified process that simultaneously generates ratings for multiple territories while preserving each of their distinct cultural standards." That means parents and consumers don't have to learn any new rating systems, and developers can get their games rated appropriately across global markets at the same time.
The ESRB is pushing its ratings onto mobile and digital storefronts, beginning with Firefox Marketplace and Google Play. The digital storefronts on consoles (PlayStation Network, Xbox Live and Nintendo's eShop) have agreed to participate at "a later date." While the ESRB does already have ratings on digital games available on consoles, a spokesperson clarified that what's actually new is the IARC process.
Patricia Vance, president of ESRB and chairperson of IARC, commented, "The market for digital games and mobile apps is exploding across the globe. With a single click, developers can publish their games and apps on digital storefronts reaching a worldwide audience. These realities have created regulatory and cultural challenges that call for an innovative solution like IARC to help developers and storefronts provide consumers with culturally relevant, legally compliant and reliable guidance about the age appropriateness of the content in games and apps they may be considering for download. It is encouraging that digital storefronts recognize the benefits of this groundbreaking initiative."
Vance told GamesIndustry.biz that Firefox Marketplace has been using the IARC rating system since January 2014 and Google Play Store "is deploying the system as we speak." Of course, the big storefronts that are not named in the program are Valve's Steam and Apple's iOS App Store. Vance said that "discussions with other storefronts about adopting IARC have been held, but you'll have to ask them directly about their plans." ESRB does offer an app on iOS that lets consumers search through ratings for over 30,000 games, but actual ratings on games in the App Store fall into one of four worldwide categories: 4+, 9+, 12+ and 17+. According to App Store guidelines, developers are responsible for assigning appropriate ratings to their Apps, and inappropriate ratings may be changed or deleted by Apple.
Steam, meanwhile, does not require content ratings on its games, but games that have already been rated by the ESRB do display the assigned rating. As a platform, though, Steam doesn't appear to have any strict guidelines, only telling developers that games "must not contain offensive material or violate copyright or intellectual property rights." That being said, even Valve appears unsure of what's appropriate or offensive as the game Hatred was removed and then reinstated back in December.
Naturally the IARC is hoping to get as many digital storefronts on board as possible, and it would seem like a positive for developers who can, at no cost, fill out a single questionnaire and then have their games rated for different territories across the world - so far the five initial IARC ratings authorities represent markets that have an addressable audience of about 1.5 billion players.
[/quote]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx3v6kmuDuU[/media]
[url=http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2015-03-17-esrb-expanding-to-mobile-digital-platforms][img]http://i.imgur.com/UihXdqU.png[/img][/url]
I don't see the point in this. I haven't seen any games on the app store that warrant anything higher than a T rating besides ports of games that are already M rated.
[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;47340374]I don't see the point in this. I haven't seen any games on the app store that warrant anything higher than a T rating besides ports of games that are already M rated.[/QUOTE]
Its probably a good idea so you don't have to worry about your kid downloading a boob simulator or some other kind of wack job app.
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;47340382]Its probably a good idea so you don't have to worry about your kid downloading a boob simulator or some other kind of wack job app.[/QUOTE]
yeah the only problem is a large number of games are indie games made by a few guys with a really low budget. ESRB ratings cost money, money which developers might not have.
the better solution is to just let the developers specify where their game belongs instead of having ESRB essentially embezzle funds out of indie devs.
[editline]17th March 2015[/editline]
besides a lot of ratings boards are corrupt as fuck, i don't know exactly abut the ESRB but there are a lot of examples of other ratings board favoring large companies and basically being cunts. here's an interview with matt stone and trey parker on the subject, watch from 1 min onwards
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDzblNKjsO0[/media]
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;47340382]Its probably a good idea so you don't have to worry about your kid downloading a boob simulator or some other kind of wack job app.[/QUOTE]
Good thing most app stores don't allow them in the first place
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;47340420]yeah the only problem is a large number of games are indie games made by a few guys with a really low budget. ESRB ratings cost money, money which developers might not have.
the better solution is to just let the developers specify where their game belongs instead of having ESRB essentially embezzle funds out of indie devs.
[editline]17th March 2015[/editline]
besides a lot of ratings boards are corrupt as fuck, i don't know exactly abut the ESRB but there are a lot of examples of other ratings board favoring large companies and basically being cunts. here's an interview with matt stone and trey parker on the subject, watch from 1 min onwards
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDzblNKjsO0[/media][/QUOTE]
probably explains why a lot of indie film makers flock to sites like Viemo to upload their films because they don't have to follow this corrupt system
but back in the day there was no choice, problem is it won't be changed any sooner
and if I can drop my 2c in here, the MPAA rating system is really outdated, every country has such a better more sophisticated rating system whereas America has shit like PG and PG-13
Why not change it to like M15+ like Australia or just 15. It needs serious reforms
I just hope they don't coerce this standard on everyone. Is this in current effect?
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;47340687]I just hope they don't coerce this standard on everyone. Is this in current effect?[/QUOTE]
In Firefox Marketplace apparently, and Google Play Store's rolling it to use at the moment according to the article.
Re:other marketplaces, the last part of the text in OP
[quote]Vance said that "discussions with other storefronts about adopting IARC have been held, but you'll have to ask them directly about their plans." ESRB does offer an app on iOS that lets consumers search through ratings for over 30,000 games, but actual ratings on games in the App Store fall into one of four worldwide categories: 4+, 9+, 12+ and 17+. According to App Store guidelines, developers are responsible for assigning appropriate ratings to their Apps, and inappropriate ratings may be changed or deleted by Apple.
Steam, meanwhile, does not require content ratings on its games, but games that have already been rated by the ESRB do display the assigned rating. As a platform, though, Steam doesn't appear to have any strict guidelines, only telling developers that games "must not contain offensive material or violate copyright or intellectual property rights." That being said, even Valve appears unsure of what's appropriate or offensive as the game Hatred was removed and then reinstated back in December.
Naturally the IARC is hoping to get as many digital storefronts on board as possible, and it would seem like a positive for [B]developers who can, at no cost, fill out a single questionnaire and then have their games rated for different territories across the world[/B] - so far the five initial IARC ratings authorities represent markets that have an addressable audience of about 1.5 billion players.[/quote]
The bolded part is rather... hmm. Surprising is the word closest but not exactly what I mean, I think. Perplexing? Baffling? Meh, whatever.
snip
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
