ESRB Outlines Publisher Fines

1up reports that the ESRB has laid out what publishers can expect if they step out of line regarding game content. From the article: "Vance says the ESRB has the power to enforce up to $1 million in monetary fines for the 'most egregious offenses,' and could potentially suspend publisher's access to the ratings system. Most retailers will not carry games without a rating. Further corrective actions could include pulling advertising until content's corrected, stickered packaging, product recalls and 'other steps the publisher must take.'"

The fines are

For every game that nets 10,000,000.00 sales revenue and includes "Hot Coffee": Fine - one time fee - 10,000.00 dollars.
For every game that nets 100,000,000 sales revenue and includes "Hot Coffee": Fine - one time fee - 100,000.00 dollars.

And for good measure,

For every game that even includes the words "Hot Coffee" - 5,000.00. Any game that has the word "Hot" in the same scene as the word "Coffee" - 5000.00

Server Melted

Anyone have the cache or perhaps a copy of the content?

This is what I despise about ratings boards.

Vance says the ESRB has the power to enforce up to $1 million in monetary fines for the 'most egregious offenses,'

I really hate that non-government entities have the power to place massive fines. Really. The ESRB is a voluntary rating system. No game company is required by any law that I'm aware of to submit their games to any ratings system. Ah, but then the game company is given bad public relations if they don't submit because of the likelihood of extremist, "pro-family" organizations and activist lawmakers like Tompson (and possibly the ESRB itself) accusing them of having something to hide even they have nothing to hide but don't want to submit to a rating on principle.

The ESRB is now no different than the MPAA. No legal bindings; a completely voluntary system. But if you don't submit your material for ratings you risk getting banned by the outlets that you would depend on for selling your products. And of course by submitting your material you agree to be subjected to any fines that the ratings boards feels it can place upon you.

The ESRB is starting to join the RIAA and MPAA in their mob-like demeanor. {Don Corleone voice} You either submit your material for us to place our beloved rating or else you won't work again in this town. This is an offer that you really can't refuse. {/voice}

*sigh* Money and power. Ba-a-a-a-d combination. Sadly, the MPAA, RIAA, and now ESRB have both.

One dimensional

Am I the only one that thinks the purely one dimensional rating systems used by games and movies are a bit two simplistic to make a good decision on?

Admittedly these days the reasons for getting a rating are usually given and this does help alot, but simply rating in a few more categories makes sense to me.

As an aside it does seem a bit absurd that a topless woman can raise the rating of a game/movie faster than a body count can. I just find it a sad commentary on society that violence is more acceptable than nudity.

What gives them the right to do that?

I looked through 3 or 4 other versions of this article via google news, and I couldn't find the original press release, but I couldn't find anything mention of why gaming companies would be forced to give large sums of money to an independant, voluntary ratings board. One article [geek.com] mentioned the FTC in the same paragraph, but why would the ESRB have that kind of enforcement power?

I can only see two possibilities, neither of which makes sense. Some contract the ESRB makes companies sign has a "we agree to give you millions of dollars whenever you say so" clause in it, or the ESRB thinks its little label is worth enough that it can extort the money out of them. For companies that make games that would end up being 'M' anyway, wouldn't they be able to just stick their own warnings on the box instead?

Make their own ratings board?

So what's to stop the game developers from forming another "independant" ratings board and simply using THEM instead?

Parents barely read the box anyway.

The fix for this is simple...

ALL game companies need to opt-out of the ratings race. When no games are rated, then the retailers who won't put up non-rated games will have no choice if they want to sell games. This whole system need a big reboot.

Re:Personal responsibility spins in its grave

Sadly, the Reagan Republican movement, which stressed smaller government, died with Reagan.

And to those who are just looking for an excuse to spout anti-Republican diatribes, don't bother. We are all aware that Slashdot is a bastion of liberalism who loves nothing more than a good Republican bashing, but nowadays there is really nothing that separates the two parties. They're all the same except for their extremist fringes. The point that I'm making is that the Republicans that are inside of the Washington beltway are no longer Republicans except in name. Sadly, I don't know what they are anymore because they've all abandoned the principles that should be guiding the Republican party. Mod me off-topic. I don't care. That doesn't make what I've said any less true.

Someone also needs to slap the parents across the face and stop them from buying these games for their kids if they disagree with the content.

That, however, is sickeningly true. You need to be modded +1 If Only We Could for that line.

Re:I think it is good and will work.

Look at the movie "Grandma's Boy", for example. Play video games and become a game tester, the next thing you're doing is drinking booze, sucking tits, smoking pot and sleeping with old ladies. It's no wonder stuff like "Hot Coffee" gets into games. Bad video game industry... bad, bad, bad.

NOTE: In the six years that I worked in the video game industry, booze drinking by the PR girl at an E3 party was probably the worse offense I ever saw (on video since bad things happen at E3). I think I missed everything else. :P

Re:I think it is good and will work.

Never mind movies, TV, books, magazines, music/music videos, nor their respective rating systems, nor the rating system already in place for videogames. Or the parent's responsibility to supervise their own children!

Re:Personal responsibility spins in its grave

Gestapo? Nope, Germany has the USK [wikipedia.org] and BPjM [wikipedia.org] for restricting minors' access to violent videogames (there are laws for all media but the USK only covers videogames). No secrecy necessary. The BPjM can order a ban on advertising (which includes shelf space) in venues accessible to minors but only if the USK refused to rate a game. The ratings are legally binding, unrated means 18+ and selling a game to a minor he isn't cleared for can end with two years of jailtime.

I'm both supporting this and rejecting any laws regarding the ESRB out of two reasons:
1. The German constitution has a special restriction on free speech to enable youth protection. Since the US contitution does not have such a restriction it is unconstitutional to ban selling a game to minors there. If the govt wants to protect the children they have to change the first amendment and I have this vague feeling that the populace values unrestricted free speech higher than youth protection.
2. In Germany the ratings for all media are legally binding and the BPjM can index any form of media, including books and complete bans can apply to any form of media. Videogames aren't being singled out.

Maybe a third would be the lower resistance to rate a game 18+ leading to retailers carrying games rated 18 without questions. Most don't carry indexed games but that's mostly becauee it's not economically viable to sell games noone can know you have.

Re:And the money goes where exactly?

This is a voluntary certification. I'm sure this isn' the only agency giving those out. The fines are in case someone misrepresents his product in order to receive a certification the good is not suitable for. If you wanted a 100% organic certification you should be liable if you managed to hide those ingredients brewed in a chem lab in order to wrongfully acquire the certification.