Why Is the Grand Theft Auto CEO Also Chairman of the ESRB? 128
donniebaseball23 writes In an editorial at GamesIndustry.biz, Brendan Sinclair asks an important question about the game ratings board in America. Should Strauss Zelnick, the CEO of Take-Two, which owns the Grand Theft Auto franchise and has been at the heart of the ESRB's biggest controversies of the last decade, really be serving as its chairman? "No matter how removed from the day-to-day running of the ESRB Zelnick might be, his current role invites accusations of impropriety," he writes. "It's the sort of thing any critic of the games industry can point to as a clear conflict of interest, and many reasonable outsiders would probably look at that as a valid complaint. At least when titans of industry in the U.S. become the head of the regulatory agencies that oversee their former companies, they actually have to leave those companies."
FMH (Score:5, Informative)
Near as I can tell, every official "ratings" operation I've ever encountered has been, to paraphrase OWK, a hive of scum and villainy. Almost never do the ratings make sense, they pay absolutely no mind to the actual state of knowledge / interest / sophistication of young people, they routinely ok violence and they pull their virtual lace panties up over their own heads if sex rears its terrifying, world-destroying head... seriously, on the list of people I'd like to bitch slap until my hand hurts, ratings boards are right near the top.
Seriously. Ratings boards. Ugh.
Re: (Score:1)
Sex feels naughty. Acting in a sexually provocative way makes one feel like they are misbehaving a bit, or indulging in something that is less than holy.
Objectively, of course, there is nothing naughty about it. But part of the emotional excitement comes from that feeling of rebelliousness that accompanies sexuality.
This influence, however, pleasurable, motivates people to act as if all things sexual are also evil, and hence should be suppressed. With regards to adults accessing such content, the societa
Sex is more dangerous than violence (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sex is more dangerous than violence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The (literal) parent is free to make a personal anecdote, and we'll accept that observation as subjectively true. Your sweeping statement (which may be true) needs evidence.
Re:Sex is more dangerous than violence (Score:4, Informative)
Your sweeping statement (which may be true) needs evidence.
It has plenty of evidence. All thouse European countries where sex isn't nearly such a taboo have lower rates of teen pregnancy. The number of teen pregnancies seems to correlate well with how uptight people are about sex. It's one of those hilarious things I can be smug and annoying about because the people trying hardest are the ones doing the worst.
Re: (Score:2)
Multiple studies have shown that in the USA where sex ed is focuses on "abstinence only" the teenage pregnancy rate is higher than in states where sex ed gives actual real information on birth-control.
google it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't worry about my kid going on a killing spree and being taken down by the national guard. I _do_ worry about her getting knocked up. That's the difference.
So games and movies don't make people kill but they make them fuck? That's a new one for me. Content ratings are a reflection of culture and some notion of political correctness, as in the ratings board doesn't want to find itself the target of negative media coverage. The best way to handle it would be to enumerate a game's content based on x number of controversial/sensitive topics as deemed by common cultures and let the parent decide which ones they care about with respect to their children. To say a ga
Re: (Score:2)
All th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Near as I can tell, every official "ratings" operation I've ever encountered has been, to paraphrase OWK, a hive of scum and villainy. Almost never do the ratings make sense, they pay absolutely no mind to the actual state of knowledge / interest / sophistication of young people, they routinely ok violence and they pull their virtual lace panties up over their own heads if sex rears its terrifying, world-destroying head... seriously, on the list of people I'd like to bitch slap until my hand hurts, ratings boards are right near the top.
Seriously. Ratings boards. Ugh.
you still have a fairly low user ID so I wouldn't expect you to be at a point where you've seen the full impact of your decisions. It's natural that you would still consider the establishment's judgements with such disdain
Re: (Score:2)
That's hilarious. I've built and hosted websites on the net for a good deal longer than slashdot has been in existence, and was doing engineering and programming for decades before that. My user ID only reflects when slashdot got my attention. But hey, you go right ahead with drawing rid
Re: (Score:2)
ok.
Perhaps you've forgotten what it was like to be young. I, for one, am very glad for my childhood for the protective measures that were placed around sexuality. The overwhelming support for them speaks volumes to the reality. You're an outlier. Your experience may be different, but it's still an outlier.
Re: (Score:3)
So here's the thing: violence is easy to explain to children. "just don't do it". Is it sometimes okay? "yes, sometimes, in self-defense".
Try explaining sex and relationships the same way though. Try explaining why it's okay in one scene, but then between the same two people not okay in another. Given that their are legal adults who clearly do not understand this distinction, it is not unreasonable that sex tends to attract higher age ratings than violence. You can get through your whole life without needin
Re: (Score:1)
Re:FMH (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen an example that works: The Danish film and video game rating system [www.dfi.dk].
It differs from e.g. the US system in a number of ways:
* It's run by an independent government-sponsored organization, not the industry.
* For children not accompanied by an adult, the highest rating is "15 and older".
* Children ages 7 and up can see any movie if accompanied by an adult, no matter the rating.
* The board is charged only with determining if a film could be psychologically damaging to a typical child. They do not judge the "morals" and message of the film.
* The board features actual child development experts. As such, they know that cursing and nudity is not harmful to children, and if that's all the film contains, it will be rated "All audiences".
Example: "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle".
USA (MPAA): 17+ (unless accompanied by an adult) [imdb.com] due to "strong language, sexual content, drug use and some crude humor".
Denmark: 7+ recommended (but all ages admitted) [medieraadet.dk] due "strange and threatening persons, assaults, fights and accidents [...] all in a comedic context" (a context which could be lost on very young children).
To quote the ratings board [www.dfi.dk]:
The Media Council classifies films based on a perspective purely concerning harmfulness. The classification decision shall be made on the basis of an assessment of whether a film is considered harmful for children in that particular age group. When classifying films, we look at film effects, depictions of grievous loss, degree of realism, possibility of identification, inclusion of redemption within the course, genre and the expected media competences of the age group in question.
The Media Council’s view on child protection is that
* Children can manage a good thrill.
* Children are not likely to fall to pieces by the slightest push.
* Children are active users of media and, therefore, already in an early age, they have accumulated both media competencies and experiences.
* Media are good resources in children’s everyday life.
* It is acceptable that films frighten, though, only to a certain limit. The Media Council sets these limits.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always wondered about 'strong language' in movies or every day use, and why you have to shelter children from it. Either the know what the word means, thus sheltering it from them is useless, or they don't know what it means, and it's not a problem. I know many many bad words, but I just don't use them because of my personality.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. I'd like to see an example of a child who's been damaged by seeing a film. Ok, I was damaged by seeing The Wax Museum as a six-year-old, but you know what I mean. I'd venture that most kids know these naughty words by the time they're nine or ten, certainly.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference in philosophy runs a lot deeper then
Re: (Score:2)
The difference in philosophy [between Scandinavian and Anglo-American culture] runs a lot deeper then the rating bodies.
I know (and that's putting it mildly!). Just wanted to give an example of a reasonable ratings board, to at least prove that they exist. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
As far as I see, there is just as much danger for a rating system to be packed with ultra conservative everything is evil, as it is with an ultra liberal where everything is OK.
Now that said, just because you may make morally questionable products, it doesn't mean you think that it should be all rated "e"
Same reason as MPAA (Score:5, Informative)
Probably for the same reason the people in charge of the MPAA, who rate movies, all work for the big companies in the movie industry?
"age-restricting" content ratings always have existed to selectively restrict competitors or undesired content. MPAA, ESRB, same thing.
Re: Same reason as MPAA (Score:1)
Isn't mpaa led by former politicians? Would you really want another industry group to be a revolving door for former legislators?
Same reason as... (Score:2)
"They" put:
-Bankers in charge of banking regulation and the Federal Reserve
-Drug manufacturers in charge of the FDA
-Lawyers in charge of governments
It's a revovling door. How is this any different?
Re: (Score:2)
At least when titans of industry in the U.S. become the head of the regulatory agencies that oversee their former companies, they actually have to leave those companies.
Re:Same reason as MPAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason is that these boards are not federal agencies. These are industry groups created in order to prevent or delay the government from doing their own oversight. Ie, like the comics book code, self imposed restrictions are created out of worry that the ongoing scandal will drive away customers and attract even more government scrutiny. Or the Hays movie code that had self censorship to avoid government censorship (and to be fair some movies ended up being incomprehensible after being hacked up by s
Wait (Score:4, Funny)
Do people actually take the ESRB seriously?
Re: (Score:3)
Do people actually take the ESRB seriously?
Thankfully, just seriously enough. Actually change the games they play? Hahaha, no. So far largely successfully avoid any actually-binding regulation of game content in favor of fairly toothless 'self regulating' ratings entity? Yes. (Yeah, such legislation would almost definitely be unconstitutional; but some sort of legalist slurry, similar to the one that made 'obscenity' mysterious-but-constitutionally-unprotected, would almost certainly have been emitted and might well have worked.)
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, there's a steady stream of games that deliberately try to push EVERY ESRB button so they can get a 'high score' and sell their(often crappy) game on the basis of being HARDCORE!!!
That way the pissants can go ape over that crappy game and leave the ones that have violence and/or sex as a legitimate story/entertainment tool alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Violent sex as a legitimate entertainment tool, seriously?!? I would hardly call it legitimate and do honestly look upon it as a profoundly disturbing reflection of humanity. Why do humans, find humans killing other humans, to be so entertainingly rewarding? Something seriously wrong is going on with human society and while those games are most definitely not the cause, they are still a matter of concern in they way they reflect the current nature of human society. Root cause, likely the harm being caused
Re: (Score:2)
Violent sex as a legitimate entertainment tool, seriously?!?
*spock eyebrow* - While violent sex is indeed an option, it was not an option I was going for. I said 'violence and/or sex'. IE Violence and Sex as separate topics, but the two topics that most get wannabe censors worked up.
Yes, you have people who lament the violence in XYZ. You get other people who get even more upset at the merest mention that humans are sexual beings. I call all of them pissants.
As for the rest of your rant, all I can really do is shrug. There is violence in humanity. If anything,
Re: (Score:2)
You use the term "and/or" but you clearly do not know what it means http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]. I simply choose one of the specific options of the three available options you provide, so violence or sex or violence and sex (violent sex which is what you have when you mix violence and sex). It seems you also have a problem with the word 'rant' http://www.thefreedictionary.c... [thefreedictionary.com]. A stated calm personal opinion is not a rant.
It is not 'just humanity' but the state of our current human society. Humanit
Re: (Score:2)
You use the term "and/or" but you clearly do not know what it means
Oh, I do, you apparently don't. A game can have both violence and sex, without having violent sex. The trick is that a game(or a movie, for that matter), can have different stages, modes, and scenes. To use a food example ala the wiki, a game is a meal. It may be a single pot dish, or it may be a 7 course feast. The soup can be completely different and separate from the salad.
From your link: "For example, the sentence "He will eat cake, pie, and/or brownies" indicates that although the person may eat a
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of games with "M" ratings without any violent sex or depictions of sex. You don't have to push very hard to get that. There is a a more restricted rating of "A" for adults, but that generally hurts sales of games.
Re: (Score:3)
Violent sex as a legitimate entertainment tool, seriously?!? I would hardly call it legitimate and do honestly look upon it as a profoundly disturbing reflection of humanity. Why do humans, find humans killing other humans, to be so entertainingly rewarding?
You'd have to ask God/evolution that one. Part of it is cultural, which is a shame, but a lot of "distasteful" media is designed to appeal to our baser natures. I don't think there's anything wrong with indulging in violent fantasy, whether or not sex is involved, as long as you're responsible enough to recognize what's happening and don't hurt people. To attempt to purify your mind will make you crazier than you are already biologically programmed to be and isn't necessary to control oneself. As our techno
Re:Wait (Score:5, Insightful)
That correction aside, though, there is one point of argument that I think doesn't get enough attention in the 'violence and stuff in videogames' disputes:
Since videogames are interactive, which makes player choice at least possible(if the developer doesn't force you onto rails), the existence of bad, even (literally) atrocious, things in the game can actually make it more morally salient, and more effectively challenge the player's "hehe, violence is lulz!" approach.
Just by way of example: in Fallout games pre-Bethesda(so everything before Fallout 3), you could kill children. In Fallout 3 and later there are some children but they are invulnerable and can only be talked to. However, your character's options, and likely his survival, strongly depended on the attitudes and cooperation of NPCs in the gameworld. You were free to kill kids; but (surprise surprise) most of the decent-human-being NPCs strongly disapproved, to the point of overtly refusing to deal with you and/or trying to kill you.
The option to kill children didn't really make it a 'sick child murder simulator!!!'. You could do it; but you paid a high, and fairly plausible and realistic, price: nobody wants to associate with, or assist, the sort of sick fuck who does that, and so you probably died in the wasteland. Fallout 3 and later just whitewashed that moral choice, and it wasn't even possible to commit that particular crime or pay its penalty.
This doesn't mean that any game with grotesque transgressions is a veritable font of moral wisdom, it'd be pretty trivial(and isn't uncommon) to have games that gleefully glorify (sometimes even without much ironic detachment) various sorts of mayhem; but it really ought to be remembered that one of the powerful, and morally relevant, possibilities of an interactive medium is to have all manner of choices, good, bad, indifferent, downright depraved, be available; but have the gameworld respond appropriately.
(Dishonored did a pretty good job with this one, I thought, even for its poor generic-guard-mooks: it was typically easier to kill them than to evade or stun them; but you knew that the poor bastards were just city guards, who thought you'd assassinated the empress, doing their jobs. How many could you justify killing 'for the mission'? 'Just because it was easier'? 'For fun'? Depending on that number, the NPCs you interacted with, and the city itself, would change its own tone. You could play 'clean', you could leave a trail of bodies for the plague rats; but the consequences would be felt.)
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually the opposite. Game titles tend to want to hit the T rating for games so they draw from the largest pool possible. Destiny is a good recent example of a game that toned down its content to hit a T rating.
Re: (Score:2)
MOST games go for the 'T' rating unless it's easy for them to score 'better', or are deliberately aiming for a younger audience. Other games are quite proud of their 'M', such as grand theft auto, Duke Nukem Forever, Saint's Row, etc...
Then there's ones that try to go even further, like Postal.
Hmm... Maybe I shouldn't have said a 'steady stream', more 'steady trickle',where they attempt to use pissant outrage as free advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
Fallout 3 and Skyrim get the "M" rating, and these are extremely tame compared to those games.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That is because you can see female breast. Those are sacred relics, and displaying them in vain is blasphemous.
God is great in everything he created. I will now prove my faith by cutting off bit of my penis. Amen.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not wasting real mod points for an AC, but +1 for the Year One reference.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as it didn't actually ban anything, why would a labelling law be unconstitutional?
Also, it only covers 'indecency', not 'obscenity', which you used, but most people don't realize that the FCC's power to restrict content on OTA stations (basic cabl
Re: (Score:2)
AIUI people (and retailers) take them seriously enough that game developers typically choose an ESRB rating and then tailor the content of their game to hit it (this tailoring can happen in either direction). In particular they try very hard to avoid the AO rating as many retailers refuse to stock games that have it.
Which ESRB rating they try to hit depends on the audiance they have in mind.
There was a big blowup with GTA san andreas about a minigame that was disabled but not removed causing the ESRB to re-
Two Reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The controversy is good for sales. The kids want the taboo stuff.
2. It allows him to set the line for "too extreme" as one step past GTA, meaning that he sells the most taboo title available.
Re: Two Reasons (Score:1)
GTA is slapstick. You want violence try Postal or Hatred. Or one of them zombie games where you can realistically amputate whatever limb you go for.
GTA has never been the most violent game. Unreal and Quake 3 were more graphic back in the day if you want to bring up the old GTA games and try to say they started graphic violence in games.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't the most "extreme" title be AO? GTA is still M, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't the most "extreme" title be AO? GTA is still M, isn't it?
Yep. There's very few titles that get the designation though, EF, Hatred come to the top of my head. GTA SA? I think went AO after the hot coffee thing, when it was patched out it was reverted to M.
Okay but... (Score:4, Interesting)
GTA5 is rated M. As is GTA4 and GTA3.
If he has some sort of unfair influence, he's obviously not using it...
Re:Okay but... (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand... what content had to be cut from competing software to "only" get an M rating, while GTA gets away with it?
I strongly recommend watching "This Film is Not Yet Rated"... it applies just as well to the ESRB as it does to the MPAA.
Re: (Score:3)
Given how in Saint's Row 4 there is a gun which is a giant dildo which you can use to violate police anally and then shoot them into the sky I don't think they are being too negatively affected.
Re: (Score:2)
I strongly recommend watching "This Film is Not Yet Rated"... it applies just as well to the ESRB as it does to the MPAA.
yeah, maybe not. that move is a complete waste of time.
from a non-pessimistic viewpoint, it actually makes a sort of sense that the head of the publisher of the most controversial, well selling rating-pushing game would be the head of the rating agency. He has more experience with parents fussing than anyone
Re: (Score:2)
GTA5 is rated M. As is GTA4 and GTA3.
If he has some sort of unfair influence, he's obviously not using it...
Unless he can exert that influence over the past ratings too.
Brendan Sinclair is a warlock!
Re: (Score:2)
M is like R. Absolutely fine. AO is like NC-17 - a no go commercially.
ESRB was created by Game companies (Score:5, Insightful)
The ESRB was created by the game companies so that they wouldn't get government involvement and can set ratings themselves. Of course it's going to be populated by Game company execs.
Re:ESRB was created by Game companies (Score:5, Interesting)
Wish I could vote you up. The purpose of these organizations are for the industry to SELF-police and self-categorize. It's not supposed to be hostile to the gaming industry, it's a way for them to collaboratively set categories for the benefit of the consumer (and themselves by avoiding media firestorms, but really, having labels is good). The alternative is each publishing house having their own proprietary scale...yeah, that won't be confusing at all. I'm betting Rockstar isn't the only super-violent-game maker to be represented.
Remember way back when ratings were new, and Apogee rushed to cram extra viscera into Rise of the Triad so they could claim the most violent rating? Those were the days.
Re: (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with policing. Industries create standards all of the time to help the industry as a whole to appeal to their customers.
For example there are standards for threaded fasteners. The reason is because it it makes the whole concept of interchangeable threaded fasteners more appealing to customers. If I had to stick to one vendor who made their own size for everything I might just use some other technology. Because they got together and came up with a system that allows for a few sizes tha
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, it's entirely possible that the only reason this article exists is that gaming journalists have had trouble getting people to
Who controls movie ratings? (Score:3)
Who watches the watchmen? (Score:2)
Who controls the movie ratings?
who watches the watchmen?
who repairs the watches?
who watches the watch-repair-men repairing the watches?
who repairs the repairmen?
who mans the men?
who mens the man?
who is the man anyhow?
it's time we start asking the questions that matter
Re: (Score:2)
who watches the watchmen? who repairs the watches? who watches the watch-repair-men repairing the watches? who repairs the repairmen? who mans the men? who mens the man?
It's just one big circle-watch.
Re: (Score:2)
who is the man anyhow?
it's time we start asking the questions that matter
Why does the ESRB matter so much to you? I haven't looked at ESRB ratings since, well, since my parents stopped caring in the 90s...
Re: (Score:2)
who is the man anyhow?
it's time we start asking the questions that matter
Why does the ESRB matter so much to you? I haven't looked at ESRB ratings since, well, since my parents stopped caring in the 90s...
OK, but you still do need to move out
voluntary system, not regulatory (Score:1)
One note is that the ESRB rating is a voluntary rating.
At least insomuch as a publisher/game company will not be fined by the government, though market forces (ie, walmart) may require it, these days.
My Kind of Corruption (Score:2)
After seeing the blatant and pointless censorship [wikipedia.org] pushed by the movie industry's version of the ESRB, all I can say is that I hope he does as much damaage as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Bonus: This Film is Not Yet Rated is on YouTube [youtube.com].
The ESRB is a rating agency, not a regulatory one (Score:5, Insightful)
The film industry also handles ratings internally and despite the bullshit brought to light by "this film not yet rated" is still largely doing an acceptable job of it. It's nonsense to take potshots at the gaming industry over this.
Or rather, its nonsense if you take it at face value. Really it's transparently obvious that this is just astroturfing. It's a sad attempt at appearing to care about "ethical" issues betrayed by their utter inability to drop the moralistic, censorious, and authoritarian Jack Thompson 2.0 rhetoric even for long enough to get one good lie out.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
It is somewhat ironic that after successfully heading off conservative "think of the children!" handwaving last century, this century video games are being attacked by the left-wing radicals who for some reason see video games as destroying their view of social justice. Probably because video games are the purist form of meritocracy possible: it all comes down to your skill, judged by an unbiased computer.
Can't have that in a left-wing utopia, so they gotta attack video games from any angle they can. It's
Umm... (Score:2)
The ESRB isn't a regulatory agency; it has no actual official power whatsoever.
ESRB is a joke (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole idea of an ESRB is a joke, why should it matter who heads it?
Re: (Score:1)
The whole idea of an ESRB is a joke
If the only thing you focus on is the "T", "M", and whatever the other ratings abbreviate to, then yes, you are correct.
But if you look below that to the "for depictions of boobies and use of the word 'fuck'", it actually becomes informative. I don't care that it got an "M" rating, I care why it got an "M" rating. That is what will determine whether or not I let Little Bobby play the game.
Who Gives a Shit? (Score:2)
The ESRB is not a regulatory agency. Regardless, video games represent speech and are thus not to be regulated in such a way.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats right.. the ESRB is a trade group rating put in place to head off government regulation attempts after colunbine. Its purely voluntary.
Re: (Score:2)
Columbine happened five years after the ESRB was created.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
Whatever (Score:3)
Not to mention that the ESRB doesn't have any real authority. This isn't like the FCC where media CEOs have the power to dictate real law that actually affects people.
Disclose who wrote or paid for this article (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an advertisement not news.
There is no coincidence to this headline, weeks before the launch of GTA V for PC. It motivates the stupid to talk about GTA, and search for it raising its profile. I mean read the fuckin' title:
"Why is the Grand Theft Auto ..." why didn't they say "Why is the Rockstar ..." or whatever the conglomerate is? Specifying the game in the title, to an audience as well targeted as we are is mostly obvious.
Increased awareness == increased revenue.
Rockstar loves controversy because of it...
More importantly is this question: who gives a shit about the ESRB?
The people who are paid to...
From ICANN playbook perhaps? (Score:2)
This is nothing to be outraged over. (Score:3)
Rockstar Games has always had a better understanding than the ESRB where social values pertaining to depictions in video games are concerned. In the past, perhaps a very conservative approach to rating games was called for. Perhaps in the future, there will be things that simply are not done. Consider the recent initiatives to develop ethics for fields related to artificial intelligence.
One of the reasons that we should not object to this man's position on the ESRB is that he will be capable of balancing changes in values since his career in game development began with enough preservation of those older values that we don't see the market alter too much, too quickly. Somebody who only repeats the old mores would not represent us well.
Because we are as much human as past generations, and because life goes on, we must collectively redefine our values now and then. We are self-determining, as individuals and as communities. We are not slaves to those who came before us.
Perhaps there are others who would like to see some values change. In time, as their convictions and passion are tempered by the trials of experience and they find the balance between their vision and the ways our culture is willing to bend, they will have their chance. However, attacking this man or undermining his time only means that when that chance comes, those will not deserve the respect they were unwilling to give.
All Rockstar games have an M rating pretty much... (Score:3)
Better question (Score:2)
Why is there an ESRB?
Re: (Score:1)
Apparently the goal of the European Systemic Risk Board [europa.eu] is to safeguard financial stability in Europe. I have no idea how the CEO of a US video game company came to be the chair of that board, so I can sort of understand people asking questions. On the other hand, I don't really see the conflict of interest either, it just seems to be a weird choice.
Oh, wait a minute... maybe they meant the eSRB [srb.gos.pk], the Pakistani Taxpayer Facilitation Portal?
What has he done that is wrong? (Score:3)
First, the whole thing is a system where the industry regulates itself. So a game developer or publisher is going to be running this thing.
Second, why is GTA such a big problem here? Are GTA games getting a tame review on the box? Lets look that up... *Actually looks it up* They're rated "M" for mature. So what the fuck is the problem here?
Third, no one cares about these ratings. My parents didn't when I was growing up and anyone that works at a gamestop will tell you that most parents that buy games for their kids don't either. They'll go into the store to buy murderspree 14 and the box will say M and the store clerk will say "this is not for kids" and the parent will say "shut up and take my money".
Forth, this just looks like another whiny article bitching about GTA from people that either don't know anything about gaming or people that are writing FOR people that know nothing about gaming.
This is a stupid article and the author should be embarrassed with themselves.
Conflict of interest? That's nothing.... (Score:2)
Whatever conflict of interest may or may not exist at the ESRB (or MPAA for that matter) pales in comparison to the real issue those two organizations continue to perpetuate in the US: showing a little skin, talking about sex, and swearing is a sure way to get you an M or R rating, but gunning people down or beheading them is relatively acceptable behavior.
(FYI I'm not talking about a violent game's ability to influence the behavior of individuals IRL, which I believe is insignificant if it exists at all, I
Current rating (Score:2)
Do Gran Theft Auto V has a rating below Mature? No? there is no controversy, call me when they give it a Teen rating.
What the fuck? (Score:1)
Why the fuck are video games being regulated in the first place?
What is wrong with you people?
Just normal. (Score:1)
Take-Two does not own GTA (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Take-Two owns Rockstar.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Recently an opensource game release story was removed due to the game developer's open sexism(0) and harrasment(1) of women in tech."
I think its one thing to voice an opinion.... quite another to harass.. Harassment can be a crime.
Re: (Score:1)
Harrassment is just voicing an opinion and a woman complaining about it.