ESRB Responds to 3D Realms' Kvetching 90
Via GamePolitics, an article at the Hollywood Reporter site on the ESRB's snappy comeback to 3D Realms. You may recall Scott Miller (3D Realms' co-founder) saying a short while back that he viewed the ESRB's smackdown as a 'sucker punch'. The Reporter article lays out the ESRB's response, courtesy of the board's president Patricia Vance: "It's unfortunate that Mr. Miller's feelings were hurt, but let's be clear ... The ESRB is the self-regulatory body for the video game industry. We were established by the industry and we simply enforce the rules and guidelines that the industry has imposed upon itself. The games industry determined that there should be rules with regard to the proper display of rating information and that ESRB should enforce those rules by notifying companies who are not in compliance ... Unfortunately, due to 3D Realms' lack of experience submitting games to the ESRB, it would appear that they were unaware of the various industry guidelines in place and the consequences of not complying with those guidelines."
Kvetch... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Kvetch... (Score:4, Informative)
Abused (Score:1)
The inneptitude they have displayed as of late has been astounding.
Re:Abused (Score:4, Informative)
No, they are funded by the industry on an ongoing basis. 3DRealms provides some of this funding themselves in the form of the dues they pay.
The ESRB is a member-created and member-funded organization.
The inneptitude they have displayed as of late has been astounding.
They are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. And pithy response or not, Patricia Vance is exactly right in her comments.
The ESRB actually has yearly meetings all over the country for their members where they remind everybody of the rules. I've attended several of these myself. There's no excuse for anybody not to know what those rules are.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ouch.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Unfortunately, due to 3D Realms' lack of experience submitting games to the ESRB,"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The punch is the aggressive, lawyerly tone of the ESRB's notice, and that while the ESRB took their time to pick on content that has been on the website for many years, they expect 3D to drop everything to fix it. I don't blame him for being annoyed. Instead of getting me
Re:Fuck the ESRB. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Yes, there really are things you aren't allowed to do on TV and radio.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Fuck the ESRB. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you may be hard-pressed to find supporters for your opinions when you go off on "Reactionary Bullshit" in one sentence, and then stereotype and classify an entire region of people in the very next sentence.
In fact you could argue you're committing the same behavior as these "religious nuts". They judge the video-game industry and claim all video games corrupt their children. You judge Southerners and claim that all Southerners are religious nuts.
Practicing what you preach would work better for you to get people on your side. Otherwise you simply fall into the category of "Do as I say not as I do."
Re: (Score:2)
With that said, anyone who thinks everyone in the south is the same is, without fail, an idiot. It's one thing to be wary of it - to possibly expect it more than you would, say, someone from Japan - but it's quite another to write them all off all up front.
I'm wary of people from Texas. I've never had a good experien
What about senators from... (Score:1)
New York? [com.com]
Kansas? [com.com]
New York again? [cbsnews.com]
Indiana? [gamepolitics.com]
Just wondering why people seem to think all of this comes from the South, when it so often comes from other areas of the country. Sure, the South has it's fair share of crazies, but I have yet to find a shortage anywhere else. Same goes for people wanting to meddle in my life, but I haven't spent time in Montana yet, and I hear they tend to leave you alone (as long as you actually pay for stuff).
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea whether or not the south actually has a higher proportion of lunatics than the rest of the country. I g
Re: (Score:2)
The South will rise... (Score:1)
...only if everyone else lets it.
Everyone should remember where the majority of lawmakers are from - hint: not the south or the midwest. Both the south and midwest do have a disproportionately large representation in the Senate, but not so in the House. Even in the Senate, I would consider the south and midwest to have no more than half the vote (depends on where you draw the lines).
Doesn't it annoy you that, even with the majority of the vote coming from outside these "trouble" areas, you still have
History lesson (Score:2)
They did - and called it "The United States of America".
Re: (Score:2)
Their descendants, however, decided it would be a better idea to form their own country *without* religious requirements enshrined in laws. It was good in theory, but people can never leave well enough alone.
Re: (Score:1)
The ESRB, in fact, is something that a lot of people down here don't concern themselves with unl
Re:Fuck the ESRB. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because this is what would happen:
1. No major retailers would stock any of these games
followed by
2. The US government would intervene and create their own censoring board that would be far more strict and arbitrary and would answer to nobody.
All of you complainers need to realize a couple things. The first is that the ESRB is entirely funded by and consists entirely of game companies. This is not the PMRC. This is not the government. This is not some outside organization. This is the industry. Game companies have all banded together and agreed on certain rules, and they created this organization to enforce those rules. 3DR's position is, by definition, a rogue position within the industry. They are going against the wishes of all the other game companies out there, because that's what the ESRB is.
The second is that the reason the ESRB exists is because the industry realized that the alternative to self-regulation was government regulation. The government is not going to sit idly by while a free-for-all is going on. Their position is, why should video games be any different than any other entertainment medium? They all have various content ratings and warnings. The ESRB has in fact long been held up by the government as an example of self-regulation done right - their rating system is the gold standard. But if enforcement of that rating system ever breaks down, the government will have no problem stepping in and enforcing it themselves. Is that what you want?
I realize that some of you kids think everything should just be available all the time to anyone who wants it regardless of age or parental consent. But that's never going to happen, nor should it. Given that, the ESRB is the best possible system anyone could have come up with - it's an industry-created, industry-funded board enforcing rules set by the industry upon itself. It is exactly how this kind of thing should be done.
Contrast it with the way things work in the UK or other parts of Europe, where games can be outright banned by the government. The government does not ban games here, and neither does the ESRB. The worst the ESRB can do is give a game an AO rating, and you can blame Sony, MS and Nintendo for the fact that they won't allow those games on their systems - it's not the ESRB practicing any sort of "censorship", and plenty of AO games do come out on PC. If the ESRB was gone, these games would end up being banned outright by the government just like they are elsewhere. That's the alternative you're arguing in favor of.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that's right, a cartel. Eventually, cartels always act to stifle their competition.
See the movie, The Aviator for examples of cartels in action. Or this article on the milk cartel, Dairy Industry Crushed Innovator Who Bested Price-Control System [washingtonpost.com]
The government likes cartels, because cartels embiggen business, and Big Busines
Re: (Score:1)
Except it isn't.
There are still a few courts in the US that understand the meaning of the phrase Congress shall make no law.
The ESRB was formed in response to empty threats by people like Joseph Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. These legislators demanded that the industry form its own ratings body to forestall further legislation. Of course, they lied about the "f
Re: (Score:1)
There is no exception in the First Amendment for commercial speech.
There is no exception in the First Amendment for "protecting the children."
There is no exception in the First Amendment for comics, video games or pornography.
There is no exception in the First Amendment for boobies on TV.
There are no exceptions in the First Amendment, period. The Founders didn't even inclu
Re: (Score:1)
I'd say you need to tell the Supreme Court that, but again, I have a feeling they already agree with you.
Commerce is not speech, but speech can be a product bought and sold commercially. Furthermore, the First Amendment comes, well, first, as in before the Commerce Clause. Its language brooks no exceptions.
I'd invite you to take your reasoning to its logical conclusion. How could any controversial books have survived prior-restraint challenges in Federal court
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You need to re-read first ammendment too (Score:2)
The first ammendment does not apply to the public, it appies only to Congress. Read it below. If I have a store I have the right to ban your book or game. If I am a publisher I have the right to censor part of your writings or game (assuming you did not negotiate a contract to the contrary - good luck doing so),
Re: (Score:1)
The first amendment does not apply to the public, it appies only to Congress.
It applies to all governmental entities on US soil. (Try having your small-town city council ban a particular religion and see how far you get.)
Again, the "public's" ignorance of, and/or disagreement with, the First Amendment does not invalidate it.
If a private distributor such as Wal-Mart wants to demand the formation of an ESRB-like board, that is perfectly fine.
If parents get together and demand an ESRB-like rating system by vo
Re: (Score:2)
It applies to all governmental entities on US soil. (Try having your small-town city council ban a particular religion and see how far you get.) Again, the "public's" ignorance of, and/or disagreement with, the First Amendment does not invalidate it. If a private distributor such as Wal-Mart wants to demand the formation of an ESRB-like board, that is perfectly fine. If parents get together and demand an ESRB-like rating sy
Re: (Score:1)
Point 1: Citing your own post may be what amounts to law-review material at your school, but not in most cases.
Point 2: I'm still waiting for your explanation of why the same methodology of regulation wouldn't apply to books, movies, and other forms of media. If all you need to do to impose prior restraint is invoke the Commerce Clause, "it
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you are just one bad guess after another. I cited the other post two avoid redundancy, to avoid two threads discussing the same point(s) in case others joined in. Your "this stuff isn't that hard to understand" comment just keeps getting funnier.
Point 2: I'm still waiting for your explanation of why the same methodology of regulation wouldn't apply to books, movies, and other for
Re: (Score:1)
It'll be good to hear you cite the specific law on this one.
Hint: there isn't any. Stores don't sell Playboy to minors because they don't want to be confronted by torch-wielding zealots the next day.
Your reasoning is precisely analogous to that of the probably-90% of the population who think that it's "illegal" to let kids into an R- or X-rated movie. There is absolutely no legislation of this nature in place. The MPAA was formed u
Re: (Score:2)
It'll be good to hear you cite the specific law on this one. Hint: there isn't any.
Put learning to use google on your list of things to do.
Re: (Score:1)
Keep Googling until you come up with the Supreme Court's definition for 'adult material'.
Re: (Score:1)
The Indianapolis case, and the Supreme Court's refusal to grant cert to it, is the one that really makes it impractical to dictate content r
Re: (Score:2)
Keep Googling until you come up with the Supreme Court's definition for 'adult material'.
Irrelevant. Your claim that restrictions related to minors are a first amendment violation has been debunked
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Read Constitution before quoting it ... (Score:2)
Except it isn't. There are still a few courts in the US that understand the meaning of the phrase Congress shall make no law.
Before your start quoting the Constitution you should really read the entire thing:
"Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
To mak
Re: (Score:1)
If the Federal government doesn't regulate the publication of books, movies*, paintings, or jigsaw puzzles, why are you and your friends so enthusiastic about allowing it to regulate games? What's the difference?
*: To forestall the inevitable horde of replies, no, the MPAA is not a government agency.
Re: (Score:2)
You jump to an erroneous conclusion. I am not enthusiastic about government regulation, I prefer the current industry self regulation. If you calm yourself and re-read my post you may realize that I was addressing the "congress shall make no law" comment that contracted Congress' enumerated righ
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have MORE control not less if the regulating body is controled by the goverment. Then at least you can vote about it. When it's controlled by the industry there is nothing you can do at all if a game or movie you're interested in can't reach the market because
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly... By "The South," you obviously mean New York, right? There's a pretty prominent Senator up there that might even be president some day that has called for special hearings into video games. Granted, she lived in the south for a while, but is from up north and represents people up north right n
Re: (Score:1)
Okay. First of all: I've been lucky enough to meet face-to-face and to chat with several ESRB employees in charge of ratings, and to a man they are all vehemently anti-censorship. They believe -- and I am inclined to agree -- that the ratings system, while flawed, actually protects game designers and game retail. With a system that "laymen" can understand in plac
Re: (Score:2)
Not to nitpick, but the kids that had NES systems are already parents. We had an NES when I was in high school, and a SNES when I was just out of HS and my little brother and sister were still in HS and Elementary respectively. Now I'm 35, with 2 kids, my brother is 30 (no kids yet) and my sister is 25. The video game generation is all grown up now.
Re: (Score:1)
Fair enough. I guess I live in a skewed population -- no-one I know except one couple has had or is planning to have kids until they're 30-35, and most of us are late-20s or just coming up 30 now.
Re: (Score:2)
The retailers and the big 3 need to let AO games on their systems, or find a middle ground possibly creating a new rating that doesn't have th pornographic connotations of the AO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If everyone stopped submitting their games to the ESRB, and we pink slipped those censor's like they badly deserve, would anyone even notice?
Hells, yeah, they'd notice. You seem to be leaving some key groups out of "anyone". Consider the two possible scenarios:
One or two established publishers stop going through the ESRB. In this case, the move would first be noticed by two groups: Retail store buying agents who might notice that some games suddenly dropped off the list of what company policy allows them to buy, and fans of those publishers' games who might notice that suddenly they can't find them in any retail stores. Both of those would m
That depends... (Score:1)
> would first be noticed by two groups: Retail store buying agents who might notice that
> some games suddenly dropped off the list of what company policy allows them to buy,
> and fans of those publishers' games who might notice that suddenly they can't find them
> in any retail stores. Both of those would move on to the available alternatives.
That depends a lot on who those one or two publishers are.
If some
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What's the big deal? (Score:5, Funny)
"Take ye heed - yon game containeth much violence and bare wenches"
--riney
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Does anyone that plays games understand that if the ESRB wasn't doing what they are doing, including tightening up, that the government would take over in a SECOND?
Then you get into a First Amendment issue, which is why nearly all of the ratings systems in the U.S. are voluntary industry-run system. While the TV rating system had input from the FCC it is still industry run. The fear of the Government stepping in is what leads to the: Comic Code Authority, MPAA, TV Parental Guidelines, and ESRB. There is always the threat from Congress "thinking of the children," however a good number of the legislation to ban (censor/regulate content) has been struck down by the cour
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3D Realms still relevant? (Score:1, Redundant)
Wolfenstein 3d? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Learning ESRB guidelines by Trial and Error? (Score:3, Insightful)
So how I'm reading this the ESRB is basically saying you can't go out and read the guidelines and be able to submit a game with much success on your first couple of attempts, you have to submit a bunch of times and through trial and error you'll figure out how the guidelines work? It's pretty ridiculous to suggest that the only way you can successfully submit games is by having past experience submitting games.