ESRB FAQ (please verify) > What is the ESRB? The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) is the non-profit, self-regulatory body that assigns ratings for video games and apps so parents can make informed choices. The ESRB rating system encompasses guidance about age-appropriateness, content, and interactive elements. As part of its self-regulatory role for the video game industry, the ESRB also enforces industry-adopted advertising guidelines and helps ensure responsible online and mobile privacy practices among companies participating in its Privacy Certified program. In 2015, ESRB expanded the use of its ratings to mobile and digital storefronts as part of the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC). ESRB was established in 1994 by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA). > Are all games and apps required to have a rating? The rating system is voluntary, although virtually all video games that are sold at retail or downloaded to a game system in the U.S. and Canada are rated by the ESRB. Many U.S. retailers, including most major chains, have policies to only stock or sell games that carry an ESRB rating, and console manufacturers require games that are published on their systems in the U.S. and Canada to be rated by ESRB. The ESRB is one of the founding rating authorities of the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC), which administers a streamlined process for assigning age and content ratings to the high volume of digitally delivered games and mobile apps coming into the market today. The Google Play store and Firefox Marketplace are among the app storefronts that have deployed the IARC rating system, which facilitates the display of ESRB ratings on devices in North America. > Does the ESRB have any restrictions on how a game can be marketed? Publishers of packaged or boxed games carrying an ESRB rating are contractually bound to follow the industry-adopted Principles and Guidelines for Responsible Advertising Practices, along with numerous additional requirements addressing how rating information must be displayed on game packaging and in advertising and certain restrictions on where ads for Mature-rated games may appear. The ESRB's Advertising Review Council (ARC) diligently monitors industry compliance, and in the event that a game publisher is found to have inappropriately labeled or advertised a product, the ESRB is empowered to compel corrective actions and impose a wide range of sanctions, including monetary fines. Similarly, publishers of digitally delivered games and apps are strongly encouraged to provide consumers with clear and prominent disclosure of ESRB rating information as well as abide by the various advertising and marketing guidelines to which publishers adhere.

This is a lot to take in, so: For those who like to break down info 1. Check the OP >>329225 2. Decide how to sort information. Handy labels like with Deep Freeze would help, including: > Hypocrisy or working against their stated goals > Inconsistency > Proof of backroom dealings (you can show us stuff you suspect, but we can't use it. Other diggers can.) > Conflicts of Interest (including political. I.e. person is shown to be anti-violence or anti-gun) > Law confusion - attempts to deliberately mislead consumers or developers into what the ESRB can and can't do, and what can and cannot be sold. > Developers/Publishers using ESRB's vague laws to change content in a game (despite ESRB past examples showing the games rating should be higher/lower). > Developers/Publishers screwed over by ESRB (told one thing one day, then they made the change and they added more things to change or something that was once fine now isn't, etc. Basically anything that would mean the ESRB could keep sucking money from them). > Large stores making demands of ESRB. > A small group making demands of ESRB (i.e. Group of 20 people in one area affects the whole nation). > ESRB costs of service Vs how much they spend. > How the company has changed over the years (staff, heads, and attitudes). 3. When all the above is sorted, we can carefully use the information to make infographs and spread information in a manner that should prevent/mitigate/lessen the risks laid out in >>329226

AO-rated Manhunt 2 would be unacceptable to Nintendo and Sony https://archive.fo/SRlB8 >Although AO-rated games are legally sellable in North America, the approval processes of Nintendo and Sony do not allow such games to appear on its systems. Manhunt 2 is under development for the Wii, PlayStation 2 and PSP, though the game would not be approved for release by Sony or Nintendo. “Games made for Nintendo systems enjoy a broad variety of styles, genres and ratings. These are some of the reasons our Wii and Nintendo DS systems appeal to such a broad range of people,” read a Nintendo statement to the press. “But as with books, television and movies, different content is meant for different audiences. That's why the ESRB provides ratings to help consumers understand the content of a game before they purchase it. As stated on Nintendo.com, Nintendo does not allow any AO-rated content on its systems.” Sony Computer Entertainment of America responded to inquiries with a similar response, saying, “Currently it's SCE's policy not to allow the playback of AO rated content on our systems.” >Even if Sony and Nintendo were to allow the AO version of Manhunt 2 for play on their systems, retailers such as Wal-Mart have a policy of not selling explicit media, which would severely limit the game’s exposure to the buying public.

Getting the feeling this is turning into a "everyone is at fault" situation. Article from 2015 talks about PEGI. Surprise! (PEGI kinda related?) How paying for content ratings is hurting devs who release in Europe https://archive.fo/TBGzY >A few months back I was Skyping with Matthew Burns and Zach Barth about Zachtronics’ TIS-100 when Barth mentioned his frustration with PEGI, Europe’s self-regulating video game content ratings agency. “We have to work with them, and they have some crazy policies that are not cool for indies,” he told me. “You can't put your game on an Xbox or PlayStation without a PEGI rating, and they charge thousands of dollars.” >PEGI designed its licensing fee scheme for digital games based on how it's been rating physical video game releases since 2003: with the expectation that publishers would foot the bill. But the rise of self-publishing has created situations where the biggest line item on a small developer’s budget may well be ratings board licensing fees. >Is that, in turn, putting pressure on indies not to release their games in Europe on platforms that require PEGI ratings, i.e. Xbox Games Store, Sony's PSN and Nintendo's eShop? >Indies are paying roughly $300-$1,000 per platform for a PEGI rating >Happion Labs, for example, released Sixty Second Shooter Prime on Xbox One last year through the ID@XBox program and reported the biggest expense was paying just over $2k in PEGI and USK fees so the game could release on the Xbox Games Store in Europe and Germany. >By comparison, getting the game ESRB-rated so the game could be sold in the U.S. cost nothing; the ESRB rolled out a free, streamlined voluntary rating service to digital platforms years ago. >This week studio frontman Jamie Fristrom told me via email that paying for ratings ultimately proved worthwhile (“SSSP on Xbox One has been the most I've earned for time invested of anything I've done as an indie”) but that it does seem like PEGI’s fee scheme has a chilling effect on indies releasing games in Europe. “It used to be that localization would have been the big expense to release in Europe, but the costs of loc. keep dropping and often indies can get it done for free by tapping their communities, so that PEGI license becomes the big cost of shipping in Europe,” wrote Fristrom. >PEGI knows this. It’s been taking fire on this front from members of the European game industry for some time (UK game industry trade body TIGA called on PEGI last year to reform what it called “unreasonably high and repetitious fees”) and when I sat down with agency communications manager Dirk Bosmans at Gamescom last month, he tried to offer both an explanation and the promise of a near future where no indie will have to pay for a rating on a Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo platform ever again. >But first, he acknowledged PEGI’s fees are an outdated relic of the way the video game industry used to operate. They're also the primary thing keeping PEGI in business. PEGI knows this is a problem, but it wants to maintain income “Our money comes from fees that publishers pay to get a ratings license…that’s basically our only source of income,” Bosmans told me, estimating that PEGI has less than five full-time staffers. “When we were at the height of the console cycle, there were lots of games. That’s come down in the past few years, so obviously our income is shrinking.” “A couple of years ago, if you’d asked me [whether PEGI fees have a chilling effect on European game releases], the answer probably would have been no, because in order to release a game in a box on a shelf you’d need a lot of funds,” said Bosman. “But because digital is so much more accessible, it’s much easier to release a game, but we still charge the same.” >The developers I spoke to typically paid (depending on exchange rates) between $300-$400 per platform for a PEGI rating if their game took up 450 megabytes or less when fully installed; rise above that size limit, and the fee rises to around $1,000 per platform. ———————————————– All of this seems to tie into one message: Cut out the Middle Man. The ESRB aren't needed. Stores can chose what they do and don't stock (and if they make a bad call, it's their fault). Parents can look up online what a game's content is (and if they make a bad call, it's their fault). You could reduce the ESRB to a website that just lists the short blurbs of "content"- and any reviewer who got their hands early can do that. You don't need to pay someone $300 per game to submit a paragraph on whats in it. Hell, why aren't developers and publishers doing it? It's not like the ESRB are playing the fucking games. Just get the devs themselves to write the content paragraph, and put that on the lesser-ESRB website. All the ESRB does is dissolve responsibility of other parties for money.

>>329422 Part 2 >Axiom Verge was released on PlayStation 4 back in March, and is not my idea of "casual" “Mainly for me it is just time-consuming and frustrating," he added. "You also have to create a highlight reel showing all the most egregious blood/language/sexual content in the game, and it takes them a while to process the whole thing. Since I'm a solo dev it means all development stops as I'm doing it.” >Barth echoes these complaints about PEGI’s video reel submission requirements (“It takes forever, and it’s a pain in the ass”) and asks a question that has, in turn, been echoed by other developers I’ve corresponded with: Why can’t the process of age-rating your game for release in Europe be straightforward and free, like it is in the U.S. under the aegis of the ESRB? “Simplifying this process would be extremely beneficial to small teams that would rather focus their time on developing and marketing their game,” Sportsfriends developer Ramiro Corbetta (maker of Hokra) tells me via email. “Removing the PEGI charge would obviously be great for developers, especially those operating at a smaller scale who might be worried about not making enough money in Europe.” >But is paying for PEGI ratings inhibiting indies from releasing games in Europe? Corbetta says no, not really – it's just a painful but necessary reality of game development. "Dealing with ratings boards is never glamorous and it comes up at a point in development when you are least excited about filling out paperwork, but we always knew that it would be a necessary step to finish the game," he told me. "While any costs can be painful for a small development team, we always assumed that European sales would be much, much larger than the cost of PEGI ratings, and now that we have sales numbers in front of us we know we were right." >In the face of Infinifactory's impending PlayStation 4 release, Barth isn't so sanguine about the price. "I'm always optimistic going into a new title. I really hope that Infinifactory sells a ton of copies," he says. "But in all honesty, it's probably not going to, and the PEGI cost is probably going to eat up a substantial amount of what we make in Europe. It's not enough to not do it, but it hurts." IARC might (eventually) be the answer >Again, PEGI knows this, and Bosmans promises that things will change – soon. “IARC should solve these issues," he tells me. "If Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony are joining IARC, getting your game rated for ESRB, PEGI, USK and all the other ratings boards will be free. That’s our goal.” >Here’s the pitch: IARC (International Age Ratings Coalition) is a process whereby you fill out a questionnaire and receive an auto-generated content rating for all ratings boards participating in IARC (notably the ESRB, USK, and PEGI) every time you submit a game to a participating digital storefront. >It doesn’t take very long, and it’s completely free – IARC draws revenue from royalties paid by participating storefronts, and Bosmans says PEGI's cut will allow it to stay in business in the absence of revenue from licensing digital games to use its ratings. Earlier this year IARC was implemented in the Google Play Store, and Bosman expects it to come to Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo’s digital platforms at some point in the near future. “I’ve just come out of two days of IARC meetings [we were speaking at Gamescom, remember] and it seems we’re in very, very good shape,” he told me. “I don’t have timeframes for you, but I do know that Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony are working on the implementation. So at some point in the future, I can say, those four will be using IARC.” >When that will happen, exactly, depends on how quickly the three companies integrate IARC into their platforms. When I press him about timelines – are we talking weeks, months, years? – Bosmans says any estimate would be misleading, because this is the biggest IARC rollout yet. “It’s a gigantic operation. We thought when we knew that we could make an adoption by Google possible, that was going to be the biggest undertaking ever – it was very difficult,” he tells me. “But now, with three different platforms joining at the same time and possibly new ratings boards joining too [Japan’s CERO board recently expressed interest in joining IARC] it’s become a massive undertaking.” “I'd love to see a timeline for that; it's one thing for them to say that they've ‘committed’ but having it actually be a reality is the only thing that matters,” Barth responds.“We used IARC to rate a few of our Android games and it was exactly the amount of work (very little) and cost (free) that I'd expect. I still don't think they have an excuse for charging us over $3,000 for what the ESRB can, right now in the exact same industry climate, do for free.”

>>329423 IARC is used for App stores. And we all know those refuse to stock anything above 15. I always have issues with global efforts. Usually the person spear-heading it is doing it to control. Separate organizations have different ideals. Australia censors this, Germany censors that, US puts a higher rating on this, etc. If IARC puts all countries under the same standard, what will they be? Europe won't allow it to be free or problematic. SJW will be able to focus on one organization. IARC has potential to be worse than the ESRB- Global and Puritan.

Compared to the ESRB who has had plenty of interviews in the past, it looks like PEGI doesn't have much. (Then again, PEGI was founded in 2003 whereas the ESRB was founded in 1994) Before I post the next article, meet Dirk Bosmans. He is the Operations Director of PEGI S.A. and will be the one thats being interviewed. His Linkedin for those curious to see what's he done in the past https://be.linkedin.com/in/dirkbosmans

And Then There Was One… (Video Game Classification in the UK) https://archive.fo/8bbgA >I have often found myself the port of call for family members, friends or strangers who need advice on video games. When browsing the shelves in my local purveyor of interactive entertainment I frequently help the unfortunate parent, grandparent or child who has a vague notion of what it is they are looking for, but just can’t find “that puzzle-y, cartoon-y thing about a man in a hat” (Professor Layton and the Curious Village in case it wasn’t clear). In many ways, I consider gamers the window into the gaming world for all those people who have just enough information to be a danger to the poor child who wanted Rock Band for Christmas, but got Rock Revolution instead. >It is with that in mind that I sought to make sense of the situation regarding video game classification in the UK. The switch in the classification system has been pending for more than 24 months, and is currently scheduled to occur on Monday 30th July 2012. >As with films, video games sold in the UK are classified and given an age rating by an authorised organisation. However, the classification of video games is more complex than it is for films. All of this we, as gamers, know. No matter our age or background, at some point in our lives we have all had to consider the alphanumeric in that little coloured box on the cover of a video game. For parents it is likely with child safety in mind; for teenagers it is whilst weighing up which sales assistant looks more susceptible to charm, or at least less inquisitive. >The important point is that the certificate awarded by the organisations performing video game classification affects us all in some small way. How these organisations determine the age rating for a game and where to go for further information on a given game’s rating or content is not as widely known. A little history >The Video Recordings Act (1984) required any video game sold in the UK to be submitted for classification by a nominated organisation (at the time it was the British Board of Film Classification) where it contained: > Gross acts of violence towards humans or animals > Horrific behaviour or incidents > Human sexual activity > Criminal behaviour >Games devoid of the ‘controversial content’ listed above were exempt from classification, but in practice, almost all video games were awarded an age rating because Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony made the Pan-European Game Information (PEGI) rating mandatory for all games on their platforms in Europe. >Complexity therefore arose from the fact that, for some time, both PEGI and the BBFC performed video game classification. Though every game was rated by PEGI, and many displayed that rating, the BBFC rating had to appear on the box (in the UK) for those games with the aforementioned controversial content. Only the BBFC’s rating was legally enforceable, but that is about to change. >Following The Byron Review in 2008, the UK government undertook its own review of video game classification in 2009. The outcome was that the Video Recordings Act (1984) was repealed and partially reinstated under the Video Recordings Act (2010). A significant part of this change was the decision that video games would no longer be classified by the BBFC, and that PEGI would take sole responsibility. The implementation of this change has been delayed several times, to the frustration of both PEGI and UKIE (UK Interactive Entertainment – the video game industry’s trade body in the UK), but is currently scheduled to occur, as mentioned, on Monday 30th July 2012. >So, what of PEGI and its rating system? Pan-European Game Information >30 European countries, including the UK, use the PEGI classification system. In addition to this, Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony gaming consoles have integrated the PEGI system in their parental controls in Europe. Why is PEGI’s ratings system so popular, and how does it differ from that of the BBFC? >PEGI was created in 2003 to replace many of the different national classification systems that existed around Europe. As such, it was developed to be an amalgamation of all of these. That PEGI specialises in classification of video games and offers multinational, multilingual coverage means that it has become very widely used. Further information on the system and a catalogue of ratings decisions can be found at pegi

ATTENTION ALL IARC is literally the greater of two evils I lined out in >>329226 Any "global" initiative is always a push for all nations to do the same. Whether it's intended to do it from the start or not, IARC will be used to push SJW style censorship eventually, if left unchecked. It'll make Australia and Germany's ratings boards look free by comparison. Even Japan is thinking of joining them. NEW OP STOP IARC. SPREAD INFO ON HOW THIS CAN GO TITS UP NOW. TPP died, and so can this. Globalist ideals die in 2017!!

Part 2 of And Then There Was One… >PEGI has also introduced PEGI Online, a seal of quality that recognises those games with online features that meet PEGI’s standards of safety and performance, particularly with respect to the protection of children. Another part of the PEGI system is PEGI Express, a fast-track system designed for Windows Phone apps, but that will hopefully be expanded to include other small digital games/content. >Further information on these subsidiaries of the PEGI classification system can be found at www.pegionline.eu and create.msdn.com respectively. >It should be noted that the PEGI Online label implies age restrictions affecting online features different to that indicated by the overall rating. This is an issue of data protection for online accounts and may therefore not be detailed upon the game’s packaging. Do not be surprised if a game rated PEGI ‘3’, ‘7’ or ‘12’ restricts online services to those above 13 years of age. Like many web services, the creation of an account for/by an under-age individual is a breach of the terms of service. >The rating information printed on the game packaging is accompanied, on PEGI’s website, by extended consumer advice in the form of some additional descriptions. PEGI ratings are determined in a slightly different way to BBFC ratings, and aim to provide parents and caregivers with detailed recommendations regarding the age suitability of game content. >This point was addressed when I spoke to PEGI Communications Manager, Dirk Bosmans, who was keen to stress that “while it is frustrating for the 15 or 17 year-olds who can’t buy a particular game due to its rating, PEGI’s systems and ratings cater to parents”. >PEGI relies on a content declaration system when receiving games for classification. This takes the form of a 50-point checklist that the game’s publisher must complete (the form can be viewed here). Based on this checklist, a provisional rating is determined by the publisher and can be used in marketing materials for the game. An examination pack is sent to one of the PEGI administrators, who check the submission. >All provisional ratings awarded by PEGI are subject to review by their administrators, the Video Standards Council (VSC) or the Netherlands Institute for the Classification of Audiovisual Media (NICAM). Games with a rating of PEGI ‘3’ or ‘7’ are examined by NICAM, and those with a rating of PEGI ‘12’, ‘16’ or ‘18’ are reviewed by the VSC. It is the responsibility of these bodies to check that every review is in line with PEGI’s own classification criteria. See the links (above) for details of the PEGI criteria. If you would like to read more on the checks then the Games Rating Authority section of the VSC website is your best bet (videostandards.org.uk). In short, game content is investigated by an examiner who will play and view as much of the game and associated materials as they deem necessary to determine the rating. >Usually the provisional rating is confirmed and then accepted by the publisher of the video game in question. This rating is the same in all countries that use the PEGI system. PEGI does not censor content, but publishers can initiate a consultation with the PEGI administrators to identify content that warranted a given rating and consider cuts/alterations to meet the criteria for a different age rating (higher or lower). This is similar to the way classification works for films and in a few cases results in different versions of the game/film being released in different countries. >Examples of such alterations, though not associated with PEGI’s rating of the games in question, include the European release of Grasshopper Manufacture’s No More Heroes, in which (like the Japanese version) blood was replaced with black ash to satisfy German ratings board, USK. Also, Bethesda Game Studios chose to rename Morphine as Med-X to avoid problems securing a rating in Australia. >Being reliant upon content declaration, PEGI requires all publishers to agree to the PEGI Code of Conduct as part of their agreement. This, the declaration form and the content suitable for each age rating are regularly updated by PEGI’s Experts Group, which includes representatives of the administrators and academic experts in the fields of child protection, psychology, etc. >It is incumbent upon the game publishers themselves to adhere to PEGI’s system. I asked Dirk Bosmans about this, and he explained, “Publishers are contractually obliged to adhere to the PEGI Code of Conduct. We have a great relationship with the coders who submit the games to us and they understand the importance of the PEGI system”.

Part 3 >>329433 >Though not associated with PEGI, the infamous Hot Coffee mod for Rockstar North’s Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas that plagued its release in the United States was an obvious touchstone for our conversation about publisher honesty. Dirk is confident that a situation in which a publisher would willingly cheat would be unlikely to arise under the PEGI system since “The Code of Conduct details warnings and fines that can be levied if a publisher were to break their agreement with PEGI. It would leave the publisher with a mandatory re-rating of their game and a very costly withdrawal of the game from retailers”. BBFC and PEGI >As the handover from the dual ratings system to a single PEGI system occurs it is important to understand how these systems differ from one-another. There are differences in how the games are rated, but the most obvious and pertinent difference for consumers is the rating shown on the packaging. >As with films, these ratings are used by retailers to determine who may purchase a game. However, for parents they are meant as a guide. There are no hard rules here, but, in general, the ages designated by the rating apply. Expect a game rated BBFC ‘U’ or PEGI ‘3’ to be suitable for all, whilst one rated BBFC or PEGI ’18’ to be suitable only for mature audiences. >Like the BBFC, PEGI provides additional information to help parents (and all consumers) decide whether a particular game is suitable. Until now, the Extended Classification Information provided by the BBFC has been generally more extensive and detailed than the additional descriptors provided by PEGI. This has often been pointed to as a strength of the BBFC’s system, and so I put this to Dirk. He explained the technical reason that PEGI was unable to provide such information: “The practicalities of including extended information prevented us from doing it. PEGI rates more than 2,000 games each year and provides ratings information in 26 different languages – that was just too much work”. >However, Dirk was able to say that extended information for the PEGI rating will be available very soon: “Providing extra classification information, like the BBFC did, was a requirement of PEGI being chosen as the single system for the UK. That information, in English, is coming sometime after the transition occurs next week and will be provided by the VSC under the Games Rating Authority (GRA)”. >One note of caution when drawing direct parallels between the BBFC and PEGI ratings – they can sometimes vary for the same game. For example, Mass Effect was rated BBFC ’12’, but ’18’ by PEGI, clearly showing two very different interpretations of the same content. Digging a little deeper on this game, the BBFC Extended Classification Information states that the game contains “moderate violence”, qualified by the “futuristic setting” and its “undetailed” nature. The “moderate sex scene” in Mass Effect is described by the BBFC as “brief and undetailed” with “breast nudity in one version of the scene”. The fact that the sex scene is the result of “a series of choices about becoming more than friends with a colleague” is also noted to provide context. >PEGI also assessed Mass Effect and, as mentioned, rated the game ‘18’ with a content descriptor icon for violence. Their additional information is briefer than that of the BBFC, but also addresses the violent and sexual content. PEGI describe the “extreme violence” as “realistic looking”, whilst the “nudity of a sexual nature” is described as “sexual activity without visible genitalia”. >A second example came to my attention whilst writing this article. The ratings for SEGA’s 2012 game, Binary Domain were also different. The BBFC’s ‘15’ rating cites “strong violence” but tempered since “opponents are invariably robots” that “disappear from the screen” precluding any form of “post-mortem damage”. That “there is neither blood nor injury detail” was instrumental in avoiding the “particularly strong gory images” and “sadistic or sexualised violence” that are not allowed in ‘15’ rated games. “Moderate sexual banter” and “infrequent strong language” are mentioned only in passing and are deemed acceptable for a BBFC ‘15’ rating. >The BBFC are known to make a distinction regarding the victims of on-screen violence when considering its severity. Violence is regarded as more severe when perpetrated against humans and animals, meaning that, for instance, the beheading of an Uruk-hai (an orc-like creature) in The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring was permissible in a PG rated film. >PEGI rated Binary Domain at ‘18’ and included pictograms for Online Gameplay, Violence and Bad Language. The consumer advice classifies the violence as “extreme” and cites “strong language” as the other deciding factor in the games rating.

Part 4 >>329434 >Anecdotally, differences in rating rarely occur, but where they do PEGI tend to award a higher rating (as above). Dirk was keen to avoid drawing direct comparisons between BBFC and PEGI ratings in specific cases, but he did have a more general point to make: “The BBFC and PEGI have separate systems for different forms of entertainment and, focusing on our won system, PEGI was built to deal with the specific nature of video games. Sometimes it’s possible to look at the brevity or impact of (for instance) violence, but we have to consider that a player may have to re-play a section multiple times if it’s a hard section”. >He raises an interesting point. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) – the BBFC’s counterpart in the United States – is notorious for detailing the number of times particular profane language can be used for a given rating. This just isn’t realistic for rating video games where each player’s experience may be significantly different in content. >Both organisations, of course, award ratings as a reflection of their particular standards, but the above examples are illustrative to the consumer of the effect the forthcoming change could have on the games they buy, and play. Subjectivity in the age appropriateness of certain types of content or games can be minimised through the continued development of specific, objective criteria by experts referring to evidence and comparable materials. The consistent application of those standards through a system such as PEGI’s content declaration checklist can also help remove subjectivity. Differences between the various ratings boards will still exist, however, and so the adoption of a single classification system in the UK was vital. >There we have it, the situation regarding the classification of video games in the UK and how those ratings are determined. Personally, I am glad that the recommendation of The Byron Review to consolidate video game classification under one body was acted upon; two distinct systems could only cause confusion. The debate over which system is more suitable is moot at this point, the UK Government having decided that PEGI should be solely responsible for video game classification some two years ago now. Be aware that, come Monday 30th July 2012, you can expect to see a lot more of the PEGI ratings on the cases of your video games. >To coincide with the switch-over, GameBurst have published a podcast interview with UKIE CEO, Dr Jo Twist. UKIE have been instrumental in the changes discussed above and the interview is highly recommended. You can find it here: www.gameburst.co.uk >If you want to know more about PEGI, the BBFC, UKIE, the VSC or NICAM then please visit their respective websites, below. Also, take a look at the newly relaunched Ask About Games where parents and players can find a lot more help and guidance on video games, classification and parental controls.

2011 Gamasutra Interview with the co-CEO of Quantic Dream, Guillaume de Fondaumière https://archive.fo/8TlJP (Partt 1) >What's the problem with having an 18 PEGI? GDF: There are numerous problems. The first problem is you can't advertise your game primetime on TV, for instance, in certain countries – which is the case in France or in the UK. So there's the first limitation: you can't market it the way you should. When you look at the bigger picture, I also think that it's not good for our industry to have so many games rated 18, because in the minds of the people you always see "this is a game for adults, this is a game for adults, this is a game for adults," and I really don't believe that in most cases the content deserves these kinds of ratings. And then when I compare it to what I see in movies, or on a TV series today, I don't think that certain games are showing more violent scenes than certain movies, and certain films, and I see a big difference in ratings. How many NC17 films have you seen in your life? https://archive.fo/ywF9b (Part 2) >Something people don't tend to think about is that you don't know what you're not seeing. In other words, if a film gets an R, you'll never know what they might have cut to reach the R – what part of the director's intent might have been lost. Do you feel there is a similar effect in games? GDF: Of course. I know that a lot of developers are cutting content. [They] are asked, or there are very long discussions about, what should be in it, what shouldn't be. Throughout the development of a relatively mature game, there are these discussions between the developer [and the publisher]. And most of the time the developer doesn't want to cut, because there is an intention behind what he's trying to do, and why. It's the publisher's role to make sure the game releases, and is not hindered in its distribution. So yeah, we have these discussions on a continuous basis. https://archive.fo/LlllR (Part 3) >Do you have a sense that developers aren't not only not speaking up for themselves in regards to ratings, but also not pushing boundaries? That you don't have the equivalent of the directors who are sick of the Hays Code? GDF: This is changing. There are more and more director-type creators at the head of studios, working within the studios, and having more and more influence on how games are created. The more and more central figures who drive the creative vision of a particular studio – at Quantic it's David Cage, but [also] Kojima – which probably wasn't the case maybe 10 years ago. The more and more creators that, also, the consumer recognizes today – the press and consumers, the whole ecosystem sees them as, sometimes they're called the visionaries. The creators, the directors, those are the people that drive the industry forward. I think these people should also start. But I'm talking to a lot of them, and a lot of them back what I'm saying, and say, "Yeah, you're right. We should do something about this." https://archive.fo/X90yx (Part 4) >To return to the beginning, why, then, are you doing the modified edition? GDF: The reason why we're doing it is that, well, there is this deal in place with this distributor. He wants to have a 16 version, so we are releasing it. It was also, I would say, an exercise – it was an act for us to understand where the limit was. And we were extremely surprised by what we've been asked to change in the game to go from an 18 to a 16-plus, which I think makes absolutely no sense. The difference between the PEGI 18 game and the PEGI 16 game is one scene: the scene with where Madison dances in front of Paco in the nightclub.

Video Games: Commission welcomes progress on protection of minors in 23 EU Member States, but asks for improvement of industry codes https://archive.fo/5eRqt The European video games sector is dynamic, with expected revenue of € 7.3 billion by the end of 2008. However, public concerns that video games can cause aggressive behaviour, heightened by school shootings such as in Helsinki (Finland, November 2007), have led several national authorities to ban or block video games such as "Manhunt 2". In response, the European Commission has surveyed existing measures protecting minors from harmful video games across the 27 EU Member States. 20 EU Member States now apply PEGI (Pan European Games Information), an age-rating system developed by industry, with EU support, since 2003. In the Commission's view, industry must invest more to strengthen and in particular to regularly update the PEGI system so that it becomes a truly effective pan-European tool. Also, industry and public authorities should step up cooperation to make classification and age rating systems better known and to avoid confusion caused by parallel systems. A Code of Conduct for retailers should be drawn up within two years on sales of video games to minors. >"Video games have become a strong pillar of Europe's content industry and are experiencing booming sales across Europe. This is welcome, but implies greater responsibility for the industry to ensure that parents know what kind of games their children play", said Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for the Information Society and Media. " PEGI, as an example of responsible industry self-regulation and the only such system with almost pan-European coverage, is certainly a very good first step. However, I believe it can be greatly improved, in Europe and beyond, by making the public more aware about its existence and fully implementing PEGI Online. I also call on Member States and the industry to govern the sale of video games in shops to respect the fundamental need to protect minors." >"All consumers need clear, accurate information to make informed choices. But this is particularly about children – some of the most vulnerable consumers in society. And our clear message today is that industry and national authorities must go further to ensure that all parents have the power to make the right decisions for themselves and their child," added Meglena Kuneva, the EU Consumer Commissioner. >According to the Commission survey, the PEGI system is currently applied by 20 Member States. 2 countries (Germany and Lithuania) have specific binding legislation while Malta relies on general legislation. However, 4 Member States (Cyprus, Luxembourg, Romania and Slovenia) have no system in place. 15 Member States have legislation concerning the sale of video games with harmful content to minors in shops, although the scope of laws varies between Member States. Until now, 4 countries (Germany, Ireland, Italy, UK) have banned certain violent video games. >Adopted in 2003, PEGI labels provide an age rating and warnings such as violence or bad language, empowering parents to decide which game is appropriate for their children, as well as adult gamers to better choose their games. PEGI is supported by the major console manufacturers in Europe. PEGI Online was launched in 2007, co-funded by the EU's Safer Internet Programme (IP/08/310), in response to the rapid growth of online video games. The Commission has called for several measures to converge approaches in the Single Market: >Regular improvement and better advertising of PEGI and PEGI Online by the video games industry. >Member States should integrate PEGI into their own classification systems and raise awareness of PEGI, particularly parents and children. >Cooperation on innovative age verification solutions between Member States, classification bodies and other stakeholders. >A pan-European Code of Conduct on the sale of games to minors within two years, agreed by all stakeholders. Background: >Video games are increasingly accessible via internet and mobile phones, which are expected to make up 33% of total revenues for video games by 2010. The European video gaming sector is already worth half as much as the entire European music market and exceeds the cinema box office. >The Commission already supports self-regulation at European level to protect minors using mobile phones (IP/07/139). Self-regulation strengthened by cross-border cooperation has also been pursued for audiovisual services under the Television Without Frontiers Directive (IP/07/138).

EU audiovisual and media policies - Video Games https://archive.fo/MBq1C Video Games >Communication on protection of consumers, in particular minors, in respect of the use of video games. The issue >Video games are one of the favourite leisure activities of Europeans of different ages and social categories. There are also promising opportunities for a strong interactive games industry in Europe, which is already the fastest growing and most dynamic sector in the European content industry, and has a higher growth rate than in the US, half the revenue of the music market and more than the cinema box office in Europe. The rapid growth of on-line video games is also a key driver for the uptake of broadband telecommunications networks and third generation cellular phones. All this makes video games a front-rank medium, with the result that freedom of expression for both creators and gamers is a paramount concern. >However, - because of the potential psychological effects of video games on minors - this must be balanced by high standards of protection. The fact that video games are increasingly played by adults and played jointly by children and parents demands in particular differentiated levels of access to video games for minors and adults. >Amongst several other EU initiatives in related fields, the rating by age group and the labelling of certain video and computer games were already the subject of a Council Resolution in 2002. The Method >With its Communication, the Commission is replying to the Council's call for a review of the various methods used for assessing the content of video and computer games and to report back to the Council. For this purpose, a questionnaire was sent to all Member States. The questions covered age rating/content rating systems, the sale of video games by retailers, video game bans, effectiveness of current measures, on-line video games and a cross-platform and pan-European rating system. All 27 Member States replied. >Video games are one of the favourite leisure activities of Europeans of different ages and social categories >According to the information received from the Member States, the PEGI system is currently applied by 20 Member States. Two Member States (Germany and Lithuania) have specific binding legislation while Malta relies on general legislation. However, four Member States (Cyprus, Luxembourg, Romania and Slovenia) have no system in place. 15 Member States have legislation concerning the sale of video games with harmful content to minors in shops, although the scope of laws varies between Member States. Until now, four countries (Germany, Ireland, Italy, UK) have banned certain violent video games. >Adopted in 2003, PEGI labels provide an age rating and warnings such as violence or bad language, empowering parents to decide which game is appropriate for their children, as well as adult gamers to better choose their games. PEGI is supported by the major console manufacturers in Europe. PEGI Online was launched in 2007, co-funded by the EU's Safer Internet Programme (IP/08/310), in response to the rapid growth of online video games.

Part 2 >>329438 The Objectives >The Communication, bearing in mind the value of video games in promoting cultural diversity: Calls upon the Member States to recognise that video games have become a front-rank medium and to ensure that high standards of freedom of expression and effective, proportionate measures for the protection of minors should apply and mutually reinforce each other. Consequently, calls upon the Member States to integrate into their national systems the information and classification system put in place in the framework of the PEGI and PEGI On-line initiatives. Calls upon the video games and consoles industry to further improve the PEGI and PEGI On-line systems and in particular regularly to update the criteria for age rating and labelling, to advertise PEGI more actively and to increase the list of signatories. Recognises that on-line videogames bring new challenges, such as effective age verification systems and possible dangers for young consumers related to chat rooms associated with these games, and calls upon Member States and stakeholders to work together on innovative solutions. Calls upon Member States and stakeholders to evaluate the possible negative and positive effects of video games, notably on health. Calls upon all stakeholders involved in the sale of videogames in retail shops to agree within two years on a Pan-European Code of conduct on the sale of games to minors and on commitments to raise awareness of the PEGI system among parents and children, as well as to ensure adequate resources to implement the provisions of this Code. Encourages the Member States and all stakeholders to take initiatives to improve media literacy applied to video games, in line with the Commission Communication of 20 December 2007. Welcomes and supports further efforts to achieve a self-regulatory or co-regulatory cross-media, pan-European age-rating system. The Commission intends in particular to organise meetings of classification bodies to exchange best practices in this field. Intends to use existing networks of and platforms with Consumer organisations in order to raise public awareness on PEGI and on the recommendations in this Communication. >cultural diversity There's your favorite word!

PEGI LINKEDINS Jennifer Wacrenier: PEGI Project Manager at PEGI SA/ISFE https://be.linkedin.com/in/jenniferwacrenier Jürgen Bänsch: Director, Public Policy & Government Affairs, Europe https://be.linkedin.com/in/j%C3%BCrgen-b%C3%A4nsch-7aa1b26 Simon Little: Managing Director & Chairman of the Board https://be.linkedin.com/in/simonlittle Hemant Jadhav: Management Trainee at PEGI SA https://in.linkedin.com/in/hemant-jadhav-7a3a653a Antonio Xavier: Chairman of PEGI Council https://pt.linkedin.com/in/antonio-xavier-18902320

European Commission - Communication on Video Games https://archive.fo/wC1jL >On 22 April 2008, the European Commission issued a Communication on the protection of consumers, in particular of minors, in respect of the use of video games. The Communication was adopted in response to the booming prospects of the European gaming market, which, in the words of Commissioner Reding, is “welcome, but implies greater responsibility for the industry”. The European video games market is the fastest growing and most dynamic sector of the European content industry, with an expected revenue of EUR 7.3 billion by the end of 2008. This growth is in part due to a rapid expansion to older age groups, with the average age of gamers now exceeding 23 years. This shift is accompanied by a growing need for increased protection for minors: already, video games have been blamed for incidents such as the Helsinki school shootings in November 2007, raising public concern that they encourage violent behaviour. The Communication, therefore, was intended as a review of the various methods used for assessing the content of video and computer games. >According to the information received during the consultation phase, as things now stand, PEGI (Pan European Games Information), an age rating system developed by the ISFE (Interactive Software Federation of Europe), with the support of the Commission, is applied in 20 European States. This applies with or without the support of additional specific legislation. Four countries have heretofore banned games for having violent content and most do not have any specific legislation on online video games. Half of the Member States consider the current measures to be generally effective, while, as far as the introduction of a cross-platform, pan-European rating system is concerned, most Member States agree that such a move would contribute to the smooth operation of the internal market and help avoid consumer confusion. >In its conclusion, the Commission called, among other things, for Member States to integrate PEGI and PEGI On-line into their national systems, as well as on industry to regularly update and actively advertise both systems. In addition, it called for a Pan-European Code of Conduct for retailers on the sale of games to minors and on raising awareness of the PEGI system among parents and children; this should be drawn up within two years. It especially emphasised the new challenges brought by online video games. The Commission urged Member States and stakeholders to encourage media literacy in respect of video games, in line with the Communication of 20 December 2007. Finally, it supports further efforts to achieve a self-regulatory or co-regulatory cross-media, pan-European age-rating system, as opposed to parallel systems which bring about confusion. >The Communication comes a couple of weeks after the Byron Review, which dealt with similar matters on the national UK level. The Byron Review recommended a hybrid classification system, in which the logos of the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) are placed on the front of all game packaging and PEGI pictograms on the back.

2009 interview with Mike Rawlinson, the boss of ELSPA https://archive.fo/Xruxr >Following the publication of the Digital Britain report last week, TechRadar caught up with ELSPA boss Mike Rawlinson to quiz him a little more about the Government's recent decision to back the Pan European Game Information (PEGI) system as the UK's single games rating body. >ELSPA (the Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association) has campaigned and lobbied long and hard to establish PEGI as the single system by which games are allocated age ratings depending upon the acceptability of their content to certain age groups. >The decision follows a lengthy period of public consultation involving consumers and gamers, the Government, the games industry and the (now-ousted) BBFC, following Tanya Byron's review of the UK's games age-ratings system early in 2008, in which the eminent psychologist identified the fact that the current system was flawed and confusing to consumers (by which, read: parents buying - often inappropriate - games for their kids). >TechRadar: Why do you think PEGI was chosen? Mike Rawlinson: Simply put, PEGI is the best games system there is and it is right the UK wants the very best – and because it answered the nine tests of a competent rating system, giving the best possible protection to British children now and in the future. It works whether they are playing online or at home on a games console. It gives a consistent, clear, uniform rating on games and an accurate understanding of game content for parents, and it helps retailers prevent access to unsuitable content to children by PEGI having clear, legal backing. PEGI differentiates linear from interactive content - it was designed to rate games that are interactive and experienced differently by every player who plays them. Films, in contrast, are linear and are a passive viewing experience. The videogames industry deserves and needs an appropriate body rating its content that is independent of industry involvement and which at its core is about protecting child safety however and whenever children are playing games. >TR: How does ELSPA respond to criticism that PEGI is not as 'independent' as the BBFC was? MR: The Video Standards Council is responsible for administering the PEGI ratings system. They are an independent regulator and their regulatory decisions are entirely independent of the games industry. The PEGI system is not the games industry regulating itself. It will be funded via the ratings fees, in exactly the same way as the BBFC is funded. >TR: What are the plans to establish the new symbols in the public consciousness? MR: The industry has committed to a making a major contribution to awareness and education campaigns, and it's ongoing. We want to ensure as an industry that everyone knows and understands the logos and ratings. It's critical to ensure child safety when playing games. We have just heard the decision but we're already firming up our plans and will give you a sense of what those are shortly, but it will be a major advertising campaign backed up with an educational campaign that will roll out in schools across the country to educate teachers, parents, guardians and children about the new ratings system. >TR: How will retailers selling adult games to minors be identified and punished? MR: Previously a small number of games rated 15 and above had legal backing to prevent underage children from being sold the game. Once this new legislation is in place, it'll mean it will be illegal to sell a PEGI rated game to anyone underage for every game rated 12 and above. It's exactly what the retailers have been asking for and the industry has been lobbying for. It will be enforced in exactly the same way as BBFC rated films are. >TR: When will we see the new symbols on boxes in store? MR: We're working with the Government and stakeholders now to finalise a date, but we're working towards the quickest implementation we can muster. PEGI logos and descriptors already appear, but the new updated system together with extended written advice on all UK packaging will start to appear late spring/early summer. >TR: Does PEGI have the power to ban? MR: No, this power currently resides with the BBFC. Under government proposals this responsibility will transfer to the VSC.

Translation: 4Gamer Interviews CERO Higher-up About Censorship in Japanese Games https://archive.fo/70PXO >The following is a full translation of this interview conducted by 4Gamer on February 10th of 2014 with the lead of Japan’s gaming regulatory board, CERO. (It’s a part of their editorial team known only as “MU.”) It touches on how censorship comes about in the Japanese gaming industry, how the board was created, and how “forbidden expressions” are maintained in accordance with “societal standards.” >Why are the expressions and content different between Japanese versions and overseas versions? We now dare to ask CERO about the current state of the “ratings system” >It’s been a while since it became normal for titles targeting toward overseas gamers to be sold and played even in Japan regularly. Often some of the reasons given for that include a lessening of resistance to “Western games” and the spread of online delivery services, but this has also increased the chances we have to see “differences in expression and content.” This is a point that often worries players who would like to play the original (overseas) version with the same content and expressions left intact. >How exactly do these types of changes come about? >You might remember that many reporters believe that CERO’s (Comptuer Entertainment Rating Organization) rating system is one factor that contributes to this. However, I think the facts of the situation, how this same system is actually carried out, or how it affects the game industry, aren’t well known. >That’s why 4Gamer visited the senior managing director of CERO, Kazuya Watanabe, to hear about the current state of the ratings system and how the “differences” between Japanese versions and overseas versions come about. >4Gamer： Thanks for speaking with us. We’re used to seeing “CERO ratings” on games and official sites, but today I think I’d like to ask you about the deliberation process and what basis you decide things. Watanabe： Thank you for taking the time to speak with us. >4Gamer： Let’s get straight to it. Does this rating system apply to every game sold within Japan?” Watanabe： Our purview is mostly the console games sold within the country. We handle PC, cellphone, and smartphone games, but only a select part. By the way, the amount we cover for console games is pretty much 100%. We were able to reach this number because many of the industry groups cooperated with us. >4Gamer： When you say industry groups, are you talking about game companies? Watanabe: What I mean here by industry groups is CESA (Computer Entertainment Software Association). As well, it would be correct to say it’s also from the gaming companies including the ones who make the platforms, as well as the distribution groups. >4Gamer： Well then, will you tell us the story of how CERO began? Watanabe: We got started in June of 2002, and our rating deliberations started from October of the same year. I think you may already know this, but previously there had been a ratings system. At that time, CESA was around and they performed their own kind of self-regulatory “ethics code.” However, there was this problem that the ethics committee only consisted of around 10 people and the deliberations their ethics code were based on were very abstract to the point where the basis would blur from person to person. So CESA used the ESRB（Entertainment Software Rating Board）inspections standard as a basis and aimed for the establishment of a rating systems for Japanese versions, and that was CERO’s starting point. >4Gamer：And when CERO started up, at that time did the entirety of the gaming industry see it as a need? Watanabe: It would have been ideal had that been the case, but it was quite different from that (bitter laugh). That was still a time when the criticism toward games in the general public was strong and there was this typical bad image they could be interpreted under. Because people were saying, “games can have a bad influence on young people,” as if it were in anyway true, so the industry had to make their stance clear against such a societal prejudice. Thus it took the form of game industry groups calling game makers together and having them agree to our standards. Before CERO started, we enacted a survey asking game companies, “Is a rating system needed?” and perhaps it was because the very idea of a ratings system was not well known, but it’s the truth of the situation that there were a lot of negative opinions.

Part 2 >>329443 >4Gamer：In the current rating system, how are the inspections actually carried out? Watanabe: Since we recruit inspectors from our official site, we invite the general population. The qualifications to apply is that you must be “over 20 years old” and that you “can’t have any deep affiliations with related game companies.” Our applicants are chosen from looking at their details and from interviews, and right now we have about 45 people registered. As for the makeup of it, there’s pretty much 50/50 men and women. Ages range from 20 to 60, and we’re trying not to have a prejudice for any one age range. There are students, housewives, etc. lots of different types of professions. >4Gamer：By the way, on what basis do you select your inspectors? Watanabe: We don’t inquire about your skill or experience with games, but because there are those who get queasy with extreme depictions or sick with 3D games, we look at their ability to handle those things. >4Gamer：Do you pay them a gratuity? Watanabe: We do, but it’s really rather small. It’s best described as something like what you get from working a part time job. >4Gamer：How many people work on the inspection of one game? Watanabe: The principle is to assign three people to one title. We have them come to the CERO offices, and then have them check a video in a special booth. Well we call it a booth, but all there is is a monitor and a playback device, so it’s even more bare bones than an internet cafe room (laughs). Of course the booths are divided by partitions, so inspectors can’t talk with each other. >4Gamer：So the inspectors aren’t actually playing games, are they? Watanabe: No, they aren’t. They do their inspections on the basis of a digest video the game makers submit. Having said that, the inspectors aren’t making decisions based on their own individual feelings. With CERO ratings we have set up a finely categorized system of inspections standards, what the inspectors actually do is cross reference the inspection standards with the content of the game’s digest video. That’s what the inspector’s job is. >4Gamer： And you’re saying it makes no difference how the inspector “felt”? Watanabe: That’s right. It’s an objective inspection system, so there really isn’t much of a personal difference. For instance, if we were to take one kiss scene, it’s split into several different levels, like “a cute kiss you’d see in a kid’s cartoon,” “a tongue twisting kiss,” or “a wet, noisy kiss.” They look at the actual images, and just check off which level it falls under, so I believe we can say personal opinions mostly don’t enter into it. >4Gamer： Even so, what do you do when the three different inspectors’ results don’t match? Watanabe: When it’s some sort of expression where it’s hard to decide, the inspectors results can differ. In those cases we either go with a majority vote or ask for another check. >4Gamer： So that’s how it works. If you’re going to have this kind of system, it would seem that referencing the inspection standards would become very important, wouldn’t it? Watanabe: The inspection standards are split into four categories: “sexual expressions,” “violent expressions,” “expressions of anti-social acts,” and “language/ideology-related expressions.” These are further divided into a more detailed list of around 30 items and with those we set a rating according to a scale of 6 levels. Thus it follows that the references for the inspection standards become a matrix of 180 cells aligned along rows. >4Gamer： Can you show us that reference? Watanabe: I’m sorry, but as of right now, we don’t allow them for general public viewing. Though, since it has been over ten years since the current ratings system has started, even if we don’t show all of them, I want to think about displaying the inspection standards for public view in some sort of form. By the way, when the rating systems started, we didn’t necessarily fill in all of the cells of the matrix. We made over 20 revisions for the expressions measured in the inspection standards, adding new ones, making certain expressions more easy to understand, following the changes made in games themselves. In this way, we’ve built up to the current way we are now.

Part 3 >>329444 >4Gamer： You mentioned “ratings aligned along 6 levels of expression” before, but CERO ratings have 5 categories: A (all ages), B (12 and over), C (15 and over), D (17 and over) and Z (only above 18). Watanabe: Yes. To add to these 5, there is something that goes beyond Z, and we call those “forbidden expressions.” Games that contain these expressions don’t follow our ratings, in other words, we don’t give them ratings. We decide this with the agreement of industry groups, so it’s not related to government laws. Therefore, you could say it’s a kind of censorship, but it’s only this part where we’re censoring expression. >4Gamer： And on what kind of basis are you deciding this on? Watanabe: To explain it simply, that’s decided by consulting with “healthy ethical standards for society.” And because of that, “forbidden expressions” are included under expressions that are allowed under the law. >4Gamer： Only “people over 18” can purchase Z-rated titles. Therefore, because people 17 and under can’t play them, there’s a certain viewpoint that says we ought to widen the acceptable range of forbidden expressions. Watanabe: Yes. I know there are opinions like that. Except, you said that “17 and under can’t play them,” but what CERO is doing is not censorship. We don’t have the authority to do that. What we’re doing is the “presentation of information.” Before a player buys something, we offer information so they’ll know something of the level of content in the game; it doesn’t have any power of enforcement. However, it’s certainly true that there are cases where local governments or industry groups have decided upon acts that amount to censorship based on CERO ratings. >4Gamer： Of late, there are overseas games that have parts which fall under your forbidden expressions and when they are put on sale in Japan, there are quite a few cases where expressions and content are changed. It would appear that people who want to play a game as close as possible to its original shape feel unsatisfied, but is this some sort of rule that they can’t avoid in order to sell games in Japan? Watanabe: When you say “rule,” it sounds nasty. The are “methods” CERO and industry groups have decided on, and because these aren’t compulsory, they’re in fact different from rules and censorship. Like I said before, we consider forbidden expressions to be things that are far removed from the ethical standards of polite society. There are those who peddle a different argument, but a few years ago we enacted a survey about Z expressions and forbidden expressions. In the end, it reached about 400 pages, but extremely interesting results came out of it. We targeted around 1000 people for this survey, and asked them to answer questions around all sorts of expressions, like sexual and violent ones included in the Z ratings and forbidden expressions; we had them answer us, “Above what age would this be valid, as well should it be forbidden?” And when we did, the majority of people answered that the things that are currently considered forbidden expressions “should be forbidden.” Of course, there were opinions that weren’t like that, but we think our results show that we haven’t strayed far from the common consensus. >4Gamer： In short, you came to the conclusion that the current ratings standards are justified, didn’t you? Watanabe: I’m sure you know this, but the regulations for overseas games are what we could call “relaxed” compared to Japan. That’s why, just like I explained, in the survey we had them answer for us about the level of violent expressions. The result was, unrelated to how much it was regulated in Japan, that “gruesomely violent expressions ought to be further forbidden” was a majority opinion. We don’t use these survey results to actually change the ratings standards, but if these opinions become the standard, then perhaps we should look into the restriction of violent expressions. On the other hand, when it comes to sexual expressions, we saw a lot of opinions that “we ought to make the restrictions more lenient.” A great deal of women are included in this. For instance, we got some feedback from women that said “women’s nipples” are considered a forbidden expression, but “that’s strange, since you can see them in movies and on television.”

Part 4 >>329445 >4Gamer：Certainly, it’s easy to compare to television and movies. Watanabe: Yes. Except, this type of comparison was but one example, we mostly compared the common sense of each and every one of our participants when we have them give us their opinions. And because common sense changes based on the flow of time and the upheavals of wider society, we must always create an inspection standard that fits it. >4Gamer： In short, what you’re saying is that inspection standards change based on the times. And until now, a few years back expressions that were considered D or Z level are now considered forbidden expressions, and so could there be cases where that works in the opposite direction? Watanabe: We have not raised or lowered the levels for similar expressions since the start of inspection under the CERO system. In addition, I don’t think it’s necessary. However, it’s not like we’re thinking that we want to stubbornly protect the inspection standards for the Z level and forbidden expressions; previously we did have a proposal where we said, “Why not loosen the restrictions on sexual expressions?” Except, at that time we weren’t able to reach a consensus among industry groups. That said, we don’t know what will happen 2 or 3 years from now. “Society” is something that doesn’t move quickly. It only changes gradually, you see. >4Gamer： For example, even though there’s one game that contains severed zombie limbs, a different game doesn’t show severed limbs, but they have the same rating. Are you saying this is not because of CERO’s inspections, but that the game makers just decided for it to be that way? Watanabe: That might be it, but someone in my position can’t speak to that question clearly. It’s just the types of expressions in games are many and varied, and it’s true that inspections are becoming more difficult. Just like I said before, the inspectors don’t play the game from start to finish. Since the most extreme expressions are provided to us from the makers in a 15-20 minute digest video, they can’t take into account the elements that aren’t included in the video. >4Gamer：And you haven’t perhaps considered changing to an inspection method where you actually play the games? Watanabe: Unfortunately, when you think about the number and volume of games we have to inspect, that’s not realistic and too difficult to implement when you consider the time it would take. Right now, we inspect about 100 games a month, but no matter what the number of games is, we’ve set it to where we convey the results in under a week. When you get right down to it, it’s an inspection process that depends on the logical supposition that “there are no lies” in the provided materials and videos. >4Gamer：Well this is changing the subject a bit, but there are cases where game shops don’t put up games with Z ratings on store shelves, or they put them in places where they’re separated from the rest and don’t stand out. I would think that would produce a lot of game makers who want to get a D rating instead of a Z. Watanabe: Oh, I don’t think there’s a lot, but there have been cases where the first inspection results came up with a Z, but the expression level was changed upon another review. If we receive some sort of request for discussion from game makers, we can explain what makes for a Z rating. And the same can be said for forbidden expressions. >4Gamer：I’ve heard of cases of overseas games that contain forbidden expressions and because of various circumstances couldn’t change those expressions, and thus weren’t able to be sold in Japan. People who want to play these games can only buy the overseas version and that’s just the way it is, what do you think of that? Watanabe: I have heard of stories where there are contract problems and they have to give up putting these games out for sale, but these cases amount to only a few. There’s nothing that can be done under the ratings system, I believe. >4Gamer： Again, there are cases where, even when games go on sale in Japan, the players don’t know that content and expressions are different from the overseas versions until they play them. And you don’t think CERO is contributing to this situation? Watanabe: When it comes to things like that, I do recognize that it’s a problem that players feel unsatisfied, but it’s a decision based on each game maker’s sales strategy and thus it is not for us at CERO to speak up about it. We strictly respect each other’s standing ground.

Part 5 >>329447 >4Gamer： All right. Then, tell me what the merit of a CERO rating system is. Watanabe: Our greatest merit is to give a basis of selection to those who don’t know that much about games when they buy them. When it comes to games, there’s a lot of cases where parents are buying games for their children or grandchildren, and in these cases, it helps them. It’s an information proposition for end users, you could say. The ESRB rating system’s purpose is also to provide a basis for buying or not buying based on your own responsibility. Along those lines, can it not be said that Japan is late at adopting a system of personal responsibility? This is not just limited to games, with television or movies, if there are extreme expressions “the municipal government is lazy,” “it’s because they don’t censor something,” there’s a tendency to blame the government or somebody else. I think we ought to consider a bit more about where the lines of our personal responsibility come in. >4Gamer： In short, you’re saying the CERO ratings are a material that can be used to make your own decisions about purchases? Watanabe: That’s exactly it. >4Gamer：So what do you think the future holds for rating systems? Watanabe: I think it will continue to be an important role for someone to provide information to players. However, if you’re asking if the current rating system will be applied in the future, that’s a difficult question. The current ratings system is built with consoles in mind at its center, but if we’re going to also treat cell phone, smartphone and digital PC games, then the numbers become extraordinary. As well, like I said we report findings in a week, but we’d need them to come out more quickly perhaps. Whatever happens, we may move to a “self-rating method” like parts of America and Europe do. This is an inspection system wherein a part of inspection standards are widely shared for all to see, and the those who sell the games consult with the standards and we let them decide their own ratings. >4Gamer： If you do that, there’s a chance the uniformity of ratings would be lost, isn’t there? Watanabe: For instance, in parts of America, it’s something like you answer several dozen questions and you can find which rating is appropriate for you. For small scale things like smartphone apps, we might have to move to this system whether we like it or not. In addition, you could intentionally settle on different ratings, but if after you’ve put it out into the world and it’s revealed there’s a problem with the rating, it would be corrected in an open fashion. At the same time, you would lose the trust of the society around you and as a result I believe it would function correctly. >I looked upon this interview thinking to find some sort of road to play overseas games in as close as possible to their original state, along with learning the facts of how CERO ratings work. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to get a clear answer for that, but I think I’ve perhaps understood that a ratings system does not necessarily exist for the purpose of regulating expression. However, as long as the inspection standards reflect the ethical standards of wider society or opinions, it might be hard to change it based on just the game industry or its players. >Nevertheless, much like Watanabe said, this doesn’t mean that it’s been decided that in the future it will be the same system that will never change. CERO has said that in response to society’s demands, they will continue to broadly solicit opinions for discussion around the validity of inspection standards that match the age we’re living in. >It’s something of an aside, but Watanabe’s pointed statement, “Japan is late at adopting a system of personal responsibility,” left an impression with me. It made think all of a sudden that, although there may be many opinions about what constitutes the limits of personal responsibility, if each and every person who bought a product thought for themselves and decided themselves what kind of influence they have, and this was recognized by all of society, then all of what is seen as “censorship” would become completely unnecessary, would it not?

archived link from gamergate + nys thread over at /v/ on january/09/2017, containing info regarding the clique and christine love https://archive.is/PAfam

>>329427 Mods, please use mod magic to move this post to just under the OP or edit it into the second post.

>>329450 Senor Acid with the shitty waifu digging got some nuggets, he asked anon to post in on gamergatehq. Probably could use a different thread, and I have not found the old dickwolf thread at the moment. But I'm posting it here so the two set of archive links can be referenced if needed for further reading. Second continued archived link from gamergate + nys thread over at /v/ on january/09/2017, containing info regarding the clique and christine love https://archive.is/2hyqr

>>329225 ESRB is crap, no doubt about it. But I have to take issue with the scaremongering here. ESRB ratings, like the MPAA's film ratings (which are also crap) are voluntary. And it will remain so for the foreseeable future because giving the ESRB force of law has already been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. Most stores won't sell unrated (or Ao) games, just like most theaters won't show unrated (or NC-17) movies. And yes this is stupid, but no one is forcing them to be stupid. I'm not saying attacking ESRB's reputation isn't worth while, but really if you want be be able to buy unrated (or Ao) games more easily, your best bet might to to simply start contacting stores (or console companies if you're one of those guys) and ask them to start carrying the games you want.

From the /v/ GG thread, thanks to an anon who found a tweet from 2015 from Patricia Vance regarding the ESRB, the IARC and one of the literallywho crew chiming in. It appears that the IARC needs the ESRB and other similar ratings board, IARC seems to be an extension into the digital distribution market. It does not appear it will replace the ESRB, since it uses the ESRB as one of it's rating board components. The /v/ GG thread archive: https://archive.is/TlQxC The archived tweet: https://archive.fo/I9krD https://archive.fo/X3jFH It appears some shills have already tried a narrative that goes something like this. >guise, the ESRB is bad, but if it goes down the IARC is worse and it will replace it. Don't you think that's bad, fellow gamers? Just looking at the about page of the IARC makes that narrative very suspect, and that tweet is more evidence that the ESRB will not be replaced by IARC.

Repost from /v/: I tried to watch the Introducing IARC to get an idea of it. It sounds like a mess. >each region has laws on what content is right for which ages which makes the rating complicated & time consuming Steam says fuck you to those laws. >IARC is designed to change all that >instead of actually being truthful about what your game contains and actually have people make the judgements themselves like British Board of Films, just fill in our automated questionnaire >with IARC, everyone is a winner >developers Yeah gee thanks for making my game too mature-rated, assclowns >storefronts Not even hiding it >and the families who are lazy and rely on the ratings They forget to mention publishers win cause they can use as an excuse to tell the developer "Fuck your artistic vision, the world's not ready for it, change it to a T. and to tell marketing Hey look, these kids want to be acting like grown ups, let's act like this game is some hot shit because it's oooo so mature!" ———————————– I like how this is the opening for the video >the market for digital games and apps is exploding across devices and across the globe It's their way of saying "O-Oy Vey! Goyim are circulating around our physical rating system! Shut down the digital market, we'll control it in our hands and try to make a law that requires people that makes these projects to have our new and improved rating! Goyim are stupid anyway, so we need an excuse!" ———————————– Wait, you've just hit the nail on the head. What if we took out the greater evil, and made it an example for the lesser evil? Focus on IARC first (easier to do since they're not in power), then focus on the bodies that actually exist. > Look how shit IARC is- easy to abuse, solves nothing, and pretty authoritarian. > [Meme about it] > Wew, glad we got rid of IARC… Say,, ESRB has some issues, doesn't it? Better than swaggering up to ESRB ("Ask your gubbermint, we're just following orders"), then even if it is flattened, IARC walks in after as a replacement- taking all the ESRB's power with it and that of other nation's equivalents.

>>329230 Where's my european culture and not giving a shit about bare breasts?

As is with all global initiatives it all goes back to the fourth reich the EU. They'll collapse soon or invade Poland and France again in which case I'm going Eisenhower doctrine on them so this shit wont happen again.

>>329668 >the EU is the Fourth Reich Hilariously ironic.

ESRB Rating Cost for Indies is Too Damn High twitter.com/JessConditt/status/930123611062464512 https://archive.is/U7LJY https://archive.is/a4pYJ > In September, the board announced a new tier for rating digital-to-physical games, allowing any title with a development budget of $1 million or less to be rated as a boxed product for $3,000, rather than the standard submission price of more than $10,000. With this change, all three console manufacturers made it a requirement for every game to pay this fee and carry an ESRB rating – even physical launches of digital titles. > "Obtaining ESRB assigned age and content ratings has always been voluntary," an ESRB spokesperson tells Engadget. "That said, many US retailers, including most major chains, have policies to only stock or sell games that carry an ESRB rating, and console manufacturers have typically required games that are published on their systems to be rated by ESRB." > In this case, "voluntary" is a complicated term. Developers aren't legally required to slap an ESRB rating on their games, but without one, they're shut out of the mainstream marketplace. > "There's no nice way to put it; they basically have a monopoly," Douglas Bogart, co-founder of Limited Run Games, says about the ESRB. "There's no one above them. You have to follow their rules. Your business basically lives or dies by their whim, which is really scary, in my opinion." > The new mandate is a hurdle for Limited Run, which attempts to cover production fees for all of the indie games they box up, taking a portion of the profits afterward. Since Limited Run sells the physical editions through their own storefront, they've historically not needed to secure additional ESRB ratings or pay any fees. Now, Limited Run and the developers they work with are required to pay at least $3,000 to the ESRB if they want to get physical. > "We can't just sign any game we want any more solely based on whether we liked it or not," Bogart says. "It needs to have a broader appeal so it can sell more units. Basically, this killed off small-run indie games. Video games have a high cost as it is and then adding that ESRB fee on top of it, pretty much makes it unfeasible." > Some indie developers hit it big with a sub-$1 million game, and for them, the new tier is a great discount. However, for many small developers, $3,000 is an insurmountable barrier. "That's a whole month's salary for some developers, or funding for their next game," Bogart says. "Some of these people are literally living meal-to-meal."

>>331372 > Limited Run co-founder Josh Fairhurst adds, "The physical release that we're putting out could be the difference between them living another day as game developers or closing up shop and going back to something else. I think that what we're doing in terms of making them money is really important." And then there's the necessary Long Form rating process itself, which can add months to a boxed edition's release schedule. > "It takes considerably longer now to get a game through the entire process to market, and it also hurts the developer on how much money they're getting," Bogart says. "It's delayed a lot of our stuff, which, as a business, hurts." > For AAA and mid-size publishers, the new, discounted rate for digital-to-physical games is a net positive – if they publish a game that cost less than $1 million to make, they get to save a few thousand dollars in rating fees. Small indies, however, are now on the hook for at least $3,000 if they want to release a physical product through a service like Limited Run, iam8bit or Special Reserve Games. > It's not surprising the new rules favor large publishers over small ones, considering the ESRB's reliance on the multi-billion-dollar AAA gaming market. > The ESA oversees the ESRB. All three major console manufacturers are on the board, and all three agreed to mandate the new digital-to-physical rating tier this September. "They just made it harder for us smaller publishers," Bogart says. "In some cases, you're going to see the small publishers probably shrink and go back to digital-only, which is what we were trying to prevent." > The ESRB has streamlined the rating process for indie developers over the years – in 2011, it rolled out a free, automatic rating system for digital games; it's still free today. Plus, the ESRB and ESA have invested heavily in the International Age Rating Coalition, which offers free ratings from authorities across the globe. And for midsize or super-successful small studios, the new fee is a real value, implemented "to accommodate publishers of digital games with a small development budget who didn't initially anticipate releasing their game in a physical form at retail," as the ESRB puts it. Still, the mandate puts specialty publishers, who tend to work with smaller indie games, in a difficult situation. > If the ESRB is going to impose a fee on digital-to-physical games, Bogart would like to see it based on the number of discs a publisher will actually produce. Limited Run generally only presses 2,000 or 3,000 copies of a single game, while AAA publishers will press – and sell – hundreds of thousands. For a major publisher, $3,000 or even $14,000 represents just a sliver of a game's development costs. For Limited Run, the fee raises its costs 20 percent to 100 percent, Bogart says. > "Having to pay for a rating hurts us significantly more than the bigger publishers," he says. "This might have been seen as a win for a lot of the bigger publishers, but for us that do smaller runs, they're not taking into consideration how many copies we're printing. And the fee itself is what hurts us." > Technically, there are no laws forcing publishers, developers or small-batch distributors to have their games rated. Technically, ESRB ratings are part of a voluntary system. But, practically, the ESRB has the power to dramatically disrupt gaming's small-batch industry. > "If the ESRB doesn't let us get through the process of getting a game rated or it's too expensive, that's a release we have to cancel," Bogart says. "That's potential money we lost for the company and for the developer. If that keeps happening or we keep getting fees from the ESRB for whatever the violations are, they can take us out pretty quickly."

>>331372 >>331373 Starting up a game's studio with no saftey-net is dumb. But, indies shouldn't be raked over the coals as hard as this. How can you justify £3000 to see if a game is appropriate for kids or not, when a 30 min conversation with an honest dev would suffice?