ESRB Demands Audit

ESRB Demands Publisher Audit For Hidden Game Content (thanks Gamecloud) reports that the Entertainment Software Rating Board has emailed all major video game publishers restating that: "Fully disclosing hidden content accessible as Easter eggs and via cheat codes has always been part of ESRB's explicitly stated requirements when submitting games to be rated." The following excerpt also includes a puzzling bit about how the board is "concerned" about how third party modifications impact the "credibility" of the ratings system:
Most interestingly, the ESRB has announced, with the support of its Board of Directors, a request that all game publishers complete a comprehensive review of all games launched since September 1, 2004. This internal publisher-run audit is intended to determine if non-playable, pertinent content, not previously disclosed to the ESRB, remains in the final code on the discs released to the public.

Publishers must inform the ESRB of any possible issues regarding hidden content by January 9, 2006, and the ratings board may re-rate titles if any of this content changes the potential rating for the game.

The email then specifies: "If you fail to notify us of previously undisclosed, non-playable, pertinent content by January 9, and such content becomes playable through a subsequent authorized or unauthorized release of code to unlock it, rendering the original rating assignment inaccurate, punitive in addition to corrective actions may result." It is as yet unclear exactly what punitive actions the ESRB may sanction, or is capable of carrying out.

Finally, the ESRB addresses third-party 'mod' content which could potentially change the game's suitability, but was not inserted by the game's developer, commenting: "ESRB remains concerned about third party modifications that undermine the accuracy of the original rating, and we are exploring ways to maintain the credibility of the rating system with consumers in light of modifications of this nature."
View : : :
40.
 
Re: It sounds very tough
Sep 13, 2005, 09:31
40.
Re: It sounds very tough Sep 13, 2005, 09:31
Sep 13, 2005, 09:31
 
But the ESRB has no power to inflict "punitive" actions, if by that they mean financial penalties or anything. The worst they could do is either make the game AO, or actually REMOVE their rating from said game.

Exactly. They have no legislative authority to impose any kind of financial sanctions.

Put a damn sticker on the box that says "The ESRB rating is only valid for the game as is included in this box. Any modification made to this game by any source will invalidate the rating."

Isn't this what they do already for on-line games? Something along the lines of "experience may change with on-line play". Basically a T-rated game does not stop people from cursing or using racial epithets, assuming they can get around the chat filter. So do the same for this, as Creston said.

Anyway, isn't participation in the ESRB voluntary anyway? If a publisher decides to drop ratings all together and ignore ESRB guidelines, there is nothing legally stopping them from doing so.


"You win again gravity!"-Zap Brannigan
This comment was edited on Sep 13, 09:32.
"Everybody out of the universe!" - Nibbler, Futurama
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Sep 12, 2005Sep 12 2005
39.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
2.
Sep 12, 2005Sep 12 2005
3.
Sep 12, 2005Sep 12 2005
41.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
4.
Sep 12, 2005Sep 12 2005
8.
Sep 12, 2005Sep 12 2005
5.
Sep 12, 2005Sep 12 2005
6.
Sep 12, 2005Sep 12 2005
14.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
7.
Sep 12, 2005Sep 12 2005
20.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
21.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
  .
27.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
   Re: .
29.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
    Re: .
30.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
    Re: .
31.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
     Re: .
48.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
      Re: .
50.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
       Re: .
33.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
     Re: .
46.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
     Re: .
47.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
      Re: .
49.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
       Re: .
52.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
       Re: .
55.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
      Re: .
57.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
       Re: .
25.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
9.
Sep 12, 2005Sep 12 2005
15.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
16.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
17.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
   Re: ...
10.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
11.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
12.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
13.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
42.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
18.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
19.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
35.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
51.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
22.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
23.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
24.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
26.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
28.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
32.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
36.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
34.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
37.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
 40.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
 Re: It sounds very tough
38.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
43.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
44.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
45.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
53.
Sep 13, 2005Sep 13 2005
54.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
56.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
58.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005