ESRB president Patricia Vance discusses the PSPgo's built-in ESRB ratings guide over at the PlayStation Blog, praising it as a "straight-forward and thorough overview of the ESRB rating system as well as a step-by-step walkthrough of the device's parental control features and settings." The guide includes easy-to-understand definitions of the standard game ratings, helping parents to setup the parental control levels on their children's shiny new handheld.

It looks like an extremely useful tool that should be very helpful to the sort of parent who pays attention to things like game ratings and has the foresight to check out the device themselves before handing it over to their child. I'm pretty sure people like that do exist.

PlayStation Gives Parents Ratings Guidance on the Go [PlayStation Blog]

Currently the only way you can lock out the ability to download specific games on the portables is to lock out the ability to download any of them.

That doesn't seem right to the Entertainment Software Rating Board which rates all video games sold in stores in the U.S.

"ESRB ratings empower parents to do their job," said ESRB president Patricia Vance. "Considering the fact that the vast majority of parents are already aware of and regularly using ESRB ratings, Apple's adoption of them for iPhone games seems like a no-brainer. Apple just announced that the parental controls for the new version of the iPhone will block movie and TV content based on their respective ratings. Adding ESRB ratings to the controls they already plan to offer would give parents the ability to exert control over the games their children play as well."

Apple has not yet responded to requests for comment on Vance's statement or ESA president Michael Gallagher's comments on the same issue.

Here, in it's entirety, is Vance's open letter to Utah's Parents and Leaders:

Legislation expanding Utah's existing Truth in Advertising law (H.B. 353) would require that if a video game retailer promotes its adherence to a policy restricting the sale of video games rated M for Mature – which, like the R rating for movies, indicates it is recommended for those ages 17 and older – and then sells an M-rated game to anyone under the recommended age, they could be subject to a lawsuit, fines and/or the payment of additional costs and legal fees. In fact, all major retailers of video games currently have such policies, which they have put in place voluntarily and with which they are in compliance the vast majority of the time. According to a recent audit, Utah video game retailers enforce their store policies regarding the sale of M-rated games an impressive 94% of the time – without any laws or requirements that they do so. That level of compliance took many years to achieve, and speaks to the strong commitment of video game retailers to do the right thing.

So why is this bill likely to put an end to those very efforts it seeks to support? On its face such an amendment makes good sense; after all, if a retailer says they're going to do something, they should do it, right? While the intent of this legislation would be to hold retailers accountable for compliance with their stated policies – presumably in that negligible 6% of instances where they fail to comply – the unfortunate reality is that it would introduce a liability that will likely force many retailers to seriously consider abandoning their voluntary policies and ratings education programs, undoing years of progress made on behalf of parents and their children.

It's worth noting that when the Federal Trade Commission first began measuring retailer compliance with video game sales policies nationwide in 2000, a scant 15% of underage customers were turned away. However, the most recent such study reported in May 2008 found that national retailers refused to sell M-rated games to customers under 17 a remarkable 80% of the time, far surpassing the comparable rates of compliance for movies, DVDs, or music CDs rated for a mature audience. The unraveling of this substantial progress would be a tragic consequence, depriving parents of the assurance and control they currently have with respect to deciding which games their children can purchase and play.

Utah State Representative Michael Morley, the chief sponsor of this new amendment, was recently quoted in the Deseret News stating that, "if they're one of those places that thinks, ‘Well, as long as they have a heartbeat and some money we'll sell to them,' then this won't have any impact on them." That statement reveals exactly why this law would
be so destructive. It would effectively penalize responsible retailers that have policies, and provide safe harbor for retailers that refuse to adopt a responsible policy in the first place. That is downright senseless. If the goal is to make sure our children are playing age-appropriate games, there is a better way.

The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), of which I am president, is a non-profit organization created in 1994 to help parents determine which computer and video games are appropriate for their children. Most retailers only carry games that have been rated by the ESRB, and game consoles and handheld devices include settings that parents can activate to block games by ESRB rating. Elected officials across the country, including Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, and groups like PTA have joined ESRB in helping educate the public about the rating system to great effect. The FTC recently reported that 73% of parents regularly use ESRB ratings when buying games for their children; 59% "never" allow their child to play an M-rated game, and 34% only do so "sometimes."

The bottom line is that parents are more than capable of utilizing tools like the ratings to make the right choices for their families. And there is broad support of ESRB ratings from major retailers and the game industry alike. The proposed legislation is looking to fix a system that is not broken. Instead, we should all be focused on figuring out ways to encourage parents to use the excellent tools already available to them to make informed choices about the media their children consume. Punishing retailers for promoting responsible sales policies is irrational and counter-productive. I write in the sincere hope that Utah chooses to empower its parents with information rather than undo the substantial progress made by retailers to date to serve the best interests of Utah's children.

With warm regards,
Patricia E. Vance
President

ESRB president Patricia Vance, PTA president Jan Harpe Domini, and Andrew Bub of GamerDad.com spared nothing in an accessible, deliberate explanation not only of the ratings system, but in clarifying for parents how to open a dialogue on media exposure with their kids.

Vance reminded the webcast's audience, comprised in large part of parents and PTA members, that the average age of gamers is actually 33 years old — just as with books and movies, she said, there are games for all ages. It was noted that, despite M-rated games receiving the largest share of attention in the media, only about six percent of titles on the market receive that rating. The largest portion of available titles fall under the "E for Everyone 10+" umbrella.

In addition to checking the ratings, Vance noted that parents can reference content descriptors on a game's package to learn what elements earned the game its rating, and encouraged them to check other parts of a game's package, like its title or display screenshots, to inform themselves.

"We want parents to understand the important role they play in their children's video game activity, and it's their responsibility to ensure they have every opportunity to seek out every help they can get to make sure their child's safe and secure in what they're doing, and that they know what they're doing," said Harpe Domini.

Added Vance, "It's never been easier to get control over what your kids are playing... it's just a very easy thing with ratings and parental controls... there's really no excuse for a parent not to be informed and not to be involved."

The partnership between the ESRB and the PTA has produced a comprehensive booklet for parents of school-aged children, which features in-depth explanation of games ratings, content descriptors, online play and tips on discussion topics through which parents can engage their children, Vance explained.

Harpe Domini, Bub and Vance also explained parental controls on current consoles - in particular, how the Xbox 360's Family Timer feature can help parents restrict what types of content can play on the console and for how long. The booklet offered through the initiative explains step-by-step how to set up such controls. They also discussed why online interaction cannot be rated by the ESRB - "It's user-generated content," Vance summarized - and recommended that parents supervise their children's friends list and maintain awareness of who they are playing with online, while at the same time noting positives: online play can be a good way for family members to stay in touch.

Harpe Domini had a refreshingly realistic assessment of the value of online play to some kids. "Players have built a social reality in the online world," she explained - and urged parents to watch for signs of cyber-bullying the same way they would observe signs of face-to-face bullying in their children.

A more sophisticated element of parental involvement beyond just glancing at ratings was the theme of the webcast. "Most parents understand that it's their job to teach their children the ABCs, how to tie shoes or ride a bike. But it's just as much parents' responsibility to make sure that their children are consuming media that is appropriate based on their age and maturity level," said Harpe Domini.

"Every family is different; we don't make assumptions about what's appropriate for you," Vance added.

According to the ESRB, research indicates that 9 out of 10 parents are aware of the ratings and 3/4ths regularly use them. But, Vance conceded, "there's always more we can do" about that 25 percent of parents who don't pay attention to the ratings of the games their children play. She added that she hopes the initiative with the PTA will knock out those last few from the statistics.

During the webcast, audience members could answer poll questions that popped up. Only 51 percent of the audience responded that they always check game ratings; 10 percent said they never check. When it comes to parental controls, 50 percent responded that they had never set any up. 44 percent of parents monitor their kids' online play, 44 percent claim their kids do not play any games online, and 10 percent don't monitor at all.

Altogether, the team webcast went quite a bit beyond the usual degree of information and encouragement available from the already-forthcoming ESRB. Numerous times, the panelists stressed open communication and participatory dialogue between parents and children.

Harpe Domini added that, despite the priority of safety, "Parents should make sure kids aren't scared about these kinds of conversations. We don't want children to be frightened of different types of media." Parents should talk to kids, she urged, listen to their concerns and leave communication lines open on any topic.

In other words, concluded host Alex Goldfayn, "Parenting video games is exactly the same as parenting everything else."

The raters were viewed as more of an electoral college, and our ratings were not always the final ones issued. Sometimes, we'd see a full letter rating change (a game we gave an M would be lowered to a T, for example, or a T raised to an M).

We highly value our raters' recommendations, and their opinions are always the principal determining factor when assigning a rating. But they cannot be the sole criteria on which a rating is based. To avoid confusing parents, consistency in how age ratings or content descriptors are assigned for similar content must be part of the process.

For more of the story, hit the links. Or better still, pick up an issue of this month's EGM.

Ex-Game Rater Dishes the Dirt... ESRB Boss Fires Back [GamePolitics via Gamasutra][image]

"Publishers submit game content to the ESRB on a confidential basis," said ESRB president Patricia Vance in a statement Tuesday. "It is simply not our place to reveal specific details about the content we have reviewed, particularly when it involves a product yet to be released.

ESRB Refuses to Detail Manhunt 2 Re-rate [Next Generation]

""What 3D Realms received was simply a 10-day warning notice that did not carry any penalties whatsoever," she explains. "We're hardly the heavy-handed bullies that Mr. Miller is painting us as. Tough love might be a better way to describe it."

Couldn't you just tell she was into tough love?

Vance goes on to explain that what they sent 3D Realms was merely a form letter that they've had prepared that has gone out to many different publishers and developers in the past without one complaint..

"The guidelines we enforce are industry-adopted and we've been enforcing them with the same vigor since they were adopted back in 2000," she says. "The fact that our enforcement of these guidelines is getting more attention these days doesn't mean that we're necessarily doing anything differently. [Scott Miller] may want to cast himself as a victim, but he's subject to the very same standards that the rest of the industry is, and he's the only one who has expressed any issue with that."

Meanwhile, back at 3D Realms, Miller remains dissatisfied with the ESRB and the ordeal in general.

"It's probably going to look good to the public that the ESRB is being tough," he concludes. "But to those of us in the industry where, out of the 2,000 games released each year there are only a handful of problems, we're the ones who are going to have to pay for that."

ESRB shows 'tough love' to game developer [The Hollywood Reporter via Game Politics]

We received the following notice from D3 earlier today regarding the recently released advertisements for Dark Sector, a PLAYSTATION 3 and Xbox 360 release.

We recently received a ruling from the ESRB stating that the two officially released Dark Sector gameplay montages have been deemed to contain excessive or offensive content; and to this end are not to be available for download or viewing, regardless of being placed behind an age gate. In order to comply with this ruling, the ESRB has requested that the two Dark Sector gameplay montages be pulled immediately upon receipt of this notice and no longer made available for view by consumers.

2K Games only requested in their media update notification for The Darkness that "2K requests an age gate limiting the access to video footage to ages 17 and up." This is standard practice for all Mature-rated games since 2005.

In a statement, reports GamesIndustry.biz, ESRB president Patricia Vance clarified by board's policy, stating that:

All trailers must still conform to ARC's Principles and Guidelines, which prohibit the display of excessively violent content or any content likely to cause serious offense to the average consumer. The notices issued recently by game publishers to third party websites are simply that - steps in a chain of publisher compliance with ARC guidelines and the ESRB enforcement system that have been occurring since their establishment seven years ago.

Following last week's news that Manhunt 2 was issued an Adults Only rating by the board, one might speculate that the ESRB is making a more publicly visible and concerted effort to ensure that its policies are more strictly enforced, keeping inappropriate content from reaching the wrong audience. Michael McWhertor

By: Brian Crecente

News of the preliminary Adults Only rating for Manhunt 2 have spurred quite a bit of speculation about the process and how the game received the rating. While ESRB president Patricia Vance couldn't really talk about the game's preliminary rating, she did take the time to do an email interview about the issues that the AO rating have brought up.

1. With the Wii, developers can now make games that allow gamers to physically act out violent acts and see them occur in a game. Games such as Godfather, Scarface and Manhunt 2 all do this. Do such controls have an impact on a game's rating? If so do you think that supports the argument that a game's interactive nature makes it more dangerous than more passive experiences like watching a movie, listening to music or reading a book?

PV: We've always been very clear about the fact that the degree of player control is one of several elements that the ESRB considers in the assignment of ratings, including the content itself, it's frequency, intensity and realism, context within which it is presented, and the reward system. The interactive nature of games certainly differentiates them from more passive forms of media like films and televisions, which is why the ESRB system takes these other unique characteristics into consideration.

2. Has the ESRB ever rated a game Adults Only due to violence?

PV: Yes. The AO rating has been assigned more often than it actually ends up appearing on product shipped. Our system affords publishers the opportunity to modify and resubmit games that receive the AO rating in light of the business ramifications that such a rating currently presents.

3. An Adults Only rated game is akin to NC-17, I believe, for movies. Do you think it's fair to say that an AO rated game is essentially obscene?

PV: An Adults Only rating does not mean the game qualifies as being "obscene." And as confirmed on the MPAA website, nor does an NC-17 rating.

4. From a buyer's perspective, or a parent's perspective, the difference between a game rated Mature and a game rated Adults Only in one year. You have to be 17 to buy one and 18 to buy the other. How does one distinguish the fine line between the two when rating a game?

PV: While in terms of age recommendation the difference between the M and AO categories is only one year, the real utility of the AO rating is in communicating intensity. It indicates that the content in the game is more intense than what is typically found in an M-rated title, and the rating is there because that distinction is useful to consumers. Our raters review all of the pertinent content in a game and use their judgment to assign ratings they find to be appropriate given that content. It's worth nothing that, in terms of age recommendation, there is no difference between an R and an NC-17 rating for movies, as they both use 17 as the age threshold.

5. In general, when rating a game does the ESRB use a system that relies on community standards to decide what is and isn't an acceptable level of violence or sexual references in a game? If so, do you feel those standards shift over time?

PV: By their very nature, as well as to maintain credibility and trust, ratings must reasonably reflect the current cultural norms and community standards of those for whom they are intended. That is why we regularly conduct research across the country to gauge parental agreement with the ratings. Our most recent study found that parents agreed with the ratings we assigned 82% of the time, and 5% of the time they actually found our rating "too strict." The FTC's report from April of this year also found strong agreement with ratings, and in fact reported that 87% of the parents they surveyed are "somewhat" to "very" satisfied with the ESRB ratings. We'll continue to ensure that parents are satisfied with the ratings we assign.

6. Do you think the ESRB's ratings have become more strict since the issue surrounding Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas came to light?

PV: The key issue with Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was to correct a rating that was undermined when locked-out content that had been left in the code of a game became unlocked. Although we clarified our rules at that time to require that publishers disclose pertinent locked-out content on the game disc, the rating process itself has remained consistent, as have the rating assignments in terms of parity.

7. Rockstar has said that they feel that Manhunt 2 is very similar to the original Manhunt in the level and type of violence depicted. If that is the case why did one receive a Mature rating and the other appears to be on the verge of an Adults Only rating?

PV: Obviously, Manhunt 2 is a different product from the original Manhunt. The raters evaluated the submission for Manhunt 2 and determined that the AO rating was the appropriate rating assignment. Per our statement from 6/20, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.

This is a smart move by the ESRB and I hope the organization expands its endeavors to reach a more mainstream crowd. The non-profit's recent move to expand support for independent game retailers is hopefully indicative of a swell in consumer awareness efforts.

Given that Manhunt 2 will be hitting the Wii this summer, I expect ESRB rating awareness to be at an all-time high. Michael McWhertor

Choosing Video Games for Your Kids [GoodHousekeeping.com via Next-Gen.biz]

It's been about a month since the Entertainment Software Ratings Board launched their Commitment to Parents initiative.

I recently spoke with board president Patricia Vance for a story I was working on for the Rocky Mountain News about how the program was going.

Vance says that more retail chains will be joining the program soon and that the ESRB is about ready to launch the first in what will become a biannual mystery shopper audit of member stores.

Right after the program was announced in June, the Rocky sent a 15-year-old boy to four stores in the Denver area and one in Colorado Springs to see how the system was working. None of the stores sold the teen a copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

Vance said she wasn't surprised:

"When you look at the issue of how kids are getting games that are treated as being perhaps unsuitable for them, in a vast percentage, it's the parents who have purchased the game. "It all boils down to parental responsibility."

I think the system in place is a good one, but I was surprised. I really thought at least one clerk would give up the game. Vance suggested we go back to the stores and try to get the same teen to buy an R-rated DVD and CD with an Explicit Lyrics sticker on it.

Yeah, I bet he would have had no problem there. Brian Crecente

Board Builds Its Rating Muscles [RMN]

This week the Entertainment Software Ratings Board announced Commitment to Parents, an effort geared at bolstering consumer confidence in the current rating system for video games.

Granted that's just my take on the initiative. I spoke with ESRB president Patricia Vance earlier this week about the program and she denied it was spurred by the on-going congressional hearings or Hot Coffee.

Either way, what really matters though is that the industry is taking some steps to tweak one of the chinks in their rating system's armor: retail enforcement.

While the program doesn't really have any teeth, it still does a good job of trying to create a culture of compliance, but building a retail "council" that requires members to follow the rules.

In essence what this does is creates a seal of approval for concerned parents. If you're worried about what your kids buy, just make sure they shop at a retailer that's a member of the ESRB Retail Council.

To be a member of the council, retailers have to enforce the ratings, train their sales staff about the rating system, promote the rating system in the store and through circulars and establish a system for consumer complaints about sales violations.

The most important element of the program is the creation of a mystery shopper program, which will track sales policy enforcement through two audits a year.

Vance tells me that they plan to have mystery shoppers hit about 100 stores from each chain during each audit.
While they will report the overall results of the audit, the ESRB won't break it down by retailer. That's unfortunate, because nothing would help compliance more than the thought of a public drubbing in the press or by politicians.

While I think this is a great step forward, I still think the ESRB has to reexamine the way they rate games. I know there's no easy answer for a medium that can contain such branching storylines and content, but letting developers or publishers choose what the raters see is tantamount to letting the fox guard the hen house. Brian Crecente

Game Industry Strengthens Ratings Enforcement [Rocky Mountain News]

Within an hour of the announcement I was already receiving reports of stores like GameStop and Wal-Mart pulling copies of the game.

Here's the full statement from the IEMA:

The ESRB (Entertainment Software Ratings Board) notified us late this afternoon Eastern Time that they have revoked the "Mature" rating previously issued Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas following an extensive investigation.

Our members intend to immediately cease all sales of the game until existing inventory can either be re-stickered with an AO (Adults Only) rating, or exchanged for new versions of the game that has the hidden content removed and the original M (Mature 17+) rating intact.

Though not a policy, IEMA members generally do not carry AO-rated games any differently than we do not carry X-rated videos or DVDs, thus it is likely that our members will be removing all copies of the current version and re-stocking with the updated version.

We understand that several non-IEMA retail companies intend to continue selling the current version, so we would refer all media inquiries to those respective corporations.

Entertainment Software Association president Doug Lowenstein sent out a brief statement in support of the ESRB this afternoon.

The statement says the outcome of the GTA investigation proves the effectiveness of the video game industry's self regulation and chastises industry critics that Lowenstein says jumped to conclusions.

Check out the whole thing:

The Entertainment Software Association is proud of the industry's commitment to effective and responsible self regulation, accurate ratings, and enforcement, and supports the ESRB in these efforts and its decision related to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The action announced by ESRB today should be seen as a clear reflection of the effectiveness of video game industry self regulation. We hope that in the future industry critics will avoid jumping to conclusions before the ESRB has time to complete its investigations, and will instead choose to use their resources to focus on greater cooperative efforts to ensure that parents make use of ESRB ratings so they can make the right game choices for their unique families.

Take-Two is hinting at taking legal action against the makers of popular console peripheral Action Replay.

Shortly after the announced recall of Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Take-Two sent out a statement that in part read that they were exploring taking legal actions against companies that profited from creating and distributing tools for altering the content of their game.

Reading between the lines, this means that the company is pointing out that they aren't the only ones to blame for the Hot Coffee scandal.

The fact is, if you owned a console version of the game you couldn't get any Hot Coffee action without Action Replay or a similar device. By using codes or saves created for the device you could unlock the sex mini-game, and Rockstar and Take-Two don't want anyone to forget that.

What this means for the modding community is anyone's guess, but I can say the happy relationship that modders have long had with many publishers may be on the verge of ending.

Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. Announces Conclusion of ESRB Investigation [Business Wire]

Of course, the best way to have your opinion heard is to participate in our second poll.

The version will retain the M-rating and should hit shelves by the fourth fiscal quarter.

They also expect to see a pretty major financial hit from the whole Hot Coffee issue.

As a result of the re-rating of the game, Take-Two is lowering guidance for the third fiscal quarter ending July 31, 2005 to $160 to $170 million in net sales and a net loss per share of $(0.40) to $(0.45) to provide reserves for the value of the title's current North American retail inventory. Accordingly, guidance for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2005 is also being lowered to $1.26 to $1.31 billion in net sales and $1.05 to $1.12 in diluted earnings per share.

Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. Announces Conclusion of ESRB Investigation [Business Wire]

Rumor has it that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas may be pulled from some of the nation's largest retailers by the end of the day.

Enormous ma and pa gobbling mega-chain Walmart will mostly likely be the first on the list. Though, ironically, they all sell the Action Replay game hacker that allows gamers to access the in-game sex in the first place.

Do me a favor, while you are out and about the rest of the week keep an eye out for copies of the game. If you have a second, ask around if you don't see any. I'd love to know who's doing what and when in the way of San Andreas.

Holy shit!

In an unprecedented move that could have sweeping effects on the gaming industry as a whole, the Entertainment Software Rating Board Wednesday rescinded Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas' rating and advised retailers to stop selling the game.

The lock-down and ratings revocation came after a lengthy investigation by the ESRB, which was spurred by the discovery of an explicit sex mini-game hidden in the free-roaming, genre-shifting uber-hit by Rockstar.

Using a mod for the PC version of the game or an Action Replay device for the console version, gamers were able to unlock the Hot Coffee mini-game which allowed them to use a controller or keyboard to have sex with a girlfriend after a date.

In making the decision, ESRB head Patricia Vance said the existence of Hot Coffee can't help but undermine the credibility of her organization.

After a thorough investigation, we have concluded that sexually explicit material exists in a fully rendered, unmodified form on the final discs of all three platform versions of the game (i.e., PC CD-ROM, Xbox and PS2).

However, the material was programmed by Rockstar to be inaccessible to the player and they have stated that it was never intended to be made accessible.

The material can only be accessed by downloading a software patch, created by an independent third party without Rockstar s permission, which is now freely available on the internet and through console accessories.

Considering the existence of the undisclosed and highly pertinent content on the final discs, compounded by the broad distribution of the third party modification, the credibility and utility of the initial ESRB rating has been seriously undermined.

The news came about 4 p.m. New York time, within minutes of the closing of the stock market, delaying the immediate financial impact on Rockstar's parent company, Take-Two.

Rockstar initially denied creating the content on the disc in a carefully worded statement that read in part:

In violation of the software user agreement, hackers created the hot coffee modification by disassembling and then combining, recompiling and altering the game s source code.

Reached for comment Wednesday, Rockstar spokesman Rodney Walker called the decision a new challenge for the industry and digital entertainment in general.

Rockstar has offered retailers the option of either re-stickering existing inventory with an AO (Adults Only 18+) rating, or exchanging all unsold inventory for new versions of the game that has the hidden content removed and the original M rating intact.

The developer will also be making a downloadable patch available to all consumers who have previously purchased the PC version of the game, which will make the modification that unlocks the material inoperable.

The decision could have a sweeping impact on the industry as a whole. The decision forces the ESRB to consider Easter eggs, hidden content and perhaps even the ability to mod a game in rating future games.

It also could lead to a crack-down by the industry on the modding community, forcing game developers to spend more time making their games mod and crack proof lest they be held responsible for some future modification of their game.

No word yet from the politicians who have been calling for action against Rockstar and an investigation of the industry. I'm sure this could lead to some sort of congressional hearings.

Think of it as video games' own Seduction of the Innocents.

Yay!

So, I need to pull a minor reversal here. Back in January I wrote up a piece about how I thought the ESRB s rating system was flawed and that it needed to be reworked or face the sort of scrutiny that, well, it s facing now.

ESRB head Patricia Vance defended the system in an email I later posted. In her e-mail she said that maybe I need to read up on the system they use more.

Well, with the Grand Theft Auto Hot Coffee scandal brewing into a major deal and Senatorial investigation surely just around the corner, I finally took the time to follow Vance's advice.

While I still think the system has issues, mostly due to the inherently non-linear design of games, I now believe the ESRB's system for rating video games is as good as, if not better than, the system used to rate movies.

I ve typed up a break down of the two systems including their history, how they work and other interesting details, but here s the skinny.

Both systems are run by independent groups set up by their respective industries, both use similar systems to give out ratings, but only the ESRB has the ability to enforce the rating system. The movie rating system cannot be enforced by law or sanctions, it is purely voluntary.

Here s the break down:

When was the system established?

The Entertainment Software Rating Board was established in 1994 by the Entertainment Software Association.

The Classification and Rating Administration was established in 1986 by the Motion Picture Association of America.

What is the purpose of the rating system?

Both the ESRB and CARA systems are purely voluntary. The CARA is a voluntary organization sponsored by the MPAA and National Association of Theatre Owners. The ESRB is a voluntary organization sponsored by the ESA.

Who gives the ratings?

The CARA uses the film rating board which is made up of a group of parents who first view the film, then discuss it and vote on a rating. No movies are forced to submit a film to the board for a rating, but most do.

The ESRB uses a group of three specially trained raters. The raters are of various ages and background and cannot have any ties to the computer and video game industry. They are not expert game players and are kept anonymous to ensure the integrity of the process.

How is a rating determined?

CARA board members view a film then each member estimates what they think most parents would consider to be a good rating for the movie. After a discussion they vote, with each member filling out a form spelling out the reasons for a rating. The rating must be decided by a majority vote. The producer or distributor has the right to know why a movie got a specific rating and to edit a film in hopes of changing a rating.

A rating can also be appealed which involves presenting arguments before an Appeals Board and a secret ballot. A two-thirds vote is needed to overturn a rating.

The ESRB requires a game publisher to fill out a detailed questionnaire explaining what s in a game and submit it along with actual videotaped footage of the game, showing the most extreme content and an accurate representation of the context and product as a whole.

Three raters independently view the footage and recommend a rating and content descriptors. The ESRB then compares the recommendations to make sure there is a consensus. When raters disagree, additional raters are asked to review the game.

Once a rating decision is reached the publisher is given a rating certificate. When the game is ready for release it is sent to the ESRB to have its packaging reviewed to ensure the rating is displayed properly. The ESRB also has a game expert randomly play final games to make sure they match the information provided by the publisher.

What is the criteria for rating?

Both the CARA and ESRB look at the type of content, how it is presented and how much of the content is in the movie or game.

Theme, language, violence, nudity, sex and drug use are among those content areas considered in the decision-making process

How are ratings enforced?

The decision to enforce the movie rating system is purely voluntary and carries no force of law.

The ESRB is responsible for the enforcement of its ratings system. Publishers of a rated game are legally bound to disclose all pertinent content when submitting the game for an ESRB rating.

If in-game material is not disclosed that would have effected the rating or content descriptor of a game, the ESRB can take corrective actions and impose a wide range of sanctions, including fines, pulling advertising for a game, recalling a game or requiring a game to be re-stickered to the correct rating.

How well does the rating system work?

A nationwide scientific poll of the movie rating system conducted in December 2000, showed that 76 percent of parents with children under 13 found the ratings to be "very useful" to "fairly useful" in helping them make decisions for the movie going of their children.

A national survey of 800 parents of children ages 2 17, conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2001 about the ESRB system found that 52 percent of those who had used the video game ratings found the system very useful, while 41 percent said it was somewhat useful, with 3 percent responding not too useful, and 3 percent found the system not at all useful

A national poll commissioned by the ESRB in 2002 found that when read a description of the system, 90 percent of parents said they found it very or somewhat helpful.

According to the Federal Trade Commission, the ESRB is "the most comprehensive of the three industry systems" and "there is much in the game industry's rating disclosure requirements that merits duplication by others."

Sources: CORA and ESRB