|
|
|
A Nintendo community by the fans!
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|
ESRB "trusts" publishers to disclose all content, doesn't play every rated game. [roundtable]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source (read on GoNintendo, full article on IGN (linked)). A couple of highlights: ""Although it seems logical that one would play a game to rate it, there are lots of reasons why we don't. For one, when games are submitted to ESRB for rating they may not have been finalized or fully tested yet. As a consequence, these games may still be buggy, making it difficult, if not impossible, for a rater to play the game from start to finish. Secondly, we assign over a thousand ratings each year and many games can take 50+ hours to play through. So it'd be extremely time-consuming." "When a game is submitted to us, the publisher signs a contract that empowers ESRB to enforce its rating system, including the ability to fine publishers if it's determined that they failed to disclose content during the rating process. And, if a rating does have to be changed because previously undisclosed content is discovered, we can not only fine a company up to $1 million, but more significantly require re-labeling of a product that's already manufactured and shipped, or even recalling it -- either of which can be extremely costly and is a significant disincentive for a publisher to not fully disclose their content." How do you guys feel about this? I get what they're asking by having the companies say what's in a game, but shouldn't the ESRB step up and play what's submitted? It'd be like me reviewing a game I'd only half-finished. I get that it's time-consuming to play some lengthy games, but they're paid to rate video games based on their content. URL to share (right click and copy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
02/07/11, 23:19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|