 |
 |
|
If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these Think Services sites:
 Game Career Guide (for student game developers.)
 Indie Games (for independent game players/developers.)
 Finger Gaming (news, reviews, and analysis on iPhone and iPod Touch games.)
 GamerBytes (for the latest console digital download news.)
 Worlds In Motion (discussing the business of online worlds.)
 Game Set Watch (the Group's alt.game weblog.) |
|
|
|
| |
Former ESRB Rater Accuses Board Of Interference
by Staff
|
|
| |
|
March 6, 2008
|
| |
Former ESRB rater Jerry Bonner has published a new opinion piece in consumer magazine EGM alleging internal issues at the board including management-led ratings changes, parity problems, and a culture of secrecy.
In an article in the latest issue of Ziff Davis' EGM magazine, Bonner expressed a litany of perceived issues, from his perspective, on his 6-month stay as an anonymous game rater at the Entertainment Software Ratings Board. The ESRB is an industry-funded independent ratings organization, much like the MPAA for the film industry.
In particular, Bonner noted: "It was my understanding when I was hired that I would actually be rating games. Unfortunately that wasn't the case in some instances."
He continued, "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)."
Elaborating on the changes, Bonner said, "Other times it would be a simple content-descriptor change (we would give a game the "mild cartoon violence" descriptor and it would be changed to "comic mischief"). To be fair, if/when our ratings were altered, it was usually just a simple content-descriptor change. But when this would happen, we were rarely given a sufficient explanation as to why the rating was tweaked."
GamePolitics has further extracts from the interview, in which Bonner discusses the fact that game raters do not actually play the games, merely watch submitted video, suggesting that staffing-up to have all games be played through would be a better route for the ESRB to go. He also claims that sequels are frequently assigned the same or similar ratings as their predecessors with minimal review.
In addition, Bonner claims there is a destructive culture of secrecy at the ESRB: "I used to tell a joke while working at the ESRB that their acronym should be changed to CIA… Realistically, there is nothing to hide at the ESRB. Everything was above board as far as I could tell… But by acting in a secretive, mysterious way, the ESRB creates an appearance of impropriety."
The comments drew a strong response from ESRB president Patricia Vance in the same EGM interview. In the brief riposte, she calls Bonner's tenure with the board "unique and limited," and says the article contains "numerous misleading statements, factual inaccuracies, and misrepresentations."
In particular, responding to the allegations of ratings being changed, she notes: "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."
Vance added: "In a rare case when an adjustment is made to a particular recommendation from our raters, it is done only when it is obvious that [one of] their findings contradicts previous ratings for similar content, does not reflect cultural norms that have been established through publc-opinion research, or would cause consumers to question the reliability of [our] ratings information."
She concludes, as part of the article available in the April 2008 issue of EGM magazine: "At the end of the day, ESRB stands behind each rating it assigns, and the process by which it assigns those ratings."
|
| |
|
|
That is brutal. I wonder how many raters are PO'd their output is considered as mere recommendations / opinions.
I understand the intention of keeping the process secret; it was borrowed from Valenti's MPAA system, and the goal was to shield the raters from industry pressure or the possibility of bribery. But I think the costs of that approach -- the lack of transparency -- is not worth the benefits it gains. Let the raters post a bond or swear an oath if they must, but let's know who they are and how they work.
Ultimately, you can liken this to being in a bare knuckle, steel cage match with both hands tied behind your back and then, and only then, will you begin to understand the difficulties in writing this piece in the first place.
Now, onto my points:
1. I was not fired by the ESRB. I left of my own accord and on good terms. The ESRB will verify this. My leaving was more in relation to the 4 hour daily commute (2 hours up and 2 hours back) that I had to deal with to work there in the first place.
2. Do I have more to say about the ESRB? Yes. A lot. And they know that.
3. Can I or will I say/write anything else about the ESRB? No. Recent events in my life have shown me that all of this matters little in the grand scheme of things. Don't get me wrong, I love video games and the "gaming lifestyle" with a sincere passion and hope to write about other video game related topics everywhere and anywhere I'm asked to (if I’m ever asked to…) again.
4. If that response was written by Pat Vance then I am the King of Siam. The ESRB employs PR/Marketing people and lawyers and the like, whose sole purpose on this planet is to "spin" things. Remember, I'm just one guy with an informed opinion. I do not consider myself “disgruntled” or “angry” in any way. Things just didn’t work out at the ESRB. So it goes. I would suggest that you read the entire article (not just the synopsis that is posted in GP), which is exceptionally fair and balanced, before throwing words like that around.
5. I have one, other thing to say in regard to the ESRB's response (in which, they basically call me a liar) to what I wrote: if my comments are so "misleading," "inaccurate" and "misrepresentative" then why aren't they suing me (for libel or breach of contract or whatever…) into oblivion right now?? Food for thought, eh?
I truly appreciate all of the thoughtful comments and the intelligent debate this article has sparked. I was never a big fan of the “X-Files” but I’m going to borrow that show’s mantra here: the truth is out there. This article is just the first step on a much larger journey to obtaining that truth. For various reasons, I can only take this first step…but I do wish a hearty “Godspeed” to those who decide to take up where I leave off…
They haven't had any credibility since.