ESRB Ratings changing due to modders.

[Sodbuster]

OK, so with Oblivion changing its rating from Teen to Mature due to modders making a topless mod, a decision is going to need to be made. They say it was not only because of the nudity but also because of violence, but Bethesda gives evidence that the ESRB already knew about all the violence in the game. So, if modders are able to get a game's rating bumped to mature, thereby hurting sales of a game, what is to stop rival companies from employing modders to unlock "nudie mods" in competing games? What if the modders who unlocked the San Andreas Hot Coffee Bull**** Scandal Mod were being paid by the people who made Driver? If it's not already happening, and I was able to think of it, that means it will be happening soon.

Where is the line? When should games stop being subjected to rating changes? Upon release, or never?

Rather then making the games M rated, my suggestion is requiring blocks to be put in place that require age verification through a credit card check to download nudie mods. Strict, but effective, and something that would satisfy parents and politicians alike.

I, personally, am unaffected by any of these issues. I'm 22, I don't have kids, and I don't download nudie mods. The reason I would like to see a solution though is because the video game industry is under fire right now, and little scandals like this are just fuel for the flames.

 

[Ingolifs]

The solution for the game company is to sue the nudie mod makers, just as companies sue modders for making unlicenced mods about things like Dragonball Z and Stargate.

Otherwise, pretty much any game can have its code cracked, and a nudie mod installed. (imagine that, some kid's barbie game gets given a mature rating because people keep on modding off barbie's clothes.) And of course, that would make pretty much every game given a mature audience, which is something that wouldn't do much good to the industry.

 

[Destichado]

NEVER.  ESRB set a terrable prescedent by changing the rating like this.  That should never happen again.  What we do after-market is nobody's buisness but our own.    I'm 23 and I can do whatever I damn well please, and this *still* burns my butt. 

Much will change when the generation of technological idiots is no longer in control of something they know nothing about.   Our generation will be much more vigilant about what our kids are exposed to, or much more apathetic and nonchalant.  Probably both.  Which will *still* negate this bull****.  Anyone have an e-mail addres I can flame?

 

[Archonsod]

Technically they've broke their own guidelines, since they're only supposed to rate the content submitted by the developer (meaning a developer could go off an alter it straight afterwards without a problem).
Doesn't matter much, the ESRB ratings have no legal standing whatsoever, its only the fact that certain stores refuse to stock M rated games that gives them any bite, and this depends entirely on the retailer preferring to uphold their image than cash in on a hot selling game, and we know how consistent the big companies are in that respect

 

[Yoshiboy]

push up mod ftw!

 

[phbbbt107]

That's what parents are for dammit! If you can't spend enough time to look at what your child does in his/her free time, there are bigger issues at hand. Damn politicians. They'd eat a baby if it'd get them votes.

 

[leprechaun]

Besides, as Archon said, technically they've made Bethesda responsible for the work of a third party, which is covered in the EULA of most programs, if I remember rightly. It's like what the Yanks did to San Andreas with the Hot Coffee mod. It required activation by a third party before it worked, to they are now making game developers responsible for complaints caused by other people's work, a worrying proposition for any game developers who really won't want to have to deal with constant reclassification and penalties because someone mods in a set of flaccid breasts.
I think we English had the right idea with the Hot Coffee row: It's pants anyway, and the game's already an 18, the highest we go, so who really cares. It seems to be a peculiarly American problem (no offense intended) with the slightest bit of nudity being a scandal and cause for an inquest and, if possible, a hanging. Take Janet Jackson, for instance. She flashed a breast.
Americans: EEEEK! How dare someone bare a breast on stage! It shouldn't be allowed! (Sorry if I'm stereotyping)
Brits: Oh, she'll be a bit embarrassed about that. Oh well, never mind. *gets back on with daily routine*

 

[Andrei]

Hot Coffee:

I believe there was a cheat code you could enter (or you could use an action replay or something for the PS2).  So it was something you could get at without downloading anything extra.  Also, the sex minigame itself was written by Rockstar and placed on the disc without the ESRB being told.

Oblivion:

You can't see the thing at all without a mod.  That's a start.  However, Bethesda did include the nude skin on the disc (I gather), as a resource for modders.  That means that you have the nude content without downloading anything extra - though you would need to use the construction set to put it into the game.

Given that, we can conclude two things: (i) it is reasonably fair to change the rating, as the nude models are accessible to anyone without extra downloads; and (ii) Bethesda are b****y stupid for putting the nude skin in there in the first place, as they could just have left it on their website behind an age checking screen,  or even uploaded it anonymously somewhere.

What I really think is that there's room for a rating between Teen and Mature.  What about a 15 or 16 rating, which the shops could stock, for a bit of gore and some nipple slips?

 

[Archonsod]

It required activation by a third party before it worked, to they are now making game developers responsible for complaints caused by other people's work, a worrying proposition for any game developers who really won't want to have to deal with constant reclassification and penalties because someone mods in a set of flaccid breasts.

As of yet, since the ESRB doesn't have federal backing its an entirely voluntary system anyway. There is no legal requirement for a game to be submitted to the ESRB before release in the US. At the moment it is still essentially self regulation, and useful only as long as the various departments involved co-operate.

I think we English had the right idea with the Hot Coffee row: It's pants anyway, and the game's already an 18, the highest we go, so who really cares. It seems to be a peculiarly American problem (no offense intended) with the slightest bit of nudity being a scandal and cause for an inquest and, if possible, a hanging. Take Janet Jackson, for instance. She flashed a breast.

The BBFC's remit only affects games which include FMV, without that submitting to their certification is entirely voluntary. The reason it seems more sensible for us is that the BBFC only apply censorship as it applies to the law (i.e. the obscene publications act) rather than attempting to censor for 'taste'. Well, that and the fact that they don't depend on grants for funding (or indeed lunatic politicians to keep that funding coming).

I believe there was a cheat code you could enter (or you could use an action replay or something for the PS2).  So it was something you could get at without downloading anything extra.  Also, the sex minigame itself was written by Rockstar and placed on the disc without the ESRB being told.

Action Replay does the same as the PC mod - provides a memory hack which unblocks the content. According to the ESRB Rockstar have no obligation to inform them it was on the disc - the ESRB state they only look at the game content as is released, rather than the contents of the disk. Technically you could release a game on a disk full of porn jpg's without it affecting the ESRB rating.

Given that, we can conclude two things: (i) it is reasonably fair to change the rating, as the nude models are accessible to anyone without extra downloads; and (ii) Bethesda are b****y stupid for putting the nude skin in there in the first place, as they could just have left it on their website behind an age checking screen,  or even uploaded it anonymously somewhere.

1. The same can be said of any game. I can replace the skins or textures in pretty much any game you care to pick to my hearts content. Does that mean the rating should be changed for all games, since there's a possibility I can put nekkidness in there?
2. Ironically enough, Bethesda would have no obligation to include an age checking front end to include the content on their website. The law only applies to pictures of real people, and even if you did that its still a grey area as far as the law goes.

 

[Andrei]

1. The same can be said of any game. I can replace the skins or textures in pretty much any game you care to pick to my hearts content. Does that mean the rating should be changed for all games, since there's a possibility I can put nekkidness in there?

You've missed my point.  The news articles I've seen are a bit unclear, but they seem to be saying that the art file was already there.  Now, if a game includes both a topless skin and an editor to put it into the game, surely that's a bit stonger than just talking about "any game"?

However, if I've misread the news pages and this topless skin was one made by the modders, then I agree that it's absurd to change the rating.

 

[Lex Looter]

I will never understand why nudity is a reason of more concern than violence. A mammal species that find the depiction of breasts offending is beyond my understanding.

You're expected to go through life without killing another human being, but the absolute majority of people are bound to get laid one day. Yet violence is labeled as acceptable entertainment, and depiction of nudity/sex as perversion. Not only doesn't make any sense, it smells like hipocrisy. But I digress.

By no means I intend to validate such a strange classification, but under the light of the current moral trend, if the developer itself has made nude skins available it must be taken in account to rate the game.

However, if said skins are the work of a third party, it shouldn't affect the original rating and doing otherwise is indeed a dangerous (and ridiculous) precedent.

I don't think that legal prosecution of modders would be in the best interest of any company. It does not seem to be a valid way of action, unless the mod infringes copyrights - then it should be up to the copyright owner to decide about taking legal action.



 

 

[Archonsod]

The topless skin was, along with the editor. The problem there though is anyone with a copy of paint can make their own topless skin and use the editor to put it into the game.
That, and according to the ESRB remit it doesn't matter what else is on the disk, they are only authorised to rate the actual game content as it is played. They have no power (according to their own rules) to rate other content of the disk or indeed mods (even those released by the original publisher, even if its a pay to play version).
The main problem is that what the ESRB are doing is discrediting themselves. Like I said, the only reason most publishers submit content is because the stores refuse to stock games without an ESRB rating. If enough (or even a large enough) publisher decided it wasn't worth the cost or hassle to do so, then the store policies would likely change (or they'd stop stocking games alltogether). The biggest danger is that, should publishers decide this is a problem, they will either remove the ability to alter content (unlikely, since it would hurt sales in all territories and not just the US) or simply remove the ESRB from the picture (any rating system, even one as flawed as the ESRB, is better than none at all). Given that retailers are already worried about the possibilities and effects of online distribution or online only retailers I suspect they'd be more likely to follow the publisher's lead than remain with the ESRB.

I don't think that legal prosecution of modders would be in the best interest of any company. It does not seem to be a valid way of action, unless the mod infringes copyrights - then it should be up to the copyright owner to decide about taking legal action.

It wouldn't be possible to prosecute unless there was a copyright infringement. The only real laws that could possibly be used would be those dealing with defamation - its not illegal to alter or modify the game for your own use, even making the modification available can be covered by this (as long as you aren't charging money to do so).

 

[Sodbuster]

The problem is that video game ratings have become a political issue.  More and more politicians are preying on parents' fears to further their own political agendas, and video games have become the latest way to do that.  If the ESRB is removed or completely discredited, politicians will find some way to get parents into an uproar and then more drastic action will occur.

 

[Archonsod]

Not likely.

A recent court case (was it the hot coffee one?) did decide that games were covered by the right of free speech, which gives the industry ammunition to use against politicians attempting to interfere if it so chose (unconstitutional behaviour...). You'll find that the industry itself would like to see some form of legislative organisation in place too.
If the government did get involved in censoring the games industry (at the moment it tends to be the censor**** loony brigade rather than the more 'serious' politicians) it would actually be an improvement, since it would require more organised legislation - not only would exact definitions be set out (i.e. AO by sex and/or violence levels) but the publishers would also have recourse to appeal, and a system of doing so (whether by resubmission or similar). In addition, the remit would be clearly defined and the organisation responsible forced to toe the line (i.e. it couldn't suddenly decide to start including 3rd party content).
The BBFC provides a good example of why organised, legislated control can be a good thing. Not only do they have strict guidelines on what does and doesn't affect the rating (for example, explicit gratuitous sex qualifies for an 18 certificate, while non explicit and non gratuitous can go down as low as a 12 rating) but the owner of the submitted material has recourse for appeal if they believe the certification is too strict (which usually involves a rescreening by a completely different group). It also allows the organisation to have legal backing - rather than relying on the parents to educate themselves about the rating system, it makes it illegal to sell a rated product to someone below that age (or in England, if the storeperson believes the material will find its way into the hands of those too young to purchase it, they can refuse the sale). The advantage for the publisher in these situations is that blame is removed from them completely - if little Johnny gets his hands on an 18 game, then either the shop or the person who bought it for him are to blame (and if its the store, not only will they be hit with a huge fine, but they can lose the licence to trade. Suffice it to say many shopowners are unwilling to run the risk).

The final problem for the politicians is that at the moment games are only just moving away from their image as a kid's toy. Most gamers are now in the 25 - 35 bracket and starting families of their own. At the moment, the scare mongering works simply because the large percentage of parents just missed out on video games and as a result haven't got a clue about them. In a few years time though, that will have changed to the generation who grew up in front of their NES and know more about gaming than the politicians.
Its not like its the first time this sort of thing happened. Radio met the same kind of thing, as did cinema, as did TV, as did video. Look at where they ended up - imagine politicians attempting to whip up a frenzy around the content of the average radio station...

 

[Destichado]

^ What he said.  Every single word of it.

Outstanding. 

 

[Sir Prince]

No, Morrowind has topless mods. Sid Meier's Pirates! has topless mods ohforfsake!
They should not change the rating of the game. Mods are NOT supported by Bethesda as it is, don't they have that un the EULA or something? Mods are user beware.

 

[Archonsod]

Tis true.

Its akin to making Disney responsible because you taped over your old copy of Snow White with Pr0n. Or attempting to prosecute your ISP because you can reach a pr0n site on the net 

Thankfully its only the US thats affected. We're fine over here

 

[Sir Prince]

Yeah, for example: I belive it's also legal to download music here in Canada. Not completely sure though, but most of the noise on the subject is from the states.

 

[leprechaun]

Besides, someone (was it fisheye? can't remember) has done a topless mod for M&B. Big whoop. Nipples. EEEEK! Perversion. Or maybe not.

 

[phbbbt107]

Besides, someone (was it fisheye? can't remember) has done a topless mod for M&B. Big whoop. Nipples. EEEEK! Perversion. Or maybe not.

Eek! The women look bad enough in a dress. Don't make it worse!