ESRB Wants to Rate Mods

[bapenguin]

Could the ESRB be overstepping it's boundary? Gamecloud (http://www.gamecloud.com/article.php?article_id=1467) is reporting that the ESRB is taking steps to "maintain the credibility of their rating system" with the inclusion of 3rd party modifications.Simply put, the ESRB is no longer just concerned with content in publisher's games but content created by anyone, including you and me. Yes, if you create, say, a mod for a family friendly E rated game that adds lots of gore and violence the ESRB is hinting that your mod could cause them to change the rating for a game from an E to an M, even though the publisher had nothing to do with the creation of the mod in the first place.


Total crap.

[Morratut]

LOL. Thats just stupid.

ESRB you are losing your grip :D

[Nim]

It'll never happen because it's patently unworkable.

On the other hand, if it does go through, think of all the "family" games the community could push to "M" or "AO" ratings....naked Sims cannibals? Why not! >=)

[Citizen Philip]

That's funny. I guess the ESRB is going to hire teh intarweb cops to patrol the dangerous realms of modding?

So.. if this follows- through can we start bringing gun manufacturers to court because their weapons were used in crimes?

In other news ' John "JCal" Callaham' author of this article will post more flamebait, in effort to rack up hits on his site...

[KamaItachi]

A few years ago a friend of mine had a party and sometime during the night someone drew a big penis on the cover of his daughter`s copy of Disney's Cindarella. I just want to say that I think it`s disgusting the BBFC would let this sort of thing slip through... I demand 18 certificates all `round.

[El Gato]

I, for one, welcome this change.

As soon as this becomes the case, I will start work on my "Xtreme Gore" mod for the latest Disney game.

[NoName]

I, for one, welcome this change.

As soon as this becomes the case, I will start work on my "Xtreme Gore" mod for the latest Disney game.
Tell me about it. Although I think this has no chance to survive, if it did that would be the end of games with a rating less than M.

Suddenly all the modders in the world target Disney and other G rated games...

[Commissar Rob]

This has to be wrong. I can't imagine an auto manufacturer being taken to court because some yahoo put a nitrous oxide system in their vehicle and blew himself up...yet the ESRB is claiming a publisher is liable for the actions of a third party...

This wouldn't hold up in court. Goofy, knee-jerk, b.s.

[Taco]

Would be totally bogus. But in the end this is a lot of hoopala based on one paragraph of a letter. I can't even imagine this happening, and I'm not sure I know what'd I'd do. I don't think game manufacturers would take it lying down.

[agentgray]

This has got to be the the...

Ok. We need to make mods for all the games that escalate the rating level so retailers cannot sell the games. We'll see how long that lasts.

[Taco]

I think if they started rating mods there would be a movement to not submit to the ESRB, everyone moddable game(which ultimatly is every game) would be AO.

[RMan]

There seem to be some serious assumptions being made about the rather vague statement made by the ESRB. Clearly if they applied ratings to games based on how they may be modified in the future, everything would get a mature rating, I seriously doubt that’s what they were suggesting. This suggestion is about as logical as restricting the sale of orange juice because kids may put vodka in it, I don’t think the ESRB has gone that far off the deep end.

More than likely, they’re considering stuff like in-game ratings popups for unrated mods or mods that exceed the game’s ratings (this is of course in conjunction with some sort of mod ratings system). I think that’s not a bad thing, as time goes on the user’s going to see less distinction between mods and official content, and without some kind of rules for how mods are launched/identified games allowing mods may allow undesirable content in a way that’s indistinguishable from it’s shipped content (right now it’s pretty obvious, but I’m talking down the road).

For example, any mod shipping through Steam as a Half Life 2 mod should be restricted by Half Life 2’s rating, since it’s clearly sanctioned by Valve and from the consumer’s point of view isn’t any different from the game (esp. since many mods are now being sold with the game, it’s hard to say they’re really a different product when sanctioned so heavily). I think this is the type of thing they’re trying to rate, not the unsanctioned hacked in stuff.

[emperordahc]

Does a dance while singing "retarded".

[Bishop]

You know something?..........I agree with the ESRB in this one. If the companies don't want to be held responsible for these mods they shouldn't release the programming tools to the public, which enables Jo-Blo to create whatever he wants.

[Hizawky]

Shit, I guess that disney-fuck mod I was making is going to ruin all those disney games for your kids. Minnie Mouse gets dirty when Micky isnt home...

[Taco]

You know something?..........I agree with the ESRB in this one. If the companies don't want to be held responsible for these mods they shouldn't release the programming tools to the public, which enables Jo-Blo to create whatever he wants.

First off you're opinion is wrong.

Second off, why do you think tools are required to mod games? If a game is based off of code on a computer someone out there can turn it into a porno simulator.

[Rommel]

Rman hit the nail with his cock. If a company releases a mod themselves it is different from Evil finally making the Old West Kindergarden simulator he has been talking about for years now and putting it up here, on his "Underground" website.

Taco also has some penis on nail action going on. If I remember correctly, companies didn't always release kits to fuck around with their engines. Some still do not and yet have their game's altered. TOEE was patched by the fans before Troika released such a buggy piece of shit.

[MasterKwan]

Bishop is right but, for the wrong reasons. The ESRB won't be rating mods as such they're just saying that if you have an AO mod for an M rated games, they might re-rate the whole game to AO. What this means, if it happens is the end of the release of official moding tools.

So, the ESRB isn't attacking the mods directly, they're threating the game companies which put up the modding tools. Basically I read this as "game companies, police your mods or we might make your games unsellable like we did GTA:San Andreas".

This is what happens when you have censorship. A little sounds good but, then there's mission creep like this. Before you tell me it's not censorship. If the ESRB can make a game unsellable with it's rating, which it can even though it's not direct, then it's censorship.

[Steve_Erhardt]

This is dumb beyond description.

But if there WERE to push this through, then it had damn well better be conditional, where the game keeps it's initial rating, and as mods come out, the ESRB updates like "Game X is rated E for everybody." to "Game X with the 'Bitchslap' mod is rated M for Mature".

But if they go back and retroactively redefine the rating for a game already rated and released because of what a mod does to it... that's just bullshit.

[Kelegacy]

Stupidest thing I've heard in a LONG time. And hear a lot of stupid shit here on EvAv.

The ESRB is full of stupid twats.

[carneconcarne]

just take all the games you hate, and make a simple mod for them that pops up the text message, "You feel an overwhelming urge to commit child rape," whenever a character does something.

[Royal Fool]

Quick, someone make a nude patch for Toon Town Online. Or replace the squirty flowers and pies with hand grenades and plasma rifles!

[Royal Fool]

On another note, doesn't Garry's Mod already classify as being AO if we go by the ESRB's justifications?

[7ofswords]

While I doubt anything like this could ever get approved by anyone that matters, imagine what it would do to companies who support mods for their games? We could have some serious paragraphs added to the EULA! Like... "Don't put pr0n in our game kthx?"

7

[Butters66]

Well,

Why are all you saying if... THEY ALREADY DID IT!

Take2 / RockStar annouced a huge earnings shortfall this year because of the Hot Coffee mod. How is this new proposal any different?

The second killing is always easier than the first.

Second point:

This reminds me of Stern and the FCC. There are double standards. Oprah can say just about anything on her show, but if Howard said the same thing, he would get fined. She is an American icon, he is the sourge of America, etc.

Go ahead and mod all the disney games you want. They will never change the ratings. Most likely disney will sue you for using their copyrighted material. Or some other DMCA nonsense.

[Bone]

Butter, it's totally different with Hot Coffee because it was content included in the original game.

Personally, I'm going to grab some spray paint and change the rating of the walls outside the ESRB offices.

[Librum]

Did anyone in this thread even read the article? This is wild speculation by the author of the opinion piece on Gamecloud that takes a single paragraph out of a letter and then extrapolates on what he thinks that means, going on to theorize and then state those theories as facts. Nowhere does it say that mod content will change the rating of a game, period. And I have a very hard time taking anyone seriously who feels the need to invoke 'Occam's Razor' in a video game article.

I know shouting that the sky is falling is popular here, but let's at least wait until we've got something a little more solid to go by?

[Bishop]

Most likely disney will sue you for using their copyrighted material. Or some other DMCA nonsense.

I'd sue you to if I owed a copyrighted property and someone changed or added something to it that I felt was morally corrupt. It's much like someone taking the Mona Lisa and saying that I'll give her a goatee and remove her clothes. I know that is a bit extreme but for some game companies they might see it the same way. Permission should for be established by the modder from the Company first and that way the modder would be held responsible for any penalties incurred because of their mod.

[NoName]

Take2 / RockStar annouced a huge earnings shortfall this year because of the Hot Coffee mod. How is this new proposal any different?
If by mod you mean unlocking code that was already in the game when it shipped...

A mod that unlocks code and a mod which adds new code/models/text are completely different.

[Taco]

Did anyone in this thread even read the article? This is wild speculation by the author of the opinion piece on Gamecloud that takes a single paragraph

hmmmmm......

Would be totally bogus. But in the end this is a lot of hoopala based on one paragraph of a letter

[Mason]

I call bullshit. There's a gigantic, thousand-pixel line between AO hidden content and users going out and making nude skins/patches that fundamentally change the game. Until we see them re-rating The Sims and Half-Life 2 (and about every other modable game in existence), they're just blowing smoke.

And in the end, this would just about take PC games off the market if it were really enforced. I mean, people often figure out how to mod games without explicit support.

I mean, I honestly thought it was well-understood and widely accepted that an M-rated game maintained its rating unless you went online or explicitly altered its content. Much the same way a film only maintains its R-rating if you don't splice in porn.

[TheKeck]

First off you're opinion is wrong.

Second off, why do you think tools are required to mod games? If a game is based off of code on a computer someone out there can turn it into a porno simulator.

I'm pretty sure this guy was being sarcastic. If not...... wow.

[Taco]

? The porno simulator part wasn't meant to be literal, but the idea remains.

[Heretic Machine]

Ya, it's too bad that the ESRB can't do a damn thing to people who don't sign contracts with them, so it really doesn't mean shit if they rate mods or not.

[bKangy]

I honestly think the whole industry should tell the ESRB to fuck off and start all over again. Let's face it, Wal Mart will stock games if ALL games are unrated, and hopefully things will just get better.

Rating modifications? No thanks.

[IagoTheHunted]

In other words, all games = AO

smart.

[IagoTheHunted]

? The porno simulator part wasn't meant to be literal, but the idea remains.

But sure why not literal, since thats a perfectly plausable extreme example. If I made a little porno sim it would be easy to "mod" every game out there to simply run my game instead of the intended game when the intended game is launched. It's stupid, but it's a "mod" so it's valid. Thus back to my previous statement:

all games = AO. Totally and utterly retarded.

[TheKeck]

? The porno simulator part wasn't meant to be literal, but the idea remains.

Sorry, I meant that the guy YOU were quoting originally (and said his opinion is just wrong) was being sarcastic. I guess that was pretty confusing.

[Roc Ingersol]

How about if the game just dynamically changes its ESRB rating on bootup if it detects any mod?

Then the clipper-chip style lockouts on the next gen consoles / operating systems will still give parents their 'controls' (that they'll never enable) - while at the same time enabling a workable solution.

Nah. That probably makes too much sense.

[Phades]

I think at most they'll put a notice on games that "game experience may be substantially altered by 3rd party mods." Or something like that.

[Orphiuchus]

I think this would mean that every single game ever released would have to be rated AO or outright banned.

[Butters66]

If by mod you mean unlocking code that was already in the game when it shipped...

A mod that unlocks code and a mod which adds new code/models/text are completely different.

You might be technically correct, but in the general sense of a mod as it is viewed by the public, I don't see a difference. Either way I had to make an alteration to the game in order to view it.

The basic fact is that it was done by a 3rd party and without the concent of the original authors. This is the key - where the naughty bits came from is really immaterial. It's the content that the little kiddies can view that matters.

[PIPBoy3000]

I think very little will change based on this.

The worst-case scenario is that all game content is encrypted and mods are impossible unless it goes through a formal review process. That basically means that mods will cease to exist except in special cases, so I doubt anyone will want to take that path. Games like UT2K4 would be immensely devalued, as much of the fun of the game was playing other people's mods. Games like Neverwinter Nights couldn't be made at all.

[Liquidize105]

"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."

That doesn't sound anything like what JCal was saying.

[IagoTheHunted]

I think very little will change based on this.

The worst-case scenario is that all game content is encrypted and mods are impossible unless it goes through a formal review process. That basically means that mods will cease to exist except in special cases, so I doubt anyone will want to take that path. Games like UT2K4 would be immensely devalued, as much of the fun of the game was playing other people's mods. Games like Neverwinter Nights couldn't be made at all.

It's impossible to totally protect a game's content the way your suggesting. If the game can be PLAYED than it can be reverse engineered by clever hackers who have repeatedly done so just to thumb their noses at that sort of silly overprotective gesture. In best-case-scenarios it prevents pirateing and hackery for a little while to (theoretically) improve sales. But it's impossible to lock out modding, all you can do is make it harder.

[IagoTheHunted]

How about if the game just dynamically changes its ESRB rating on bootup if it detects any mod?

Then the clipper-chip style lockouts on the next gen consoles / operating systems will still give parents their 'controls' (that they'll never enable) - while at the same time enabling a workable solution.

Nah. That probably makes too much sense.

Yeah it takes three or four fully functioning unintoxicated brain cells to grasp the wizdom of such a solution. Nobody will go for it.

[mister_slim]

It's nice to see everyone freaking out about one man's paranoid fantasy.

Learning about straw-man fallacies would be a good place to start.

[Spigot]

I know from the one document I read that they're cracking down on developers leaving in things that could be unlocked (a la Hot Coffee) by a mod or other tweak. That said, if a 3rd party went in and modded the game it would be absolutely unreal to expect the ESRB to change the rating because someone added to the game.

I think it's BS and/or misinterpretation of the ESRB document (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=6490) from the other day.

"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. In the July 20 public announcement, which focused on the revocation of a specific game's rating assignment, we formally stated that any pertinent content shipped on the game disc that may be relevant to a rating must be disclosed to ESRB, even if it is not intended to ever be accessed during game play."

Ah, here's the text from the missive...

"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."

[IagoTheHunted]

I know from the one document I read that they're cracking down on developers leaving in things that could be unlocked (a la Hot Coffee) by a mod or other tweak. That said, if a 3rd party went in and modded the game it would be absolutely unreal to expect the ESRB to change the rating because someone added to the game.

I think it's BS and/or misinterpretation of the ESRB document (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=6490) from the other day.



Ah, here's the text from the missive...

But there's a VERY fine line between added content and unlocked content. In fact the only functional difference is:
On current gen console systems without harddrives, you can't add new content without special hardware, you can only unlock it, so in that instance there's a difference and some blame to lay with the developers.
But next gen systems are comeing out in a few months and after that harddrives are going to be pretty standard fare, and thus that one functional difference will be removed. After that it'll be just as easy to add something as to unlock something that was already there, so there's no point in the ESRB counting them seperately. Where they SHOULD draw the line, the only logical place to do so, is with the content that's in the game, and accesable without modification. If GTA had a code or a cheat to unlock the sex minigame than they are to blame. If not than they're not. Just because the ESRB wanted to make an example out of them, doesn't mean they aren't full of shit about what constitutes a violation of their rateing system.