Poll of the Day > ESRB adds "In-game Purchases (w/ Random Items)" to their ratings.

(+) Yeah! (+)

From the ESRB blog page:
https://www.esrb.org/blog/in-game-purchases-includes-random-items/

Added context:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyzTnIL3pB4

My opinion: ....fucking finally....

Many great things will be coming from this, imo.

Either game publishers will have to advertise their game as vehicles for shilling MTXs, or they would have to do better creating real solid games to save face as a 'real game studio'.


---

Not that I'm complaining because it's a good idea, but is that really the ESRB's department?

---

keyblader1985 posted...

Not that I'm complaining because it's a good idea, but is that really the ESRB's department?

It is really.

It supposedly exists to do stuff like this, moderate the gaming industry so the government won't.

keyblader1985 posted...

Not that I'm complaining because it's a good idea, but is that really the ESRB's department?

Legitimately is; the warning labels are so parents can make informed descisions about what to give their kids... don't wanna give a kid a gacha game and then wake up one day $2000 in the hole from microtransactions

---

I think its out of line. ESRB should be for content, not the process to obtain content.

edit: read the link, yeah, thats fine. As long as if they dont change the rating from E -> T for including gachas.

it isn't gambling, so the governement doesn't need to get involved.

parents should just do their job and not allow their kids access to irl purchases in video games
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

parents should just do their job and not allow their kids access to irl purchases in video games

How would they know there even were irl purchases in the game?

---

Lokarin posted...

How would they know there even were irl purchases in the game?

I think the better option than researching games is to not give an untrustworthy kid your credit card, assuming IRL purchases can be made anywhere.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

it isn't gambling, so the governement doesn't need to get involved.

Technically it is gambling....but like the vlog says. The ESRB was created as a buffer between the government and the game industry so it can still have the freedom to govern itself.

Publishers equate MTXs like packs of Baseball Cards or Kinder-Surprise Eggs....however the addictive nature of those ventures is to continue to buy packs or lootboxes to beat the RNG and complete the collection. So in a sense, it is like gambling. Not as pronounced as 'real gambling' with real money. But these features are geared toward gullible children, steering them to the path of such habits.....

And like you, the parents are clueless to differentiate so they don't see the potential dangers involved, when they actually do exist.

So the ESRB (bankrolled by the very publishers) are forced to include more terms in their ratings, before the government steps in and defines it for them.

---

how could someone possibly be against this? of course they should have to do that. what the heck do they exist for if not to identify things like that in games so that a purchaser is directly aware of it before purchasing it? "this piece of software can charge you money" is a pretty reasonable thing to identify.

---

not going to stop companies from patching in loot boxes after the game has already been released

---

ChaosAzeroth posted...

It is really.

It supposedly exists to do stuff like this, moderate the gaming industry so the government won't.

"We may not be perfect, but the safest hands are still our own."

---

SpeedDemon20 posted...

"We may not be perfect, but the safest hands are still our own."

Don't get me wrong, I don't want the government going all ham on games, especially since there's already been enough bs about games.

I'm just not sure they're big on doing what they were created to do. This only started after governments started getting involved, when I thought the whole point was to be something to prevent just that.

zhangliao1 posted...

not going to stop companies from patching in loot boxes after the game has already been released

Well there was the infamous "Hot Coffee" incident with Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

They had to pull all the initial release copies from the shelves, so they can put an "Adult" rating on the package, before writing more CDs with the sex code taken out.

If publishers are going to add in loot box features after release, they will have to repackage their games, perhaps send out rolls of label-stickers to retailers to cover up the old label.

---

Personally, I'm tempted to say that any game containing loot box mechanics (even thinly-veiled ones) should automatically get a required "Adults Only" rating. They're bullshit even beyond the "won't anyone think of the children?!" argument, but if you're going to hide behind obfuscation and technical ignorance to run what is effectively an unregulated casino that even children can opt into, maybe we should be putting the clamps on to at least keep younger people from having any kind of access.

I'd settle for just a "Mature" rating, but we're all fully aware that the Mature rating is pretty much horseshit in the marketplace. At this point AO is more or less the only meaningful restriction on access.



ChaosAzeroth posted...

I'm just not sure they're big on doing what they were created to do.

They're doing exactly what they were created to do.

The ESRB doesn't exist to protect consumers or regulate the gaming industry in any way. It exists more or less solely to give plausible deniability to publishers so that governments don't step in to regular gaming. That's what it's doing right now - impinging on the borderline criminal behavior of publishers to the absolute minimum degree, so that they can point to the ESRB and go "Hey, gaming is regulated, and consumer protections are clearly in place, so you can stop pestering us now governments."

The ESRB didn't step in until governments became involved because they don't actually give a shit about consumers in any way, and didn't want to rock the boat for the publishers who are now making more than 50% of their annual income on in-game transactions rather than actual game sales.
---

Joker_X_II posted...

If publishers are going to add in loot box features after release, they will have to repackage their games, perhaps send out rolls of label-stickers to retailers to cover up the old label.

They probably won't. The "Hot Coffee" situation happened in a very different environment.

These days, they'd probably just hide behind the legal loophole of "Game Experience May Change During Online Play", which has always been a handwave for "We're not responsible for anything the moment you interact with other players". But they could probably get away with using that to mean "online updates after the fact are not part of the core game experience", and avoid getting them rated.

Though more likely, they're going to do what they've already started doing, and what's similar to how Japan has always handled gambling via Pachinko - add an extra step between purchasing in-game currency and the gambling aspect, so they can invoke plausible deniability and claim that their in-game mechanics aren't microtransactions or loot boxes, so they don't have to be part of the warning.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

They're doing exactly what they were created to do.

My apologies on being unclear what I meant.

You are correct, but I more meant what they're supposedly meant to do. They could have done some half assed measures sooner if they really wanted to help the gaming industry.

They kinda suck at keeping the government off of gaming industry's back too.

That's good and understandable.
You'll still have parents who don't read it or don't care, but it may help out a few that do.

It'll also hopefully help give a heads up for quality games that don't use in-game purchase tactics at all.

---

Who cares

---

ArvTheGreat posted...

Who cares

After 18 posts of reasonable opinions until you went out of your way to say "who cares".....I think you do....

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

they'd probably just hide behind the legal loophole of "Game Experience May Change During Online Play"

The purpose of that phrase is more or less protecting virgin ears from the things that are said over online chats.... so like a 6 year old playing an FPS online, until someone explains to him what "felching" is.

---

Joker_X_II posted...

until someone explains to him what "felching" is.

But isn't that just arrow crafting?

Edit:
I misread that lol

ChaosAzeroth posted...

But isn't that just arrow crafting?

well....kinda, lol

---

I think it should be made law that the contract eula cannot be changed, and you cannot be charged for the game before accepting the eula. And if the rating or the content of the game stops being what you paid for, you are entitled to a full 100% refund because the contract was breached by the developer.

---

Joker_X_II posted...

The purpose of that phrase is more or less protecting virgin ears from the things that are said over online chats

I know what the purpose of that phrase is. I'm just saying I could easily see them deliberately misinterpreting it to give them an extra layer of bullshit protection.

Publishers are all about adhering to the letter of the law while subverting the hell out of the spirit of it. It's why some companies are already coming up with ways to have loot boxes that aren't called loot boxes, so they can straight-facedly say that their games don't have loot boxes if anyone in authority asks.

Their advantage is that most politicians and authority figures don't understand tech well enough to call them out for their bullshit.
---

I don't think that adequate to prevent government involvement.

Also I've seen crazier stuff.

Like the first Story of Seasons multiplayer literally starring out Violet (a legit name) for apparently being to close to the French word for a certain kind of assault apparently.