Content rating?
by Tyler Frans · in General Discussion · 09/10/2001 (11:49 am) · 40 replies
Well, I contacted the ESRB about game ratings and received a reply this morning. Having kids myself, I think this is an issue that should be addressed by Indie developers on some level. But then again, it's solely up to the developer ... more of a moral call I guess.
After reading over the submission forms and pricelist, I starting thinking about what could we all do as developers without having to pay the $100-500 ESRB fee. So what do you guys think of making a simple format rating system and call it Independent Developer Rating (IDR)? If a game has violent, sexual content, then obviously it would get a Mature rating. If it's a furry-bunny downhill sledding game minus violence, then it would get a Everyone rating. Just a simple criteria format. I'm curious as to everyone's take on something like this. Thanks. :)
-Sty
After reading over the submission forms and pricelist, I starting thinking about what could we all do as developers without having to pay the $100-500 ESRB fee. So what do you guys think of making a simple format rating system and call it Independent Developer Rating (IDR)? If a game has violent, sexual content, then obviously it would get a Mature rating. If it's a furry-bunny downhill sledding game minus violence, then it would get a Everyone rating. Just a simple criteria format. I'm curious as to everyone's take on something like this. Thanks. :)
-Sty
About the author
#2
If people can rate their own games, then publishers would rarely ever rate their own games 'M' because that would exclude a large portion of the audience from buying the game.
Even more importantly, the reason those ratings mean something is because they're backed by an independant organization that will stand behind the ratings. Without that organization, the ratings mean nothing, and therefore any half-intelligent consumer would ignore them. (Unless of course they didn't understand that these ratings were *not* backed by a reputable organization, in which case they'd be being duped.)
Given that you need an independant organization to assign these ratings if they're going to mean anything, why reinvent the wheel with a smaller, less experienced, and less streamlined organization that would most likely require higher fees for a less meaningful rating?
It's a good idea, but unfortunately self-defeating in meeting its goals of being a meaningful, viable alternative to the ESRB.
-Scott
09/10/2001 (12:28 pm)
The reason you pay the ESRB money is that they are an independant organization that is reputable. Honestly, that price is far less than I would have expected, and I think that price is extremely reasonable for what you get.If people can rate their own games, then publishers would rarely ever rate their own games 'M' because that would exclude a large portion of the audience from buying the game.
Even more importantly, the reason those ratings mean something is because they're backed by an independant organization that will stand behind the ratings. Without that organization, the ratings mean nothing, and therefore any half-intelligent consumer would ignore them. (Unless of course they didn't understand that these ratings were *not* backed by a reputable organization, in which case they'd be being duped.)
Given that you need an independant organization to assign these ratings if they're going to mean anything, why reinvent the wheel with a smaller, less experienced, and less streamlined organization that would most likely require higher fees for a less meaningful rating?
It's a good idea, but unfortunately self-defeating in meeting its goals of being a meaningful, viable alternative to the ESRB.
-Scott
#3
-Brock
Lonegamers.com
09/10/2001 (1:29 pm)
I would love to start a organization of Indie Game Developers but we would have to have a good reputation once we get started and that would include charging a smaller fee for the games ($20-$100). This would make it look more of a real company not just buddies doing eachother favors. I agree with the last post though about the ESRB being able to fight behind ratings. I wouldn't mind trying something though.-Brock
Lonegamers.com
#4
I read through their docs and submission content, so I do understand what the ESRB is all about. I'm not talking about building an establishment. What I was trying to get at is, I highly doubt most of the games being developed here will be rated due to the cost and formalities of an ESRB rating. That's a pretty big pool of unrated game content. Why not come up with a way for Indies to rate their own content so there is 'something'?
Whether reasonably priced or not, Independent Development = independently funded. I know myself and those on my team don't have a huge surplus of money to pull from and cost effectiveness is the golden rule. Once you start tallying up the price of development software, necessary plugins for that software, licensing for the engine, etc. etc. etc. $100-500 for a rating is the last thing on the grocery list (if it even makes the list).
A free viable rating (albeit it a nonreputable and unestablished one) or even a self rating is better than nothing.
09/10/2001 (2:21 pm)
Scott: I read through their docs and submission content, so I do understand what the ESRB is all about. I'm not talking about building an establishment. What I was trying to get at is, I highly doubt most of the games being developed here will be rated due to the cost and formalities of an ESRB rating. That's a pretty big pool of unrated game content. Why not come up with a way for Indies to rate their own content so there is 'something'?
Whether reasonably priced or not, Independent Development = independently funded. I know myself and those on my team don't have a huge surplus of money to pull from and cost effectiveness is the golden rule. Once you start tallying up the price of development software, necessary plugins for that software, licensing for the engine, etc. etc. etc. $100-500 for a rating is the last thing on the grocery list (if it even makes the list).
A free viable rating (albeit it a nonreputable and unestablished one) or even a self rating is better than nothing.
#5
Then again, if you tried to paint it less as a rating and more as content identification, then I as a consumer wouldn't feel misled. I think that content labelling is always a good thing ("Sexual Themes; Adult Language; Cartoon Violence"), and perhaps that could be doubled with a publisher *recommendation* as to its target audience. ("This product is recommended for mature audiences and is not intended to be purchased or used by minors without the supervision of an adult.")
Maybe I'm just getting hung up on the semantics of ratings, but I know that consumers have developed an expectation when they see a rating, because currently every rating assigned to various media (TV, games, movies, etc.) is indeed backed by an organization. So to me, to provide a rating that's *not* backed by a neutral organization means that the developer/publisher can lie and say whatever will promote sales. I realize that *you* may not do this, but my point is that it will be a turn-off to savvy consumers, and more importantly, the watchdogs in the press would probably raise a stink.
Just my $.02. =)
-Scott
09/12/2001 (12:08 pm)
Well, I do wish you the best of luck with this. I just know that I as a consumer would be put off if/when I saw a rating published by the developer/publish instead of a central neutral organization.Then again, if you tried to paint it less as a rating and more as content identification, then I as a consumer wouldn't feel misled. I think that content labelling is always a good thing ("Sexual Themes; Adult Language; Cartoon Violence"), and perhaps that could be doubled with a publisher *recommendation* as to its target audience. ("This product is recommended for mature audiences and is not intended to be purchased or used by minors without the supervision of an adult.")
Maybe I'm just getting hung up on the semantics of ratings, but I know that consumers have developed an expectation when they see a rating, because currently every rating assigned to various media (TV, games, movies, etc.) is indeed backed by an organization. So to me, to provide a rating that's *not* backed by a neutral organization means that the developer/publisher can lie and say whatever will promote sales. I realize that *you* may not do this, but my point is that it will be a turn-off to savvy consumers, and more importantly, the watchdogs in the press would probably raise a stink.
Just my $.02. =)
-Scott
#6
Seeing as the games that are going to be published here are going to be sold online, then a credit car would be needed to buy them. As a card will be needed to buy, theres no chance really of minors buying a game from GG on their own. So whoever is buying the game for them would decide if it's appropriate or not based on the description. Owning a credit card is an age check on it's own.
09/12/2001 (3:22 pm)
Yeah, just describing the content (to me) seems to be a more useful and descriptive warning then a rating badge anyway.Seeing as the games that are going to be published here are going to be sold online, then a credit car would be needed to buy them. As a card will be needed to buy, theres no chance really of minors buying a game from GG on their own. So whoever is buying the game for them would decide if it's appropriate or not based on the description. Owning a credit card is an age check on it's own.
#7
09/18/2001 (2:15 am)
That's exactly my point, content. Whether it's a 'rating' or 'identification' (I was seeing them as the same purpose) I think it's be a plus for this community to approach the subject on some level. I realize it's just piss in the wind, but I figured I'd just bring up my concern.
#8
09/18/2001 (5:27 am)
*Step 1. Open Mouth. Step 2. (this step is very important and often missed by amatures) Remove Shoe. Step 3. Insert Foot.*
#9
uhm, I categorically disagree.
That information is FALSE on so many levels, I'm shocked. I am surprised that you are posting such libelous verbage.
....but let me address those who are interested in FACTUAL information.
The ESRB DO play the games they rate. Yes, I know that first hand.
The humongous form which you fill out, is especially designed to counter that which you are libelously posting (tsk, tsk) about. It is designed to augment their own game experiences, in case you or they, miss something - or in the event that they are deliberately misled.
No, they are not going to play a game from start to finish in order to rate it, but they DO play them.
I mean, how much of, say, Tribes2 or SOF, do you have to play in order to determine its rating?
Case in point, all the games in my Battlecruiser series, have been rated E. This new title which goes Gold this month, has, for the first time, first person combat.
Even though I specifically indicated in the form that there was no depiction of blood, gore, pain nor suffering therein, they STILL called me in order to walk them through a specific portion of the game - which in fact, they were capturing to video tape. I spent 10 mins showing them every feasible combat action, ranging from the lowly pistol to the rocket launcher. Then they thanked me and said that I would be hearing from them.
....a few days later, for my $100 fee, I got a fax indicating that Battlecruiser Millennium, had a T rating, with a violence content descriptor (that small box with additional info you see near the rating)
I wasn't in the least surprised.
I had no problem with the rating, because, in fact, the game, in first person mode, does depict acts of violence - gore or not. Now, had I implemented the ability to blow off limbs, head (capabilities that my engines do support) as well as used the pre-requisite blood particles, I'd have been saddled with an M, even though the majority of the game takes place in ships, vehicles etc, the animated violence of an E rating.
The ESRB rating works. It was designed to work. It is the industry standard. In fact, some retailers won't even stock games without a rating.
And if a indie team, be it small, medium or large, can't afford to fork out $100 to pay for a rating, they have NO business attempting to get into the business. There IS a price of entry. Further, if an idie desires to sign with a publisher, the fee for the rating is the publisher's job and they are the ones who pay the fee.
AND, to top it off, the rating fee is dependent on the annual income of company. I haven't shipped a title in two years, and so had to pay $100. Had I shipped within a period, I would have had to pay on the high end.
The creation of another ratings system would be a waste of time and resources and will go down as yet another failed industry endeavour. If you're going to waste time with another rating system, your time and resources are best spent developing a game - then the $100 would look like you're missing out on bags of chewing gum.
That is all
09/19/2001 (5:34 am)
Quote:The misconception of the ESRB is that they actually review the games that completely. The form you fill out asks you what you want your game to be rated. Then you give them money. Somewhere along the line, unless you tried to pass the game Panty Raider off as an E game, you will probably get the rating you want.
uhm, I categorically disagree.
That information is FALSE on so many levels, I'm shocked. I am surprised that you are posting such libelous verbage.
....but let me address those who are interested in FACTUAL information.
The ESRB DO play the games they rate. Yes, I know that first hand.
The humongous form which you fill out, is especially designed to counter that which you are libelously posting (tsk, tsk) about. It is designed to augment their own game experiences, in case you or they, miss something - or in the event that they are deliberately misled.
No, they are not going to play a game from start to finish in order to rate it, but they DO play them.
I mean, how much of, say, Tribes2 or SOF, do you have to play in order to determine its rating?
Case in point, all the games in my Battlecruiser series, have been rated E. This new title which goes Gold this month, has, for the first time, first person combat.
Even though I specifically indicated in the form that there was no depiction of blood, gore, pain nor suffering therein, they STILL called me in order to walk them through a specific portion of the game - which in fact, they were capturing to video tape. I spent 10 mins showing them every feasible combat action, ranging from the lowly pistol to the rocket launcher. Then they thanked me and said that I would be hearing from them.
....a few days later, for my $100 fee, I got a fax indicating that Battlecruiser Millennium, had a T rating, with a violence content descriptor (that small box with additional info you see near the rating)
I wasn't in the least surprised.
I had no problem with the rating, because, in fact, the game, in first person mode, does depict acts of violence - gore or not. Now, had I implemented the ability to blow off limbs, head (capabilities that my engines do support) as well as used the pre-requisite blood particles, I'd have been saddled with an M, even though the majority of the game takes place in ships, vehicles etc, the animated violence of an E rating.
The ESRB rating works. It was designed to work. It is the industry standard. In fact, some retailers won't even stock games without a rating.
And if a indie team, be it small, medium or large, can't afford to fork out $100 to pay for a rating, they have NO business attempting to get into the business. There IS a price of entry. Further, if an idie desires to sign with a publisher, the fee for the rating is the publisher's job and they are the ones who pay the fee.
AND, to top it off, the rating fee is dependent on the annual income of company. I haven't shipped a title in two years, and so had to pay $100. Had I shipped within a period, I would have had to pay on the high end.
The creation of another ratings system would be a waste of time and resources and will go down as yet another failed industry endeavour. If you're going to waste time with another rating system, your time and resources are best spent developing a game - then the $100 would look like you're missing out on bags of chewing gum.
That is all
#10
09/20/2001 (2:45 am)
Thanks for missing the point.
#11
Once you actually take time out to understand HOW the system works, and you actually become part of that system by going through the motions of actually releasing a commercial project, you'll get it.
Thanks for playing though.
09/20/2001 (3:03 am)
I didn't miss any point. You missed not only the point of having the ESRB but also the premise therein.Once you actually take time out to understand HOW the system works, and you actually become part of that system by going through the motions of actually releasing a commercial project, you'll get it.
Thanks for playing though.
#12
LOL Please.
09/20/2001 (3:09 am)
How is that? I was merely approaching a subject of unrated game content. The fact remains that ALOT of these games will not be rated and I was trying to find another way for people to convey it without spending the money (probably the driving factor behind not doing it). Quote:Thanks for playing though.
LOL Please.
#13
Facts:
1. You, or anyone else for that matter, stands zero chance of getting any other ratings board in action.
2. Even if by some sheer stroke of luck, you did pull off #1, the retailers will just laugh at it.
3. Your primary notion for having another ratings board, is price reduction. Well then dear, let me assure you that, only a completely idle body of people, would undertake such a venture, in order to save, what amounts to pennies, when considering the cost of game development.
As I said before, the price of entry into the industry, is not free. Be it demos, shareware, freeware, beerware, donationware or otherwise - there are costs involved - be it in terms of resources, finances or similar. As such, if an indie wants a project rated, the ESRB is it. If an indie can't fork out the $100 to have their project rated by the ESRB, then they shouldn't consider entering the commercial (the primary channel which requires ESRB rating) market. Period.
Look, we can argue about this until the cows come home, but the premise won't change : it is a pointless venture with absolute zero merit. But hey, if you feel so strongly about it, go ahead and do it. Nothing learned, nothing gained. A lot of indies have delusions of grandeur and think that game development is a walk in the park or a passport to untold riches. So, by all means, do carry on.
This is where I stop playing. Obviously this is getting nowhere.
09/20/2001 (3:21 am)
The games will not be rated if they are not submitted for rating by a recognized ratings board. So far, the ESRB is such a board.Facts:
1. You, or anyone else for that matter, stands zero chance of getting any other ratings board in action.
2. Even if by some sheer stroke of luck, you did pull off #1, the retailers will just laugh at it.
3. Your primary notion for having another ratings board, is price reduction. Well then dear, let me assure you that, only a completely idle body of people, would undertake such a venture, in order to save, what amounts to pennies, when considering the cost of game development.
As I said before, the price of entry into the industry, is not free. Be it demos, shareware, freeware, beerware, donationware or otherwise - there are costs involved - be it in terms of resources, finances or similar. As such, if an indie wants a project rated, the ESRB is it. If an indie can't fork out the $100 to have their project rated by the ESRB, then they shouldn't consider entering the commercial (the primary channel which requires ESRB rating) market. Period.
Look, we can argue about this until the cows come home, but the premise won't change : it is a pointless venture with absolute zero merit. But hey, if you feel so strongly about it, go ahead and do it. Nothing learned, nothing gained. A lot of indies have delusions of grandeur and think that game development is a walk in the park or a passport to untold riches. So, by all means, do carry on.
This is where I stop playing. Obviously this is getting nowhere.
#14
That being the whole reason you missed the point, as I said above, I'm not out to build an establishment. This was merely an idea to help out. You can browbeat and downplay people all you like, my point was to bring up the subject to get people thinking about how they should approach it. Whether it's going through the ESRB system (which is perfectly fine, as we'll probably do) or even if they put the tiny words on their site or in their game "Has mature content" "violence" "pornography" etc., they should address the content issue. Where's the harm in that? I still have no clue why you got stuck on my 'brainstorm suggestion' as the ground-laying to me building some Rating Board empire. lol
Mmmk, I guess everyone should stop work on their free projects.
Heh. Far be it from me to bring up an 'idea' to help others. I'll cease and desist immediately.
Where have I even alluded to something of this nature?
If you're here to be a negative force in the community, by all means ... enjoy. There's alot of starters coming up that'll be easy pickings. Why not help people out instead of trying to address them in such a condescending manner? You even told Pete he was completely false and yet said the same damn thing.
Pete: "The misconception of the ESRB is that they actually review the games that completely."
You: "No, they are not going to play a game from start to finish in order to rate it, but they DO play them. I mean, how much of, say, Tribes2 or SOF, do you have to play in order to determine its rating? "
He didn't say they didn't play them, he said they don't review them that completely. Same thing you just said.
Well anyway, have fun. To each his own. :)
09/20/2001 (3:54 am)
Quote:1. You, or anyone else for that matter, stands zero chance of getting any other ratings board in action.
That being the whole reason you missed the point, as I said above, I'm not out to build an establishment. This was merely an idea to help out. You can browbeat and downplay people all you like, my point was to bring up the subject to get people thinking about how they should approach it. Whether it's going through the ESRB system (which is perfectly fine, as we'll probably do) or even if they put the tiny words on their site or in their game "Has mature content" "violence" "pornography" etc., they should address the content issue. Where's the harm in that? I still have no clue why you got stuck on my 'brainstorm suggestion' as the ground-laying to me building some Rating Board empire. lol
Quote:If an indie can't fork out the $100 to have their project rated by the ESRB, then they shouldn't consider entering the commercial (the primary channel which requires ESRB rating) market. Period.
Mmmk, I guess everyone should stop work on their free projects.
Quote:it is a pointless venture with absolute zero merit.
Heh. Far be it from me to bring up an 'idea' to help others. I'll cease and desist immediately.
Quote:A lot of indies have delusions of grandeur and think that game development is a walk in the park or a passport to untold riches.
Where have I even alluded to something of this nature?
If you're here to be a negative force in the community, by all means ... enjoy. There's alot of starters coming up that'll be easy pickings. Why not help people out instead of trying to address them in such a condescending manner? You even told Pete he was completely false and yet said the same damn thing.
Pete: "The misconception of the ESRB is that they actually review the games that completely."
You: "No, they are not going to play a game from start to finish in order to rate it, but they DO play them. I mean, how much of, say, Tribes2 or SOF, do you have to play in order to determine its rating? "
He didn't say they didn't play them, he said they don't review them that completely. Same thing you just said.
Well anyway, have fun. To each his own. :)
#15
Negative force? Are you kidding me? Just because I disagree with your idea and its premise, and offer solid reasons in support of my argument, I am a negative force? Where do you think this is? Some LAN party where everyone gets to find whose is bigger?
What? I'm supposed to jump on the frigging bandwagon and not say anything when someone comes up with something I tend to disagree with? And one which doesn't help ANYONE?
Look, I'm not an indie looking for help. I'm not looking to break into the industry. In short, I'm not you. I have a LOT more experience and in a LOT of areas. I have, as an indie, learned a LOT about the industry and how it effects indies.
I'm not here to organize cookouts, take long walks in the park or arrange a golf meet. Nor am here in order to fit into someone's farfetched idea of a cliche.
And WHO did I address in a condescending manner? You must be refering to yourself. In fact, I only posted in this particular thread because of your post and another, indicating that the ESRB just handed out ratings. Thats just pure false. Frankly, I could care less if you put your idea into action or not. The point is, if you are trying to help save indies a few pennies, I think your time is better spent offering your work to them instead. At least you'd have something to show for such a venture.
Just because there are indies here, working hard (or not at all) to break into the industry, doesn't mean that they should be flooded with a plethora of useless information. Thats NOT helping.
Case in point. There IS a recognized ratings board. Its called the ESRB. Good, bad or indifferent, it is a recognized body. An indie who eventually self-publishes or through a publisher, knows that there are minimal costs involved. As such, they should plan for it.
Further, the V12 engine is $100. Its not going to get you a game, funding or a publishing contract. If you want those, you have to put in the work - and there are other costs associated with that work. Thats what being an indie is about. You weigh your options.
I would urge that you actually READ what I wrote again. S_L_O_W_L_Y this time. Pete said that the ESRB just handed out ratings. I called that information FALSE and posted MY experiences. Where did I say the same damn thing?
I'm not going to address the rest of your post because it is pointless. I have also unmarked this thread, so that I would'nt get notification of any new posts. I'm done with this. Say what you want. Do what you want. Its your time. Its your dime. If you want to help indies, contribute something WORTHY of their time. Don't WASTE their time or give them inaccurate and inconclusive data. It WON'T HELP.
09/20/2001 (4:18 am)
*sigh*Quote:If you're here to be a negative force in the community, by all means ... enjoy. There's alot of starters coming up that'll be easy pickings. Why not help people out instead of trying to address them in such a condescending manner?
Negative force? Are you kidding me? Just because I disagree with your idea and its premise, and offer solid reasons in support of my argument, I am a negative force? Where do you think this is? Some LAN party where everyone gets to find whose is bigger?
What? I'm supposed to jump on the frigging bandwagon and not say anything when someone comes up with something I tend to disagree with? And one which doesn't help ANYONE?
Look, I'm not an indie looking for help. I'm not looking to break into the industry. In short, I'm not you. I have a LOT more experience and in a LOT of areas. I have, as an indie, learned a LOT about the industry and how it effects indies.
I'm not here to organize cookouts, take long walks in the park or arrange a golf meet. Nor am here in order to fit into someone's farfetched idea of a cliche.
And WHO did I address in a condescending manner? You must be refering to yourself. In fact, I only posted in this particular thread because of your post and another, indicating that the ESRB just handed out ratings. Thats just pure false. Frankly, I could care less if you put your idea into action or not. The point is, if you are trying to help save indies a few pennies, I think your time is better spent offering your work to them instead. At least you'd have something to show for such a venture.
Just because there are indies here, working hard (or not at all) to break into the industry, doesn't mean that they should be flooded with a plethora of useless information. Thats NOT helping.
Case in point. There IS a recognized ratings board. Its called the ESRB. Good, bad or indifferent, it is a recognized body. An indie who eventually self-publishes or through a publisher, knows that there are minimal costs involved. As such, they should plan for it.
Further, the V12 engine is $100. Its not going to get you a game, funding or a publishing contract. If you want those, you have to put in the work - and there are other costs associated with that work. Thats what being an indie is about. You weigh your options.
Quote:You even told Pete he was completely false and yet said the same damn thing.
I would urge that you actually READ what I wrote again. S_L_O_W_L_Y this time. Pete said that the ESRB just handed out ratings. I called that information FALSE and posted MY experiences. Where did I say the same damn thing?
I'm not going to address the rest of your post because it is pointless. I have also unmarked this thread, so that I would'nt get notification of any new posts. I'm done with this. Say what you want. Do what you want. Its your time. Its your dime. If you want to help indies, contribute something WORTHY of their time. Don't WASTE their time or give them inaccurate and inconclusive data. It WON'T HELP.
#16
Nope, I was refering to your side comments, obviously. I wholeheartedly agree with your factual points. This was to be a 'discussion', exchanging of thoughts. Not jabs or ego presentations. That was what I was refering to.
*lol nice last minute change of wording*
09/20/2001 (4:32 am)
Quote:Just because I disagree with your idea and its premise, and offer solid reasons in support of my argument, I am a negative force?
Nope, I was refering to your side comments, obviously. I wholeheartedly agree with your factual points. This was to be a 'discussion', exchanging of thoughts. Not jabs or ego presentations. That was what I was refering to.
*lol nice last minute change of wording*
#17
(I'm just wondering how far in advance I need to plan for this.)
Thanks
09/20/2001 (5:41 am)
What is the average ESRB turn-around time from receiving a game CD to giving it an official rating?(I'm just wondering how far in advance I need to plan for this.)
Thanks
#18
As per the ESRB forms.
09/20/2001 (5:52 am)
Quote:The rating process will take no longer than 5-7 business days if you have sent all the appropriate materials for review. If you require a twenty-four hour turnaround there is a rush fee of $1,500.00 in place of the regular fee schedule.
As per the ESRB forms.
#19
09/20/2001 (6:06 am)
I stand corrected. My experience with the ESRB is a little more limited, and maybe because it was in a larger company setting it is different. I am not sure. Anyway, I will delete that part of my post so as not to cause any other problems.
#20
Also, I'd like to add that they accept submissions in CDROM or on video (showing most of the gameplay premise).
You are advised to send in the CDROM (they do a PC to video conversion anyway) of the product, either in late Beta or final Gold.
I would suggest that you go to the ESRB website and send them email requesting a package. Unless you have a game that is in Beta or about to go Gold, don't bother. Wait until you are at either stage, just in case their paperwork changes.
The package contains all the info you need - and the instructions can appear to be intimidating at first. Just read it all carefully before signing it.
And the ESRB is not your final stop to production either. You need to obtain a UPC number, as well as a UPC barcode for that UPC number. Both of these, including the ESRB rating, will set you back around $900USD. The UPC number alone, is $750. The barcode symbol derived from the UPC code, is $15-$20.
Naturally, if you have a publisher, this is all their problem, not yours.
Not a problem Pete. If I was a little harsh, that was not the intent. Between you and me, from my experiences in dealing with the man, trust me, the last thing you need is heat because of something you posted. You never know who could be reading it.
And yes, you are right, things work a little differently in large corps; but lets not get into that. :-)
09/20/2001 (6:12 am)
Tyler is correct.Also, I'd like to add that they accept submissions in CDROM or on video (showing most of the gameplay premise).
You are advised to send in the CDROM (they do a PC to video conversion anyway) of the product, either in late Beta or final Gold.
I would suggest that you go to the ESRB website and send them email requesting a package. Unless you have a game that is in Beta or about to go Gold, don't bother. Wait until you are at either stage, just in case their paperwork changes.
The package contains all the info you need - and the instructions can appear to be intimidating at first. Just read it all carefully before signing it.
And the ESRB is not your final stop to production either. You need to obtain a UPC number, as well as a UPC barcode for that UPC number. Both of these, including the ESRB rating, will set you back around $900USD. The UPC number alone, is $750. The barcode symbol derived from the UPC code, is $15-$20.
Naturally, if you have a publisher, this is all their problem, not yours.
Quote:I stand corrected. My experience with the ESRB is a little more limited, and maybe because it was in a larger company setting it is different. I am not sure. Anyway, I will delete that part of my post so as not to cause any other problems.
Not a problem Pete. If I was a little harsh, that was not the intent. Between you and me, from my experiences in dealing with the man, trust me, the last thing you need is heat because of something you posted. You never know who could be reading it.
And yes, you are right, things work a little differently in large corps; but lets not get into that. :-)
Torque Owner Bryan Walters