Entertainment Software Rating Board

Video games with objectionable content date back as far as 1976; the arcade game Death Race required users to run over "gremlins" with a vehicle and avoid the gravestones they leave behind. Although its graphics were relatively primitive, the game's overall theme and the sound effects made when gremlins were killed were considered disturbing by players, prompting media attention.[1] A developer known as Mystique became known for making sexually explicit adult video games for the Atari 2600 console, but garnered the most attention with its controversial 1982 game Custer's Revenge, which infamously featured a crude simulation of the rape of a Native American woman. Atari received numerous complaints about the game, and responded by trying to sue the game's makers.[2][3]

A 1983 industry crash, caused by the market being overrun with low-quality products, prompted a higher degree of regulation by future console manufacturers: when the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) was launched in the United States in 1985, Nintendo of America instituted requirements and restrictions on third-party developers, including the requirement for all games to be licensed by the company. The console itself also included a lockout chip to enforce this requirement and prevent the console from loading unlicensed games. Such leverage on developers has since become a standard practice among console makers, although Nintendo of America also had stringent content policies, frequently censoring blood, sexual content, and references to religion, tobacco and alcohol from games released on its consoles in the United States.[4][5]

When asked in 1987 about the suitability of a film-like rating system for video games, a representative of the Software Publishers Association said that "Adult computer software is nothing to worry about. It's not an issue that the government wants to spend any time with ... They just got done with a big witchhunt in the music recording industry, and they got absolutely nowhere". The association did recommend voluntary warnings for games like Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards (1987).[6]

Video games' progression into the 1990s brought dramatic increases in graphics and sound capabilities, and the ability to use full-motion video (FMV) content in games. In the United States Senate, Democratic Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin led hearings on video game violence and the corruption of society which began in 1992. Two games of this era were specifically cited in the hearings for their content; the fighting game Mortal Kombat featured realistic, digitized sprites of live-action actors, blood, and the ability to use violent "fatality" moves to defeat opponents, while Night Trap featured 90 minutes of FMV content, with scenes that were considered to be sexually suggestive and exploitive.[1][7] Both Nintendo and Sega had differing views on objectionable content in video games; a port of Mortal Kombat for the Super NES was censored to remove the game's overly violent content, whereas the port for Sega consoles retained much of this content, which helped increase sales.[4][8] In May 1993, British censors banned Night Trap from being sold to children under 15 years old in the United Kingdom, which was an influence on Sega's decision to create an age rating system.[9]

At the time of the 1993 hearings, there was no industry-wide standard in place for rating video games, which was a point of contention at the hearings.[10] Sega had implemented its own voluntary ratings system, the Videogame Rating Council (VRC), largely to rate games released for its own consoles, which Nintendo largely disputed.[11] The 3DO Interactive Multiplayer platform had its own age ratings voluntarily determined by game publishers,[12] and the Recreational Software Advisory Council (RSAC) was formed for rating PC games, which used a system that rated the intensity of specific classes of objectionable content, but did not use age recommendations. However, Lieberman did not believe that these systems were sufficient, and in February 1994, threatened to propose the creation of a federal commission for regulating and rating video games.[7] Stores like Toys "R" Us refused to sell titles they deemed were too violent for children following the hearings.[13]

With the threat of federal regulations, a group of major video game developers and publishers, including Acclaim Entertainment and Electronic Arts along with Nintendo and Sega, formed a political trade group known as the Interactive Digital Software Association in April 1994, with a goal to create a self-regulatory framework for assessing and rating video games. While Sega had proposed that the industry use its VRC rating system, Nintendo representatives objected to the idea because they did not want to associate themselves with the work of their main competitor; instead, a vendor-neutral rating system known as the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) was developed. The formation of the ESRB was officially announced to Congress on July 29, 1994. The ESRB was officially launched on September 16, 1994; its system consisted of five age-based ratings; "Early Childhood", "Kids to Adults" (later renamed "Everyone" in 1998), "Teen", "Mature", and "Adults Only". The ESRB was the first rating system to also use "descriptors" with brief explanations of the content contained in a game, as the ESRB found that parents wanted to have knowledge of this type of content before they purchased games for their children.[11][14][10]

The U.S. arcade gaming industry did not adopt the ESRB system, with the American Amusement Machine Association (AAMA) having cited "fundamental differences between the coin-operated and consumer segments of the video game industry" as reasoning. The AAMA, the Amusement & Music Operators Association, and the International Association for the Leisure and Entertainment Industry, adopted their own three-tier "Parental Advisory System" in 1994, which uses three color-coded levels of content intensity (designated by green, yellow, and red stickers affixed to arcade cabinet artwork).[15][16]

Alongside its efforts to classify video games, the ESRB also formed a division known as Entertainment Software Rating Board Interactive (ESRBi), which rated internet content using a similar system to its video game ratings. ESRBi also notably partnered with the internet service provider America Online to integrate these ratings into its existing parental controls.[7][17][18] ESRBi was discontinued in 2003.[19]

In 2002, Dr. Arthur Pober, the original president of the ESRB, stepped down so he could focus on academics. In November 2002, he was formally replaced by Patricia Vance, who formerly worked for The Princeton Review and The Walt Disney Company.[20][21] In March 2005, the ESRB introduced a new rating, "Everyone 10+", designating games with content of a relatively higher impact than those of games rated "Everyone", but still not high enough to garner a "Teen" rating.[22][23] The first game to receive this rating was Donkey Kong Jungle Beat.[24]

In response to the growth of smartphone use, in November 2011, CTIA, a group of major U.S. companies representing the wireless industry, and ESRB announced the co-development of a free, voluntary ratings process for mobile app stores. The system uses ESRB's icons and content descriptors, along with four additional "Interactive Elements" ("Digital Purchases", "Shares Info," "Shares Location," and "Users Interact") to inform users of an app's behavior in regards to data collection and interactions with others. Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile US were among the first to implement the system for their own application storefronts, and Microsoft's Windows Phone Marketplace already supported ESRB ratings upon its introduction.[25][26][27] ESRB president Patricia Vance explained that the partnership was intended to help broaden the ESRB's reach into the mobile market, and that "consumers, especially parents, benefit from having a consistently applied set of ratings for games rather than a fragmented array of different systems."[28]

In November 2012, the ESRB and other video game ratings boards, including PEGI, the Australian Classification Board, and USK among others, established a consortium known as the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC). The group sought to design an online, questionnaire-based rating process for digitally-distributed video games that could generate ratings for multiple video game ratings organizations at once. The resulting ratings information is tied to a unique code, which can then be used by online storefronts to display the corresponding rating for the user's region.[29][30] The three major console makers, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have all committed to supporting IARC for their digital storefronts, including ESRB ratings for North American markets.[31] Google Play Store was updated in March 2015 to adopt and display ESRB ratings for apps in North America through IARC.[32] Windows Store also implemented IARC in January 2016.[33] Apple's App Store still uses its own generic age rating system and does not use the ESRB or IARC systems.[25][34]

Besides evaluating games, the ESRB also oversees the marketing and advertising materials released for games that have undergone the ESRB rating process or in progress. This includes making sure that such material includes the given ESRB rating, and that the marketing has been tailored appropriately to its target audience, particularly for television spots.[10] The ESRB provides guidance for what type of content is reasonable for certain types of games, what type of content may be inappropriately gratuitous, and the presentation of the ESRB rating within the work.[10] The ESRB will go back and forth with publishers when there is objectionable elements within the marketing to correct these issues.[10]

In April 2011, the ESRB introduced its Short Form, a free streamlined, automated process for assigning ratings for console downloadable games as a way to address the rapidly growing volume of digitally-delivered games. Rather than having raters review each product (the Long Form), publishers of these games complete a series of multiple-choice questions that address content across relevant categories, including violence, sexual content, language, etc. The responses automatically determine the game's rating category and content descriptors. Games rated via this process may be tested post-release to ensure that content was properly disclosed. The survey-based method is also used in the ESRB/CTIA and IARC rating programs for mobile apps.[26][32][42] The ESRB phased out the Short Form for digital-only games, instead directing those developers and publishers to use the similar free questionnaire-driven IARC program, which was being adopted beyond mobile app stores, including the Nintendo eShop and PlayStation Store, as a requirement for posting, and which automatically are accepted by several national-level rating boards, including the ESRB.[43]

In response to concerns from Sony on the growing number of indie game titles that were receiving physical releases alongside retail ones, the ESRB began instituting new rules around August 2017 that any retail product was mandated to undergo the standard Long Form review for the game, disallowing the use of the Short Form for such titles. Alongside this, ESRB introduced a "value tier" for the Long Form review process for games developed at lower budgets (under $1 million), with a cost of $3000 for obtaining the retail rating. This decision has impacted the choice of several boutique indie game publishers, who have either cancelled plans for retail versions or had to stop selling retail versions to comply with the new ESRB rules.[44]

In addition to the main age-based, ratings, ESRB ratings also incorporate one or more of 39 "content descriptors", which provide detailed information about the specific types and levels of objectionable content contained in a game, including categories covering different levels of violence, language, sexual content, nudity, use of alcoholic beverages, tobacco products and drugs, crude and mature humor, or gambling.[22]

An ESRB ratings label may also include a third section related to "Interactive Elements", which disclaims if a game offers online communications, collects personal data, or offers digital goods or other premiums (including downloadable content and microtransactions) that require payment of real money to obtain.[53]

Icon	Name	Description
	In-Game Purchases	Game contains means to purchase in-game items with real-world money.[54]
	In-Game Purchases (Includes Random Items)	Game contains in-game offers to purchase digital goods or premiums with real world currency (including virtual currency purchasable with real-world currency) for which the player does not know prior to purchase the specific digital goods or premiums they will be receiving, including loot boxes, item packs, and mystery awards.[55]
	Shares Info	Personal information such as email address, phone number or credit card is provided to third parties[56]
	Shares Location	Can display the player’s location with other players.[56]
	Unrestricted Internet	Product provides access to the internet.[57]
	Users Interact	Players can get in direct communication with others through social media and networks.[56]
	Online Music Not Rated by the ESRB	Warns that songs that are streamed or downloaded as add-ons for music-based games have not been rated and that their content has not been considered in the ESRB rating assignment.

The ESRB has often been accused of not rating certain games, such as Manhunt and the Grand Theft Auto series, harshly enough for violence and other related themes, and for lacking transparency in certain aspects of the ratings process. Critics have argued that some games only received the M rating rather than the stricter AO rating because of the commercial effects of such a rating; console manufacturers and most retailers refuse to distribute AO-rated games, dramatically affecting their commercial availability. An ESRB representative stated that the Board uses the AO rating when warranted, even due to violence, and that in most occasions, publishers would edit the game to meet the M rating to ensure wide commercial availability instead of keeping the AO rating.[36][91][92] The film classification boards of the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Ontario respectively classified the M-rated games Soldier of Fortune and Manhunt as films due to concerns over the nature of their content, and gave them "Restricted" ratings, legally restricting their sale to adults.[78][93]

There has been a correlation between the M rating and sales; a 2007 study by Electronic Entertainment Design and Research found that M-rated games "have both the highest average Metacritic scores and the highest average gross sales in the United States", and NPD Group found that 7 of the top 20 video games of 2010 (including the #1 game, Call of Duty: Black Ops) were M-rated, even though only 5% of games released that year carried the rating.[94][95]

In 2005, the National Institute on Media and the Family criticized the ESRB for seldom-using the Adults Only rating, arguing that because it has a vested interest in the video game industry, it did not want to perform actions that would affect their commercial availability. The organization stated that "study after study shows that ratings would be stricter if parents were doing the job. It took explicit porn to get Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas an AO rating, even though the original version, still rated M, rewards players whose on-screen persona had sex with prostitutes and then killed them. We have been calling for AO ratings for the Grand Theft Auto series for years—now it is clear why the ESRB has ignored our request." The ESRB disputed these claims, arguing that the organization "relies on flawed research and ignores any and all conflicting evidence", was "imposing its own narrow values and morality on the rest of the country, regardless that it has little evidence to show that parents agree with their point of view", and did not reply to the ESRB's request for comments following its report card in 2004. The board also pointed out that the NIMF's study and "report card" used data from PSVRatings, a for-profit competitor to the ESRB.[86]

On the other hand, some have felt that the "Mature" rating is too broad; video game journalist Ben Kuchera noted that Halo 3—a sci-fi first-person shooter whose level of violence was, in his opinion, comparable to a Star Wars film, had received an M rating for "Blood and Gore," "Mild Language" and "Violence". He argued that "having a game like Halo 3 share the same rating as Saints Row IV, which carries the 'Blood,' Intense Violence,' 'Partial Nudity,' 'Sexual Content,' 'Strong Language' and 'Use of Drugs' descriptors was always silly, and it weakened the thrust of the ratings system." Likewise, he felt that the tone and content of the PG-13 rated film The Dark Knight was relatively harsher to children than that of the Saints Row series due to the latter's light-hearted tone, but still noted that "as parents we know what's right and what isn't for our kids, and being aware of the content they consume is a large part of our job as parents."[96] Halo 5: Guardians received a "Teen" rating instead of "Mature". Microsoft Xbox division executive Aaron Greenberg argued that consumers had been "surprised" by the M rating on previous installments "given the style of the game and the lack of real graphic violence and things like that", but that the "Teen" rating would theoretically enable the game to reach a broader audience of younger players.[97]

The "Adults Only" (AO) rating has attracted a negative stigma among the video game industry—one which has been criticized for stifling the ability for developers to have creative freedom in their portrayal of certain themes in a game, at the risk of being commercially unviable due to publishers' objections to AO-rated content. AO-rated games cannot be published for major video game console platforms, and most retailers do not stock AO-rated games. ESRB President Patricia Vance argued that applying self-censorship to ensure marketability was a compromise that is "true in every entertainment medium", but still believed that the idea of the AO rating eventually becoming acceptable would be a good thing for the ESRB system.[98] The stigma is primarily affected by a perception by the industry and other activists that video games are generally considered children's products; for example, the availability of a Wii version of Manhunt 2 was condemned by Senator Hillary Clinton over fears that children could use the game's motion controls to act out the game's "many graphic torture scenes and murders".[40][99][100]

Attitudes towards AO-rated games have also been influenced by the types of games that have received the rating; Peter Payne, head of Peach Princess, a publisher of English translations of Japanese eroge visual novels, believed that the "Adults Only" rating had acquired a "smutty" and "tasteless" reputation since the majority of AO-rated titles were either niche pornographic titles such as eroge games, or immature titles such as Riana Rouge (which Polygon described as a game which had the quality of an adult movie, and "[aimed] to do nothing more than tell low-brow jokes and show nude women prancing around") and Lula 3D (whose packaging advertised the inclusion of "Bouncin' Boobs Technology").[40][100]

By contrast, the ESRB has only officially issued the AO rating for extreme violence three times: Thrill Kill, a fighting game with heavy sexual overtones, received an AO rating with content descriptors for "Animated Violence" and "Animated Blood and Gore". Due to objections over the game's content, Thrill Kill was canceled by Electronic Arts after it acquired the North American operations of the game's publisher, Virgin Interactive.[101] Manhunt 2 also received an AO rating for its extreme violence; while the uncut version would be released exclusively for PCs, the console versions were edited to meet the M rating criteria.[102][103][104] In January 2015, Hatred, a controversial game whose plot centers around a character indiscriminately murdering everyone he encounters, received the rating for its extreme violence and harsh language; one of the game's developers disputed the rating, arguing that "its violence isn't really that bad and this harsh language isn't overused", but also acknowledged the rarity of their situation.[105][106][107]

The 2005 game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was originally intended to include a broader amount of sexually explicit content, but Rockstar North elected to leave the content out of the final game due to concerns over its eventual ESRB rating. Due to time constraints, Rockstar could not remove this content from the game's source code entirely, and instead made it inaccessible via normal gameplay; soon after the release of San Andreas, a modification for the PC version known as "Hot Coffee" allowed access to an incomplete sex minigame that was present in the code of the released game.[108][109]

The discovery of the minigame caused California State Assemblyman Leland Yee to rebuke both Rockstar and the ESRB, arguing that the ESRB was not doing its job properly. US Senators Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman also expressed their disapproval. Rockstar initially claimed that the minigame was created by the mod community and was not a part of the original game. This was disproven when it was discovered that a third-party cheat device could be used to unlock the scenes in console versions of the game.[110] Following an investigation, the ESRB changed its rating from M to AO, setting a precedent that games can be re-rated due to the presence of pertinent content that exists on the game's disc, even if that content is programmed to not be playable without modification or unauthorized use of a third-party cheat device.[111] Following the release of a version excluding the content, the rating was reverted to M.[112]

In May 2006, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion had its rating changed from T to M due to "more detailed depictions of blood and gore than were considered in the original rating", along with a third-party mod for the PC version allowing the use of topless female characters. The game's publisher, Bethesda Softworks, decided not to re-edit the game or contest the new rating, but noted that Oblivion's content was "not typical" of games with the M rating, and that the game "does not present the central themes of violence that are common to those products."[113][114][115]

In the wake of these two incidents, the ESRB changed its policies in June 2006 to account for hidden content; publishers must disclose information surrounding all unlockable or otherwise "hidden" content in the game as part of the ratings process, and publishers can be fined up to US$1 million if they are found to have misrepresented the content of their game after further reviews.[5][38][39] In response to the aftermath of Hot Coffee and the resulting policy changes, ESRB President Patricia Vance stated that in her opinion, "there is no other industry self-regulatory system willing or capable of imposing such swift and sweeping sanctions on its own members, which in this particular case resulted in the removal of a top-selling product from the market and a major loss of sales."[5] However, several U.S. politicians, including Senator Sam Brownback, California State Senator Leland Yee, and Michigan Congressman Fred Upton (who was a major critic against Rockstar during the controversy), still felt that the ESRB had "lost" its trust of consumers, believing that video game developers were taking advantage of the board's conflict of interest with the industry to incorporate objectionable content into their products without the ESRB's full knowledge.[7][116][117][118]

In late 2006, both Upton and Brownback tabled bills to place governmental oversight on aspects of the ESRB rating process, and make it illegal for publishers to misrepresent the playable content of a video game to a ratings board; Upton proposed a bill known as the Video Game Decency Act, explaining that developers had "done an end-run around the process to deliver violent and pornographic material to our kids", and that the bill would "[go] hand in hand with the mission of the industry’s own ratings system." Brownback proposed a bill known as the Truth in Video Game Rating Act, which would have also forced the ESRB to have full, hands-on access to games instead of just video footage, and have initiated a government study on the "effectiveness" of the organization and the possibility of forming a ratings organization independent from the video game industry.[7][117][118]

In October 2017, in response to growing criticism of the loot box model for video game microtransactions (which grant chances at earning randomized items of various rarities, typically cosmetic in nature, in exchange for payment), the ESRB stated their opinion that they were not a form of gambling. They described them as a voluntary and optional aspect of a video game, and comparable to booster packs for collectible card games because their purchase guarantees that a user will receive items, but not necessarily high-value items all the time. The ESRB added that games that contain actual wagering of real money would hold the Adults Only rating.[27][119]

On February 14, 2018, U.S. senator Maggie Hassan asked the ESRB to examine if games with loot box microtransactions were being marketed in an "ethical and transparent way" that "adequately protects the developing minds of young children from predatory practices."[120] The ESRB subsequently announced on February 27, 2018, that it would introduce a new label for any games that contain "the ability to purchase digital goods or premiums with real world currency". The announcement was criticized for being overreaching and ambiguous, as it applies to not only microtransactions, but any purchases of digital goods in relation to a game (which includes downloadable content), and would thus apply to almost all modern video games. Patrica Vance stated that the ESRB avoided references to specific types of microtransactions, so that the advisory label could be understood by parents unaware of specific details. Vance added that the ESRB was "unable to find any evidence that children specifically have been [psychologically] impacted by loot boxes" or that they caused children to develop "some sort of tendency towards gambling."[121][122][123] The new label "in-game purchases" was added to ESRB's standards by April 2018.[54]

On April 13, 2020, the ESRB announced on their official blog that they are introducing a new interactive elements: "in-game purchases (includes random items)". This notice will specifically apply to "all games that include purchases with any randomized elements", which includes, but is not limited to, loot boxes, gacha games, item or card packs, prize wheels, and treasure chests. The original label will still apply for "other type purchases", such as additional levels, cosmetics, DLC, expansions, and other downloadable contents.[124]