The Entertainment Software Rating Board says that the percentage of Mature-rated games released halved from 2005 to 2007.
In a winter newsletter, Patricia Vance, president of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), said that the amount of Mature-rated titles is declining each year despite the fact that more and more games are being released.
"The ESRB also had the biggest year ever in 2007, having assigned 1,563 ratings, a 22% increase over the prior year. And, as you'll see below, 94% of the ratings we assigned were for games appropriate for ages 13 or younger. It's never been easier to find family-friendly games that everyone can play together.
"While a handful of M-rated titles tend to garner a majority of media attention, the E (Everyone 6+) rating category continues to dominate. The E category saw the largest increase over last year, accounting for nearly 60% of ratings assigned overall.
"The M (Mature 17+) category represented 6% of the overall ratings assigned, down from 8% in 2006 and 12% in 2005.
"The E10+ (Everyone 10 and older) and T (Teen 13+) categories accounted for 15% and 20% respectively."
This declaration is kind of meaningless, it would be better if they gave the actual percentage of games purchased last year that were M-rated versus those that weren't. That would give a better indication of the actual importance of M-rated games in the market. I mean there are huge volumes of games released to tie in with kids tv shows or movies are E-rated and bomb at sales, but they contribute equally to the 'diversity' of games out there.
I was helping my little cousin with her homework the other day. She was doing some research on horses.
I won't even tell you what came up when I googled horses
Getting your hands on mature material is as simple as google. Especially since more and more homes have the net and most parents are clueless about using monitoring software.
If a kid cannot get his hands on a movie in store then there are places on the net they are sure to find said movies
This is clearly because devs fear the 'ban hammer'. Why spend millions and years making a game only to have it get banned. Much better to go for a toned down game and have is assured to hit game store shelves.
Remember it's also because things that would've gotten a game a 17+ certificate 10 years ago are not the same as now.
Jeez, DN3D was an 18 in 1996 and it's cartoon violence, mild language and merely "suggestive" sexual content. These days that's nothing and would barely get you a T rating. The Simpsons is the nearest example I can think of to compare.
It's like movies. Gone with the Wind was considered risque for it's use of the word "damn" in 1939, yet that'll find it's way into kids movies now.
It seems to be really hard to get an A (or 18 ) rating now, and you have to go out of your way to put in either totally graphic and up-close violence, or some serious sex.
It's not the games that are changing, it's the people that are getting more de-sensitised.
That's true. It's a shame the latest Soldier of Fortune game is apparently a cheap mess - that series was the poster child for just how fun excessive violence can be in a game. Glorious gore.
I'd suggest as well that it may be also slightly down to the current install-base of the current generation of consoles.
2005 was the end of the last generation, so there were 20-something million XBoxes, 20-something million Gamecubes and some silly number of PS2s in circulation.
In 2007 we have a much lower install-base of the new generation of consoles, and if you narrow it down further to exclude all the owners that are under 18 then you may well not have enough potential customers for a mature game to be viable - unless it's a real system-seller like Gears Of War or Resident Evil or something.
This declaration is kind of meaningless, it would be better if they gave the actual percentage of games purchased last year that were M-rated versus those that weren't.
Erm, they did:
"The M (Mature 17+) category represented 6% of the overall ratings assigned, down from 8% in 2006 and 12% in 2005.
This declaration is kind of meaningless, it would be better if they gave the actual percentage of games purchased last year that were M-rated versus those that weren't.
Erm, they did:
"The M (Mature 17+) category represented 6% of the overall ratings assigned, down from 8% in 2006 and 12% in 2005.
Remember: Read Before You Rant (TM).
How ironic.
He said percentage of games purchased with an M rating, not percentage of games released that applied for an ESRB rating.
The Entertainment Software Rating Board says that the percentage of Mature-rated games released halved from 2005 to 2007.
These figures don't really mean much.
If there were (for example) 100 mature rated games and 100 E rated games released in 2006, that's 50% of the market M rated. But if 100 M rated games and 200 E rated were released in 2007, that percentage drops to 33%.
It deosn't mean there are less M rated games, just more E rated.
Sounds good to Daily Mail readers, but means nothing really.
Must every headline on this site be so poorly written and sensationalist? A decline in percentage does not mean a decline in number. In any case, there have always been more "E" rated games than "M" rated games!
This is clearly because devs fear the 'ban hammer'. Why spend millions and years making a game only to have it get banned. Much better to go for a toned down game and have is assured to hit game store shelves.
This is a sad day....
When that day comes, you leak it on the net and open donations
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Looking forward to Merciless Mod for CoD4
