Geek Gestalt

A screenshot from the iPhone version of The Sims 3, one of thousands of games available for the Apple smartphone.

(Credit: Electronic Arts)

Most iPhone games are clearly appropriate for all audiences: puzzles, brain-teasers, mazes, and the like. But others, including some of the most fierce shooter games, may not be kid-friendly, at least from parents' perspectives.

But at least right now, there are no ratings for iPhone games, unlike for console or PC titles, and the president of the Electronic Software Ratings Board thinks that needs to change.

The ESRB--which is controlled by the video game industry's leading companies--rates games according to their content. The ratings include "C," for young children; "E," for everyone; "E 10+," for ages 10 and up; "T," for those 13 and up; "M," for ages 17 and older; and "AO," for adults only.

According to Kotaku, ESRB President Patricia Vance thinks it's a no-brainer that iPhone games should be rated, so that parents can have a sense of whether games on the hit mobile device are right for their kids.

"ESRB ratings empower parents to do their job," Vance told Kotaku. "Considering the fact that the vast majority of parents are already aware of and regularly using ESRB ratings, Apple's adoption of them for iPhone games seems like a no-brainer."

That's particularly true, Vance added, because Apple, in its announcements on Monday about the newest iPhone firmware upgrade, said it would offer the ability to block movies and TV shows on the iPhone based on content. But the company said nothing about games.

"Adding ESRB ratings to the controls (Apple) already plans to offer," Vance told Kotaku, "would give parents the ability to exert control over the games their children play as well."

The Entertainment Software Ratings Board rates games, but its president is asking why Apple has not offered such ratings for iPhone games.

(Credit: ESRB)

And Vance has a point. Games are clearly one of the killer apps for the iPhone, what with thousands of them already available on Apple's App Store, and many of them among the most popular apps. And while Apple attempts to filter submitted apps for some level of appropriateness, there have been many documented cases of apps of questionable taste making it through.

Apple did not immediately respond to a request by CNET News for comment.

One has to wonder if this is something Apple has thought about, or how much extra work it would take them to add ESRB-style ratings. On the other hand, adding the ratings would also create a situation where Apple might find itself embroiled in controversy if a game ended up having hidden--or difficult to find--content outside the applied rating. That, of course, is what happened with Rockstar Games' Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas in 2005, a scandal that reverberated across the games industry and into politics.

Perhaps Apple has decided it wants none of that.

Parents trying to figure out what video games are appropriate for their kids have a new tool at their disposal.

Already, they've been able to look at games' ratings--"E" for everyone, "T" for teen, "M" for ages 17 and up, and "AO" for adults only. But now, the agency that decides which games are right for which age groups, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, will be offering what it calls "summaries" of each game's rating.

The idea, the ESRB said in a release Wednesday morning, is to allow parents to see some of the thought process behind the agency's decision.

"The new rating summaries explain in objective terms," the release stated, "the context and relevant content that factored into a game's ESRB rating assignment."

Beginning Wednesday, parents and others will be able to view these summaries for all new games, as well as those the ESRB has rated going back to July 1, 2008. The information will be available on the agency's main Web site, on a mobile site (m.esrb.org) or through a special "rating search widget."

To be sure, many games are bought on impulse, so this service will go unnoticed and unused much of the time. But by making the information available via a mobile site, the ESRB is ensuring that parents aware of the program will be able to check the summaries while at retail outlets. Many others will be able to look into the games that their children are asking for, allowing them to make the decision about whether to buy the titles based on more information than just the rating itself.

All in all, this is probably a good move by the ESRB, which has taken heat in the past for its ratings--and which is clearly striving to be seen as more transparent, and therefore more relevant.

The ESRB is an arm of the video game industry's organizational body, the Entertainment Software Association and all major (and most smaller) publishers agree to subject their titles to the ESRBs ratings.

According to the FTC, only 20 percent of teens under the age of 17 were able to buy 'M'-rated games in a secret shopper study.

(Credit: U.S. Federal Trade Commission)

Only 20 percent of kids under 17 were able to buy "M"-rated games in the United States this year, according to a government report out Thursday. While parents' groups might like that percentage to be higher, the video game industry is probably pretty happy about the findings.

The Federal Trade Commission report studied kids' success at buying tickets to R-rated movies or purchasing R-rated DVDs, mature CDs, and M-rated games. In every case, the FTC found, the success rate had dropped over every previous year it conducted its study.

But nowhere was the drop sharper than with video games.

According to the study, while 20 percent of under-17 kids were able to buy M-rated games in 2008, the number had been 42 percent in 2006 and between 60 percent and more than 80 percent in previous studies.

A game rated "M" by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) is meant only for people aged 17 and over. An "AO"-rated game is meant only for those 18 and over. The ratings have no legal bearing, but most of the video game industry--which sponsors the ESRB--abides by them.

The study surveyed 253 retail stores in the United States. The best results, the FTC said, were at GameStop stores, where only 6 percent of under-17s were able to buy the M-rated games. The worst was Hollywood Video, where 40 percent succeeded.

At Wal-Mart, the number was 18 percent; at Best Buy, 20 percent; Toys 'R Us, 27 percent; Target, 28 percent; Kmart, 31 percent; and Circuit City, 38 percent.

It's no surprise that GameStop led the charts for restricting kids from buying M-rated games, as the retailer generally keeps those games behind the counter. It is, however, a bit surprising that Wal-Mart fared so well.

In response, ESRB president Patricia Vance issued a statement Thursday.

"Video game retailers have clearly stepped up their efforts to enforce their store policies," Vance wrote, "and they deserve recognition for these outstanding results. We commend and applaud retailers for their strong support of the ESRB ratings, and will continue working with them to help ensure that these levels of compliance are sustained if not further increased."

Of course, the study seems to have been conducted before the April 29 release of Rockstar Games' record-setting Grand Theft Auto IV, and I would be willing to bet that the numbers of under-17 kids able to buy that M-rated game is higher than the industry-wide numbers reported by the FTC.

The timing of the report is interesting because of a new bill introduced in Congress Wednesday that would mandate that retailers cannot sell M- or AO-rated games to anyone without identification showing their age.

It's fun for me to think about a room full of Target executives sitting around and making a decision about whether a video game is too violent for it to sell.

According to ABCNews.com, the giant retailer has decided not to carry the recent Rockstar Games gorefest, Manhunt 2, almost certainly because it has been at the center of the latest kerfuffle over the content of one of the publisher's titles.

"All video games and computer software sold at Target currently carry ratings by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board--from early childhood through mature audiences," ABC quoted a statement from Target as saying. "While Manhunt 2 was given a 'Mature' rating by the ESRB, we received additional information that players can potentially view previously filtered content by altering the game code. As a result, we have decided not the carry the game."

Rockstar Games' new title, 'Manhunt 2' has been the focus of a great deal of controversy because of its highly violent content. As a result, Target has decided not to carry the game.

(Credit: Rockstar Games)

Now, this is not a new dynamic for Rockstar. You may well remember that in 2005, the company got into a disastrous scandal over vaguely explicit sexual content that was easily unlocked in the "M"-rated game, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

And after that episode, Rockstar agreed that it would never, ever again hide objectionable material in the code of its games.

So here we are, two years later, and according to ABC, Rockstar decided to blur out some of the most violent parts of Manhunt 2 in search of an "M" rating, much as it locked away the explicit content in GTA: SA. But this time, the ESRB said it was satisfied that things were OK.

ABC reported that ESRB president Patricia Vance had no problem with its rating, stating that it was "still valid, and we stand behind it."

Yet, likely because of hype and controversy, Target decided that the game was too violent. Never mind that the retailer also sells such not-quite-pacifist fare as Halo 3, Call of Duty 4, Gears of War, and Ace Combat 6--which by the way features, on its cover, an exploding airplane and the implication of an instantly killed pilot.

No, Manhunt 2 is too violent. Now, I've never seen the game, and so I certainly cannot comment on how much more violent it is than the titles I just mentioned. But I do know that, for example, Wired writer Clive Thompson has been using Halo 3 as his own personal experiment in exploring the psychology of suicide bombers, and that Call of Duty 4, like most big-name war video games, is pretty much wall-to-wall carnage.

So my question is: When the Target executives were sitting in that room, trying to decide whether Manhunt 2 was too violent, what criteria did they use? It certainly couldn't be the inclusion of blood and guts. Nor of the concept of players or characters getting killed. Because all of that is readily available in the games it is happy to sell.

Rather, it is pointing to the fact that players can unlock the blurred-out elements of the game that Rockstar locked down in order to get an "M" rating instead of "Adults Only," the rating kiss of death when it comes to big-box retailers.

Well, fair enough, I suppose. I think it's short-sighted and random, but I guess Target gets to do whatever it wants. Even when the ratings board itself says it is satisfied that the game is suitable for 17-year-olds.

To my mind, the retailer is running scared from controversy. I know that a lot of parents are unhappy with violent video games because they think the games lead to real-world violence. And that may or may not be true. But I think the retailers either need to pull the plug on all these blood-filled gunfests or carry them all. Singling one out the way they did with Manhunt 2 seems to me to be a sign that these executives are rolling more with the tide of parental outrage than any particularly coherent or sincere policy. And that's a shame.