The Story of the ESRB | Gaming Historian

In the early '90s, a handful of violent video games sparked a national debate that changed the video game industry. Parents and advocacy groups spoke out. They argued that violence in video games had gone too far. And the United States government agreed. So in 1993 the Senate gave the industry an ultimatum: regulate yourselves or we will do it for you. From that order was born the Entertainment Software Rating Board, more commonly known as ESRB. You can see its effects in any video game you buy today. This is the

story

of some games that permanently changed the industry and the way we buy video games.

In the mid-80s and early 90s, rap became popular. MTV became a reality. Cartoons became bolder. But as the entertainment industry pushed the boundaries, politicians and advocacy groups pushed back. They wanted to protect children from inappropriate lyrics and images. So music, television and even video games came under attack. There were Senate hearings to discuss so-called "porn rock," where everyone from John Denver to Twisted Sister frontman Dee Snider defended the music industry. A group known as the Parent's Music Resource Center created a list of 15 songs they believe should be banned from the radio, known as the "Filthy Fifteen." The group successfully campaigned for parental advice labels on music.

Television didn't have it easy either. REPORTER: "Beavis and Butt-head" is MTV's most popular show, drawing four times the average MTV audience. But some do not find the two protagonists moving. They think they are dangerous. BEAVIS AND BUTT-HEAD: Breaking the law! Breaking the law! BEAVIS: (laughter) Let's burn something. REPORTER: Last week, an Ohio mother claimed that her five-year-old son set fire to her family's trailer and she came up with the idea of ​​watching Beavis and Butt-head playing with a lighter. Her two-year-old sister died in the fire. NORM: In the wake of the controversy, MTV moved "Beavis and Butt-head" to a later time slot and put a disclaimer before each episode.

There were also hearings in the Senate to discuss television violence. Meanwhile, video games evolved at an unprecedented pace. They became more colorful and complex, the players' capabilities expanded, and the stories grew. Suddenly, players were no longer fighting abstract pixelated enemies, and that became a problem. In the end, three games caused controversy: Mortal Kombat, Night Trap and Lethal Enforcers. Mortal Kombat was the most commercially successful game. Developed by Midway, it hit arcades in 1992 and was the number one arcade game that year. But it really gained notoriety in 1993, when Acclaim Entertainment launched a $10 million campaign to celebrate its multi-format release on the home console scene, dubbed "Deadly Monday." There were raffles and commercials to promote the event.

They even made previews in movie theaters. The campaign brought a lot of attention to the game, but it wasn't all good. Suddenly, many more people became aware of the game's violent content. The Sega version was much more graphic than the Nintendo one. By entering a code, players could unlock blood during combat. Sega also kept the gruesome finishing moves. You could decapitate an enemy and see their spinal cord dangling, or rip an opponent's heart out of their chest. Meanwhile, Nintendo replaced all the blood with sweat and toned down the finishing moves. As a result, Sega's version easily surpassed Nintendo's.

Then there was Night Trap, a full-motion video game released on the Sega CD. Although significantly less popular than Mortal Kombat, Night Trap was equally controversial. Developed by Digital Pictures as a campy parody of a vampire movie, the player's goal is to protect a sleepover of scantily clad women from alien vampires. But it caught the attention of politicians and parents for its depiction of violence against women. Finally, there was Lethal Enforcers, a 1992 shooter that used digitized photographs instead of cartoon images. And, like Mortal Kombat, it started in arcades. Developed by Konami, players take on the role of a police officer fighting a crime wave.

Console versions were released the following year and came with a revolver-style gun to take down enemies. At the height of the controversy, the console versions of Lethal Enforcers hadn't even come out yet. But ads for the game featuring Konami's Justifier gun caught the government's attention. As the public became more concerned about violent video games, some video game companies attempted to mitigate the problem. Nintendo had strict content policies and they had been in place for a while. They put limits on things like graphic depictions of death, sexual content, and profanity, which explains why their version of Mortal Kombat was less graphic than Sega's.

For its part, Sega had its own rating system. Sega's Videogame Rating Council divided its games into three age-based categories: GA for general audiences, MA-13 ​​for mature audiences, and MA-17 for adults. Mortal Kombat was rated MA-13. Night Trap and Lethal Enforcers were rated MA-17. Sega introduced the rankings in the spring of 1993, after receiving criticism for the graphical games released on its consoles. They also publicly encouraged other video game companies to rate their games. The suggestion infuriated Nintendo. They didn't buy the idea that Sega created their rating system as a way to inform parents and protect children. Peter Main, Nintendo's chief marketing officer, accused Sega of throwing up, quote, "smokescreens to justify the marketing of increasingly violent games." Nintendo also suggested that branding a game like Night Trap MA-17 actually made it *more* appealing to young children.

But regardless of Sega's motives, the ratings didn't have much influence. Many customers didn't even know the ratings, and those who did found the three-category system too vague to be useful. In short, parents had no idea exactly how violent a game was until they saw it for themselves. In their own rooms. And many of them didn't like what they saw. And that feeling wasn't just limited to a few angry parents. Researchers, advocacy groups and politicians from both parties were concerned. At the time, a growing body of evidence suggested that television violence led children to more aggressive behavior.

Many people were worried that video games would do the same thing. Maybe even worse. California Attorney General Dan Lungren argued that video games could be more harmful than television or violent music, since video games are interactive forms of entertainment. In a letter to video game industry leaders, he wrote that violent video games have a "dampening and desensitizing impact on impressionable young minds." As for the other side of the argument... well, video games didn't have many defenders. Even industry experts were concerned about how violent video games could affect children. But many wondered if government intervention was the answer.

They didn't want children to come to harm, but they didn't want censorship either. Public concern was growing and the industry's attempts to police itself were not working. Then, at the end of 1993, something completely unremarkable happened. A 9-year-old boy asked his parents for a copy of Mortal Kombat. They almost gave it to him, until the boy's father did some research on the game and became upset with what he saw. In fact, Bill Anderson was so upset that he discussed it with his boss, Senator Joe Lieberman. And that's where the

story

becomes much more remarkable. Senator Lieberman was alarmed by what he had heard.

He then he did something about it. Just in time for the 1993 Christmas shopping season, Senators Lieberman and Herb Kohl led a joint congressional hearing on violence in video games. They proposed legislation calling for a rating system that would help buyers evaluate a game's violence and sexual content. The senators were clear that they wanted the video game industry to create its own independent rating system, but if they refused, the government would intervene. Not everyone liked the idea. Some people called it censorship. And some argued that the industry was doing a good job policing itself. The other side was much more skeptical.

Many wanted video game producers to stop creating games that featured graphic violence. Others did not trust the industry at all. And it was that atmosphere of distrust, concern and demand for change that brought so much attention to the heated congressional hearings. During the hearing, a packed crowd watched the most violent parts of Mortal Kombat and Night Trap. Senator Joseph Lieberman held up the Konami Justifier for all to see as photographers took pictures. Researchers and advocacy groups testified that the video game industry was lining its pockets at the expense of American children. Nobody – least of all the senators – held back.

Marilyn Droz of the National Coalition on Television Violence told senators that the industry should not be allowed to regulate itself. She likened the idea to, quote, "leaving the troublemaker in charge of the classroom." Parker Page of the Children's Television Education and Resource Center testified that research on television violence showed that violent images on screen led children to more aggressive behavior, made them less cooperative and more fearful of the world outside their lives. homes. Page said that since video games were still relatively new and constantly evolving, there wasn't enough research to definitively show how they impacted children.

But he did say that the few studies available showed that violent video games had the same negative effects as violent television. As he concluded his testimony, Page delivered one final blow. PAGE: Video games that allow young players to engage in egregious acts of cruelty, misogyny, and inhumanity should not be portrayed, regardless of profits. NORM: But the hearing wasn't just about violence in general. Panelists criticized the industry for its depiction of violence against women and stated that female characters in video games were frequently portrayed as sexual victims or objects. And sometimes both. Eugene Provenzo, a professor at the University of Miami, said his research on the most popular video games in the United States showed that violence was an important issue.

He also noted that many games featured scenarios in which women were kidnapped. He noted that they *sometimes* kidnapped men too. But they were never rescued by women. But no one hit this point as strongly as Marilyn Droz. He talked about video games as an exciting new technology. One that, if done responsibly, could prepare children for the 21st century. He stated that in the early days of video games, boys and girls played them with the same interest. But as games became more geared toward boys, girls were left out. DROZ: Girls are being taught to dress Barbie dolls.

And children are being trained in technology. This has to change. As a mother, as a mother, as a woman, and as an American citizen, I say this must change. NORM: He noted that very few female video game characters had much control or power. Not long after senators saw the Night Trap footage, Droz looked around the packed room and asked a question. DROZ: I mean, would you want a teenage daughter to go on a date with someone who just watched or played three hours of that game? NORM: The testimonies were damning and showed a united front against the video game industry.

You might expect the video game panelists to be equally united. After all, they were on the same side. Good? The atmosphere changed when the video game leaders testified. As Sega and Nintendo representatives struggled to reach the moral high ground, they turned on each other. Remember, Sega had their own rating system, but it was vague and the general public didn't know much about it. Nintendo had the real advantage. Thanks to his guidelines, his version of Mortal Kombat was more family-friendly than the Sega version. And, as they were quick to point out, they had nothing to do with Night Trap.

It's equally important to consider *who* represented Sega and Nintendo at the hearing. Nintendo chose Howard Lincoln, who at the time was senior vice president of Nintendo of America. Lincoln was a talented lawyer who proved his worth during Nintendo's successful legal battle against Universal over Donkey Kong. Lincoln's testimony was polished. He spoke with confidence. He admitted that Nintendo wasn't perfect. But he maintained that he had and would always strive to create gamesfun and appropriate. His games would never include gratuitous sex or violence because Nintendo's own guidelines would not allow it. In a clear attack on Sega, he stated that Night Trap, quote, "simply has no place in our society." None of this freed Nintendo.

But what Lincoln said, and the way he said it, seemed to resonate with the senators. In contrast, Sega of America was represented by its vice president of marketing communications, Bill White. He seemed less comfortable than Lincoln. He occasionally stumbled over his words. He was defensive, and rightly so. Sega produced more graphic games than Nintendo, and Bill White was clear that he was in the hot seat. White's main point was that video games weren't just for kids. He noted that the average Sega CD user was 22 years old and that the average Sega Genesis user was 19 years old.

He maintained that adults also played video games and that over time the industry would attract more players of all ages. Although White made some good points, he found himself in an unenviable position. DORGAN: And honestly, Mr. White, I... you know, I read his statement and I honestly think he doesn't understand what we're talking about here. Let me tell you why. NORM: To say that the senators were skeptical of Sega's motives would be putting it mildly. Senator Lieberman called Sega's rating system, quote, "a fig leaf to cover many transgressions" and called on the company to apply some self-policing.

Senator Byron Dorgan pressed Bill White on the age categories of the classification system. DORGAN: And do you consider those, uh... over 13, mature? WHITE: There are three designations that the independent rating board chooses to designate the product. It's MA-13, appropriate for teens and older, but not for young children with parents... - But does it have the word "mature" attached to it? - Yes I think so. - And then the presumption is that those over 13 years of age are mature? - Yes. - Are you kidding me? - With parental discretion. - I mean now... - What are you thinking about? - The MA-13 ​​title. - that you're suggesting that– NORM: The senators even tried to use Sega's own policies against them.

LIEBERMAN: As always, Sega will not approve products that contain, A-1) material that encourages crime of any kind. Doesn't... creating a game and selling it that encourages a child to point a gun at a TV and rewards his or her success by increasing the gun's firepower encourage crime? I mean, we're all aware of this incredible outbreak of gun violence in our country. It's responsible? Let me put it another way: is it within the terms of the guidelines? NORM: Lieberman argued that Sega was marketing its games to adults and adults aimed at children. He proved his point by using a Sega brochure that contained a blurb for Night Trap along with blurbs for children's games, with nothing to distinguish adult games from children's games.

He understood it a moment later when he played a Sega commercial for Mortal Kombat. According to Sega's own rating system, the game was inappropriate for children under 13 years of age. But Lieberman said the ad's hero looked younger than 13 and the ad seemed clearly aimed at children. But no one took down Sega as forcefully or as effectively as Nintendo's Howard Lincoln. LINCOLN: Let me make just a couple more points. I can't sit here and let you tell me that somehow the video game business has transformed today from kids to adults. It hasn't been, and Mr. White, who is a former Nintendo employee, knows the demographics as well as I do.

Also, I can't let you sit here and buy that nonsense that this Sega Night Trap game was somehow only intended for adults. The fact of the matter is that this is a copy of the packaging. There was no rating for this game when it was released. The little boys bought this at Toys "R" Us and he knows it as well as I do. When they started to care about this game, they adopted the rating system and put rankings on it. But today, as I sit here, you can go to a Toys "R" Us store, or a Walmart, or a Kmart, and you know as well as I do that you can buy this product and no one, certainly no clerk in retail will challenge you.

NORM: Howard Lincoln also rejected Bill White's claim that Sega had no control over violent or objectionable advertisements produced by licensees. Senator Lieberman ultimately praised Nintendo for being, quote, "much better than the competition." Towards the end, Bill White was clearly frustrated. Sega was being painted as pure evil and Nintendo escaped unscathed. It was all too much for him. None of his arguments had been very effective. Showing side-by-side gameplay footage of Nintendo and Sega games, which featured similar levels of violence, didn't resonate as he expected. He needed people to know that Nintendo games also contained violent content. And he wanted nothing more than to take down Howard Lincoln a little bit.

Then White struck another blow. But thanks to an embarrassing slip, he didn't land. WHITE: I can also point out that Sega produces products for... a rapid-fire machine gun that uses the same technology, to our knowledge, with several games available. And they don't have any ratings on that product that suggest it's for adults. LIEBERMAN: Nintendo produces it, you're saying? - Yes. - Yes. NORM: The Congressional hearing turned the console war into a public spectacle. But it did more than bruise the egos of industry leaders. He also got them to publicly agree and move forward with a rating system.

LIEBERMAN: The best thing you can do, not only for this country but for yourselves, is to self-regulate. And believe me, not only will it be important for our children, but it will also be important for the credibility and success of your business. The congressional hearing drew a lot of media attention. Suddenly, the most violent parts of Mortal Kombat and Night Trap were in the public domain. Some people didn't like what they saw. "We don't need companies to put warning labels on video games, as they have now offered to do at the point of a senatorial shotgun, nor do we need another government entity to police the industry.

All we need is a little regulation. All videos The inventors of the game you should use your own kids' faces on your characters. So let's get personal, guys, let's put your kids at that four-way intersection and see how fast they swerve." Sally Kalson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. A week after the hearing, Toys "R" Us removed Night Trap from its shelves. FAO Schwarz soon followed. That same week, Sega announced that Lethal Enforcers would be available in software stores, but not in toy stores. In January 1994, Sega removed Night Trap from the market. Tom Zito, president of Digital Pictures, which made Night Trap, spoke.

He said the game had been unfairly attacked for a small excerpt of footage. He told the New York Times that "while certainly not an appropriate game for an 8-year-old, Night Trap is actually very benign and designed as a parody of a vampire movie." But his defense didn't seem to matter. All over America, people were excited about violent entertainment and wanted something done. "Imagine an intruder breaking into your home, grabbing your children, and forcing you to witness 8,000 murders and a hundred thousand acts of violence. A monstrous crime? Yes! A crime that would cause incalculable psychological damage to your children.

There is no doubt about it. "Wake up, parents! Chances are, *your* child is the victim I just described." Senator Earnest "Fritz" Hollings. On February 3, 1994, just a few months after the December hearing, Senators Lieberman and Kohl introduced the Video Game Classification Act of 1994. The bill would allow the government to create a five-member commission, appointed by the President from United States. United States, that would help the industry create a rating system. The industry was given just one year to unite or face government intervention. But working together was easier said than done. The Senate hearing had been tough. Sometimes it was just embarrassing.

Nintendo and Sega had always been fierce competitors. But their battle during the hearing took their animosity to another level. That spring, anger boiled over once again. It began with a news report that revealed that Nintendo had provided a congressional committee with a tape of the most violent parts of Night Trap ahead of the December hearing. Sega of America President Tom Kalinske spoke via press release. "I'm really surprised that Nintendo would so irresponsibly drag retailers and the entire video game industry through the mud in their efforts to slow our momentum." But if Nintendo was supposed to be embarrassed, it didn't work.

Sega may have been thrown under the bus, but Nintendo thought they deserved it. Nintendo felt that none of this (the public outrage, the government intervention) would have happened if Sega had simply kept graphic violence out of its games. Howard Lincoln wanted to respond in a way that perfectly summed up how much he felt about Sega. Then, he drafted his own press release. "Dear Tom, roses are red, violets are blue. So you had a bad day. Boo-hoo-hoo. All the best, Howard." Sega and Nintendo would never get along. But if there was one thing they disliked more than the other, it was the idea of ​​government intervention.

During follow-up hearings in Congress in March 1994, Jack Heistand of the newly formed Industry Rating Council announced that seven companies, including Sega and Nintendo, would comply with a rating system, just in time for the holiday season. What's more, ratings wouldn't simply appear on a game's packaging. The groups agreed to include ratings in ads and other marketing materials. They committed to an education campaign for customers and retailers and promised to make the ratings easy for customers to understand. They said the rating board would be independent and that they would seek public input as they finalized its rating guidelines and categories.

They also stated that there would be severe penalties for any company that obtained a rating fraudulently, for example by withholding critical information. But they stood firm on some issues. Jack Heistand told senators that the ratings board would not be in the business of regulating game content. In other words, they could give customers information about a game, but they wouldn't tell software developers what to include or remove from a game. When Senator Lieberman asked about going back and rating all previously released games, the group stood firm once again. HEISTAND: In total, there are probably four or five thousand titles on the market today and 50,000 points of sale.

For us to try to go back and rate those products, label all those products, it would put such a burden on us to accomplish what we're trying to do over the next six months that it's virtually impossible. NORM: The fact that so many video game companies were working together on a rating system was significant. Together, the companies accounted for 60 percent of video game sales. But senators wondered if that was enough. KOHL: As I understand you said, or maybe you can, uh... enlighten us, you don't, or you can't say today that you represent the entire industry. - That's right. - So isn't that going to be a problem that needs to be successfully addressed, once again, as we move toward our goal, which is to assure the American people that we have solved the problem? - Absolutely. - Isn't that a problem that needs to be addressed?

NORM: The group was powerful, but they couldn't do it alone. After all, what's to stop another video game company (one that wasn't part of the group) from creating their own unrated games? In a word: money. Everyone knew that some kind of financial disincentive was necessary for companies that wanted to sell unrated games. Circumventing the rating system would have to be not only morally irresponsible, but also financially irresponsible. They needed help from the biggest names in retail. And they got it. KERBY: Following the implementation of an industry-wide rating system, Walmart will only purchase video games that have gone through the rating process and received a rating.

Thank you. LIEBERMAN: Mr. Kerby, by Congressional standards, that was an unusually brief statement, but I would add that it was unusually significant. And I appreciate it very much. SULLIVAN: Once the industry-wide rating system is established, Toys "R" Us will also only purchase rated games. Thank you. - We're on a roll! - - Brilliant. Thank you. NORM: With the support of major retailers and major players in the video game industry, the rating system moved forward. When they met again in July, the Industry Ratings Council had a new name: Interactive Digital SoftwareAssociation. They also had more video game companies on board.

What began less than a year earlier as outrage over violent games was quickly heading toward a solution. At first, Sega proposed that IDSA use their rating system. But Nintendo did not agree. The idea of ​​using a competitor's rating system on their products was too much. And, as many people outside the industry had pointed out, Sega's rating system was vague and flawed in other ways. So the group agreed on a completely new grading system. LIEBERMAN: Today is a turning point in the battle to protect our children and restore some standards. Today, the video game industry announces the establishment of an independent rating system that promises to give parents for the first time a clear idea of ​​which video games are good for their children and which should be kept out of their homes.

NORM: And so the Entertainment Software Rating Board, or ESRB, was born. The independent group came up with five categories to rate the games, based on help from parents, researchers and child development experts. Early childhood, children to adults, adolescents, adults and adults only. This also included 17 content descriptors. Developers had to pay a fee and submit a videotape of relevant content to have their game rated by the ESRB. While this was all voluntary, console manufacturers could reject a title if it wasn't rated. As promised, the ESRB began rating games before the 1994 holiday season. And it couldn't have come at a better time.

During the July hearing, Senator Lieberman said that violence in video games was not going away. As proof, he disgustedly shared details of a new first-person shooter game called Doom. Senators were generally satisfied with the ESRB. They wanted the industry to regulate itself. So it was. In response, Senators Lieberman and Kohl shelved the Video Game Rating Act of 1994. Over the years, the ESRB has evolved with the industry. In 2005 they created the E10+ category and today there are 30 content descriptors. They have tightened their sanctions and created public awareness campaigns to educate parents. Since its inception, Senator Lieberman has called the ESRB's ratings, quote, "the most comprehensive in the media industry." But the ESRB is not the only one.

In Europe there is the Pan-European Game Information System, also known as PEGI. It was created in 2003 to help unify a number of national rankings into a single system. In 2002, Japan created the Computer Entertainment Rating Organization, which assigns games a letter grade A.B, C, D, or Z. An "A" rating means the game is suitable for all ages, while a "Z" It is for people over 18 years old. They also include content descriptors in the form of images. For example, a ghost icon means that there are horror themes in the game. While I think the public outrage over graphical video games was a bit overblown, putting in a rating system for video games was, in the end, a good thing.

There is nothing wrong with informing the public about what type of content a game has. And the ESRB has helped legitimize video games as an industry and form of entertainment. That's all for this episode of Gaming Historian. Thanks for watching. Gaming Historian's funding comes in part from Patreon supporters. Thank you.