2 ms·
It's bad when it's enforced privately too. 'AO' is the rating for games equivalent to 'NC-17' for movies. You'd think they're be treated similarly, but no conso
by slavik81 11y ago
It's bad when it's enforced privately too. 'AO' is the rating for games equivalent to 'NC-17' for movies. You'd think they're be treated similarly, but no console manufacturer will license AO games for their platform, nor will most stores carry them. This has created a de facto ban. There are literally only 27 games that have ever been rated AO [1], because the only real choice a developer has is to censor the game enough to release at a lower rating.
Sure, movies do censor themselves for financial reasons too, but they may later release an uncut edition. For games, even that is simply impossible.
[1] http://www.esrb.org/ratings/search.aspx http://www.esrb.org/ratings/search.aspx
- mikeash 11y agoI'd say that's an argument for open platforms, not against ratings. I'd bet there are about seventeen million PC games that would be rated AO if they bothered to get rated at all.
- slavik81 11y agoI have no problem with ratings themselves, only with ratings enforcement. Open platforms would solve part of the problem, and I love the PC, but unfortunately closed platforms simply are a huge part of the industry today and for the foreseeable future.