How Does the ESRB Rate Video Games? 

How do you fax a vhs tape?

@@nygamery Yeah that is ALSO a question I have.

The guy who does the voice is the only 1 I respect at all fro. the esrb

@@nygamery They'd fax "screenshots" by fax, and considering that 99% of fax machines are black and white, means a lot toner / ink was was probably getting wasted, not to mention you wouldn't be able to clearly see details in the game due to the low resolution.

@@eginteractive So a black & white flipbook, I guess that can work. 🖨

I'm more distracted by his right arm being twice the size of his left

@@ramherrump maybe it's just distortion from wide-angle lens. but yeah, creepy

He has some deviation on one eye, I believe his left one, so he could have had some neurological injury or congenital problem that could have caused that.

@@TheBluestank I was specifically talking about his T Shirt. It almost looks like a pic of Tommy Wiseau

@@0RecklessAbandon0 I'm not 100% sure, but I believe it's a picture of Death from Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey

@@mikkelens - That's why it's such an interesting question. That mod coming to light caused a huge issue and resulted in GTA getting re-rated. Which meant R* had to change the physical packaging of all games already in stores or recall them then produce a new master with that content actually removed. The question of how ratings interact with user modifying games, accessing content that's not normally in the game space, etc is one of the more interesting areas of their work and one with the least clear answers currently.

He talked about it on his podcast

yeah but it wasn't, it was already in the game and then rockstar shut it. Then, the mod comes in

No modern game is ever complete at launch anymore.

Its already a thing it's called EA Early Access

How would they define that? I mean, for you, a "incomplete game" might be one that happens to have upcoming expansion content. For someone else, a "incomplete game" is one that is missing core, clearly stated features on release. The idea of a "incomplete game" would have to be clearly defined and that definition would probably not be what you PERSONALLY want it to be.

@@startrekmike His comment was a stab at the AAA games industry releasing crap unfinished products at launch like Mass Effect Andromeda and the like, not a serious suggestion.

@@i_fish6657 That is the best comment ever, thank you for making it.

In the end the day the standards are set by the ESA. Until the government forces these updated standards on to the ESA you will not see the ESRB changing. It is obvious that the industry does not want to self regulate on the topics you just mentioned since they make a lot of money out of them. Just like the first time a legislator must make them.

Seemed like the rating were more for parents than children

No, the ESRB is there to protect the AAA industry's profits and to avoid any true, independent 3rd party regulators. They give the illusion of oversight to the general public, buty they are the inmates running the asylum. At their heart, they do what's best for the AAA publishers / corporations, not consumers.

You nailed.

Ultimately the ESRB serves the interests of publishers, not the public. They only "protect" consumers because they want to maintain a buffer between themselves and government oversight.

The only problem is that they classify what is essentially gambling as rated E for everyone. But it's not even their fault. It's not violent/sexual or as it's called "pertinent content", so the publisher/developer can keep it out of the rating as it's not a gameplay mechanic. It's companies like EA, Ubisoft, and Activision's fault.

Well said. I love the channel's attitude of objective journalism without using outrage and drama to share engaging stories and accounts.

Nice try ESRB Also, as a journalist, you gotta put in the hard questions and not allow the person you're interviewing to deflect. Considering all the Noclip docs are paid with Patreon money, this just seems like a big waste. 44 minutes of literally nothing new, just a bunch of people trying to convince us they're "hip", even though they were still USING VHS tapes 10 years ago.

Pro-Corporate Propaganda, a puff-piece masquerading as an informative documentary and journalism. The video doesn't bother pushing back on the ESRB's ridiculous claim loot boxes aren't gambling *DESPITE THE FACT* it has been classified as such in *SEVERAL* countries, nor does Danny bother to point out the obvious *CONFLICT OF INTEREST* in an industry policing itself when profits are at stake (apparently money and influence via trade associations like the ESA shouldn't be regarded as a thing in the countries that don't see loot boxes as gambling). And when has the head of the ESRB *EVER* conflicted with the board of the ESA that is ALSO the board of the ESRB to demonstrate her *"INDEPENDENCE & AUTONOMY?"* A question Danny of course never asks. I hope Noclip loses patrons over this obscene and gross obfuscation of the issues and backstabbing of the everyday people that have supported his work.

Ratings are bullshit. I never cared for them and i couldn't care less for them for my children. Parents are morons. I mean how many movies has PG13 ruined? It all comes down to money in the end, not ethics.

Pokemon has slot machines. Do you say pokemon should be rated M?

Actually if its only for adults it would be rated A

does the game force you to gamble your money away? is the "gambling" addictive? if its not any of these things then it should NOT be rated [M] or [18+] let alone [AO] or really anything more than [T] or [12+] if your rating on the gambling alone. I don't think a Basketball game should be rated [M] or [18+] but [E-10+] or [7+] instead if it has any form of gambling...

@@lucasgreer1736 I'm pretty sure singleplayer Pokemon games didn't let kids gamble with real money. Unlike NBA, FIFA, and many more. Regulate lootbox/gambling systems. It's better for everyone, except for the greedy.

Is this comment section literally advocating for gambling in games like NBA 2K20? Serious?

@Lizardguy The odd thing about trading cards is that secondary markets allow for people to buy cards individually. You can have websites and stores selling individual cards to get around that gambling. I would say that card games like that are gambling, but since there is a way to circumvent the gambling in a way, it kind of works. The problem with lootboxes and digital things like that are there isn't that secondary market. The only way to get these things is from lootboxes, or a currency/buyback system designed by the same companies who sell the lootboxes.

@Azra Rillian Because the winnings are non-fungible. The government doesn't care about the negative impact this has on people, they only care about knowing where the money is.

@Lizardguy you're right, it's worse than gambling.

@Azra Rillian there are some countries that have banned loot boxes because of this issue. I'm not going to go into details about something you can easily Google yourself.

I also like how she is proud they have "Content Descriptors" (also pretty sure Australia was first)... but none of them are for "Loot Boxes" which are what people and parents are asking for now. Also the NBA2K20 rating didn't have Gambling Real or Simulated... because the classification review copy build in July 2019 was months before the trailer that showed them!!! Video game manufacturers are exploiting early submissions to classification board to hide planned content until release date.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

There are sometimes more blatant conflicts of interest with these private organisations than if a government agency rated the medium.

Blame EA

"online interactions not rated by esrb"

Dude gambling is ins sponge bob

Aragorn7884 I thought that was PEGI

@@mysterio1967 Both, but you are partially correct.

actually, the slot machine mechanic is not linked to any microtransaction, it's only for in-game reward

Cuckboii that’s not the problem, Pokémon red and blue got a higher rating for having simulated slot machines... why doesn’t the same apply here?

@@cooldead that's pegi, esrb gave pokemon red en E

Sadly it's all about "lootboxes" now... Though even that has somehow calmed down with nothing being done about it.

@@Kinglink update:LAWSUIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

She said they explained lootboxes to parents and their biggest concern was spending. Their solution, though quite underwhelming, was to put the in app purchases tag on the rating

What she said makes a lot of sense. Most parents don't understand the term but don't want their kids spending real money. That's the main problem. If there were loot boxes and no way to buy them with real money we wouldn't be here. Parents need to take in game purchases seriously.

I would call the loot boxes mechanism more appropriately as "extortion mechanics" like what mafia did back in the day. You know, asking for security money to make sure your bussiness works fine but in the end of the day they are the one that create that insecurity themselves. While in game, the extortion mechanism work whether by creating the problem of rarity of some in game items or by limiting its time to get, or making it expensive to buy in ingame currency so that it requires constant grinding, and or make it occur only 100.000:1 chances in the loot boxes you get,etc. until it test your passion and temper and then they provide you solution of the problem they created, by paying some cash to them... So, just think of it, isnt that extortion mechanics? Parents would understand it better with that term.

Yeah, I think this is fair. I think ESRB will do a good enough job once this concern becomes unignorable, but it's going to take external pressure to get there. There might be a need for a cultural shift away from ratings being purely for parents, towards ratings being for "consumers" as a whole in order to bring this about. Either way it's a fascinating documentary.

@Lizardguy Gambling is placing an ante of money in exchange for a non-guaranteed chance at receiving something of value. That something of value *can* be more money, or something you could convert to money, but it does not have to be. Individual local laws on this may vary.

I agree this should change, but these people didn’t define gambling. There are legal definitions that are entirely outdated.

@@Generic8864 what should they do, rate rocket league and fortnite M for gambling?

it's not gambling because of the fact that, the skins and stuff you get cannot be "sold back" as they say, in other words they don't have any real value, once you buy them the money stays as skins forever, and you can't get your money back, now if you could "refund" your skins and get more money than what you paid for THEN it'd be gambling

And corruption by getting paid off by bigger companies than yours, which seems to be the case here.

@@exyzt9877 So like gambling with no real potential benefits whatsoever besides you and other players seeing your cool skin or ability to pay to win?

Matt Skora they do, in game spending is labeled

Ekana Stone “in-game spending” is such a vast term, that’s not enough. That doesn’t differentiate stuff that you can just buy straight up from stuff like lootboxes where you pay for a random drop. And the psychological and ethical concerns are vastly different between those two things.

Just like the MPAA for the film industry

and with the greed of the corporations now games face govt regulation.....there's a sensation that comes to mind....it's on the tip of my tongue but what is it?? I wonder..... meh ....OH! yeah it's IRONY! it's ironic tha tthis is all happening now LMAO ^this has been pure sarcasm for everyone's entertainment

@@totlyepic and the government was going to step in if the industry hadn't "self-regulated." Did you watch the video?

Which often times can be a good thing, but not anymore. Looks like it really paid off for them that now they can run rampant on predatory practices with no repercussions.

Founded very quickly. I think thrown together was the term used

They genuinely seem interested in their job, but it also seems like they are subordinate to the capital that wants aggressive gambling allowed in children's games.

@@moredetonation3755 yeah, which is quite disappointing.

Games already have the "post purchases" label and parental controls already restrict it. It's not really a huge problem

Fifa is not for everyone it's pure gambling and dirty.

PEGI is in europe, but I agree. $$$

Documentary was highly interesting, enjoyed to watch it. It was a nice inside into a organization no one besides the Publishers knows about, and even they don't know much about the ESRB. I was kinda shocked when Noclip asked her about the Loot Boxes. She was baffled. It's like she wasn't prepared for this question. Yeah, I do think she don't have a proper answer why the ESRB and it's counterparts let companies like EA, Ubisoft and Acitvision slip through the radar. Her explanation was confusing and she solely relied that the platform holders regulating drops and contents of Lootboxes a little better now. There has to be a lot of work done. It almost sounded like she is fearing the big game publishers with their monetizations in videogames.

​@@TheAufziehvogel still haven't watched it, gonna do it soon. (this was more of a joke tweet) yeah, the rating boards are basically paid by the big videogame companies that's why they do baffling things like (in cvase of pegi, pegi 3 on nba2k20 with gambling). i am sure that most of the people below the executives on the ESRB and PEGI are just decent people but are probably influenced by their bosses on what ratings they give.

In Australia... NBA2k20 got the same general rating as PEGI and ESRB gave, the reason is as follows "On 1 July 2019, the Board (The Australian Classification Board) received an application under the Authorised Assessor Computer Games (AACG) Scheme to classify NBA 2k20, wherein a games industry assessor recommended a classification of G with consumer advice of ‘online interactivity’, having indicated in the written report that there were no classifiable elements, including gambling themes or elements, in the game. The Board is not required to conduct a full review of every report and recommendation received from an assessor and on this occasion, accepted the recommendation for a G rating, the consumer advice being ‘General, online interactivity’." That meant the classification board didn't see the game. The assessor made no report of gambling themes being present. The game was reviewed months before the "online gambling" youtube trailer was released. The interactive elements were simulated on an incomplete build or not present at time of testing.

There is something wrong with that guy and I'm not just talking about his crooked eye.

@@Shinkajo He doesn't seem real I mean, his history and all. A guy that likes Doom and also likes working has as a regulator and controller of wich fun game can or cannot a kid play, seems fishy

Benjamin Francisco Tapia Rostran you can like doom while still realizing that maybe it’s not the best for an 8 year old

@@kaibeasley5965 it's perfect, that's maybe the first time I tried Shadow of the Collossus or Jack and Daxter series, they all thought me so much, about games and life and steriotipes, it was my favorite media and got me into so much. Doom on the other hand I tried it in 2014, age 15, with the Brutal Doom mod, and live every part of it, the music, the action and all that helped me to get into PC shooters I would 100% teach my son Doom at that age or lower and also teach him what you should take out of games and the difference between games and reality. Being a bad parent is not an excuse to not teach your son the proper way to watch or play media and what constitutes their likes and dislikes

@@Shinkajo Not really, seems like a passionate guy who loves video games.

It's important to remember that the ESRB is about informing parents. Is there any situation where a parent would be ok with their child spending money in a game, but only if it's not lootboxes? What they did (say that there's in game purchases) makes more sense, since parents care more about the spending itself rather than on what you spend on.

​@@luizzeroxisYour point is valid. If I may, though, under another angle, two unadressed problems here is that, in online games, there is money spent without knowing for what, nor indicating the inconstant variable value of it, and even worst, what we spend for is never ours and will be eliminated some day, sooner or later. There should be some distinctions, even if we may wonder how, briefly...

Quite simply put, they aren't needed, especially at the rates they dare to charge and especially now that the Internet exists. Simply give all games a default M rating then set up a website where gamers can report game content and vote on each other's reports. On average, within a week of release all content for a new game would be reported and the parent can decide whether or not that content is okay for their kid. Parents themselves can even participate if they find something that no one else found. As is, the ESRB is way more of a development road block than it is worth.

@@isthe9484 - "just release things and let the crowd rate them after they hit retail" is a truly, truly terrible idea.

depending on the developer... it can range from being a humorous add-on fv to a complete nonsensical shitfest.... So either way, funny af to watch (although not to work with on the ratings side i assume)

Weird how Rockstar/Take Two were called out as "some of the most compliant publishers out there" by them, huh?

@@LockeTheCole they werent called out, danny put footage and your child mind was easily bought.

@@JG-ib7xk Or it was pretty damn obvious from what he said that he was referring to Rockstar and their many controversies so Danny put that footage in there. Footage that I didn't need to know who was being referred to.

I can not wait for his video.

I asked the Australian Classification Board why they didn't mention gambling themes/elements in their classification. It wasn't reviewed by them it was an independent assessor in July... the assessors reports made no mention of it either. Cause it was months before the "gambling" trailer hit youtube. I don't think the reviewers ever saw an early build of the game!

AngryJoe is histerical idiot, all the time

Not gambling by United States standards. Other countries have different laws regarding gambling.

Depending on its implementation, I find loot boxes mostly the same as Magic cards.

While I personally believe it is, ESRB doesn't cover the countries you mention. In Denmark the agency on the boxes is PEGI.

Europeans are the reason Pokemon games don't have the game corner anymore.

Welcome to world where ******* constantly whine about something and use KIDS as excuse. Just don't give them credit cards idiots.

@@JamesBond007Nejc Most people online who have a hard on for lootboxes probably coudn't get kids even if they wanted to lol

Until the day when politicians stop laying the blame of mass shootings to video games and characterizing mass shooters as having been trained by video games then we can have an honest discussion about gambling habits. The world you speak of has been around since the columbine shooting in ‘99 and since then there have been countless news reports attributing violent behavior to video games so can you really blame them.

turgger316 The classic “games cause violence”. If they got over it, the world would be a lot better. The only thing gaming that people on the news like is VR, but that’s VR used in non-gaming purposes.

@@aimwell8813 I know as a vr gamer they never talk about well done vr games just other vr less incredible uses for vr

Cheers!

You realize that nearly everyone who spends loads of money on sports games are full-grown adults, right?

I'm a parent... ...in The Sims.

Very few people are asking them to restrict content, but instead to rate it properly. Gambling is an adult-only activity. Studies have shown (see the UK regulator's findings on the subject) that loot box mechanics, if not directly gambling which really it is in everything but law, can cause addictive behavior. These systems are not being clearly and properly explained to a parent who can't tell the difference between an in-game purchase being a consumer friendly DLC and a predatory macro-transaction scheme. It is their job to explain this sort of pertinent information to parents, not to sit by and let publishers sell digital casinos to kids with an E for Everyone label on it.

I think if that was the mission they've already lost. The majority of parents will let their 8 year old play 13+ games at this point. The ratings are clearly out of touch.

@@cizd That's an interesting point. But on the other hand, they still provide useful information for parents. The ESRB ratings are suggestions for parents, not guidelines. If parents choose to let their kids play T-rated games, they're still looking at the ESRB T-ratings to make their decision.

@@cizd What the parents do after they're informed is a different thing. ESRB atm is doing nothing significant to inform parents about games rated E for everyone that have gambling in them.

It's more than a little strange, it's alarming. - So no, you're not incorrect, everyone is with you on that it shouldn't be overlooked. - They're just somehow pressured to do so, which smells like corruption or bribery.

Primo Mike Krahulik.

😂😂😂😂

Art.

E for everyone

Extra safe with no camel-toe or package.

Because he's (intentionally or not) making a propaganda piece out of fear of getting future documentary topics. He never presses anyone hard about anything they don't want to talk about because then the next documentary target might decide to say no if the previous one wasn't flattering enough. It makes these documentaries very toothless. See also the Fallout 76/Blades documentaries.

Cb4S 619 it is, but it’s rarely applied.

@@sloanj11 Funny enough they got rid of EC for that very reason!

The R18 rating came out in like 2013.

cheater87 I was telling a joke lol

the AO rating the US is almost never used anyway which begs the question: why haven't they gotten rid of it? Our ratings for TV still only go up to 17

@@Pendleton115now they rate anything R18+ and call it a day unless they were bribed or actually rated the game properly and if there’s anything sexual violence then they ban

Well yea; TV is literal surprise mechanics.

Rated L for Lies! :(

Are the ESA and ESRB really as separate and ESRB free from influence from the ESA as they claim in this?

@@LockeTheCole From what I saw, no. And I would bet the farm that influence has only grown over the last 10 years or so.

@@gametimewithunclejer Do you have any examples you can share about how the ESRB bowed to the ESA or publishers, or otherwise made a compromised decision due to the conflict of interest?

Got a link to it?

MichiganJack came here to write exactly this

And with a nice sack of cash handed to them by smiling executives along with a sly wink...

What are some games that you think the ESRB rated incorrectly?

@@hihihi1q23 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EcGZQDOOU6Y.html

As corrupt and easily manipulated as the ESRB is, it's borderline resplendent compared to the MPAA.

For what?... 2K21 is out and it's no different.

BTW I think that's the reaper from Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey on his shirt.

Well, working with VHS is a bit embarrassing. But it's possible that they don't want to share history like that too.

Because you cant cash out. The standard definition of gambling means you need to be able to cash out the money you have put in, which you can never do with loot boxes. You only ever loose your money with loot boxes, you never end up with more money than you put in.

@@JG-ib7xk The Steam marketplace would beg to differ. It could also be argued that the 'cash out' is the item you get from the box. Besides, that strict definition of gambling is odd. You have to be 18 to gamble because it's proven to be addictive. That addiction doesn't come from being able to cash out, it comes from the game itself. That 'one more spin, because I feel lucky'. That 'fear of missing out' if you don't try one last time. Playing one more hand because 'the dealer just showed ten ace's in a row'. That's the problem with gambling, not the ability to cash out.

@@TigerXGame - There's no definition you could put on 'gambling' that would include loot boxes that wouldn't also include baseball cards, magic: the gathering, Funko blind-boxes... literally every game ever created that had a random drop in some form. That's a big part of the reason this issue is complicated - the edge cases are many and no definitions cut cleanly enough to not massively disrupt many normal everyday behaviors or be completely useless.

@@Murderbits that's cute. I agree though. Why speak truth to power when they can take your cookies away and make your job slightly tougher. The notion that journalism is impossible without the subject of that journalism giving "access" is hilarious. Impossible, hell no; easier... I've been following Danny since he first started making 8 or so minute videos on his thoughts of different elements of game design for Gamespot. Anyone remember Gamespot? Did Danny need "access" for his research on those videos? If your answer to that is 'yes' then you need your head examined. My only guess is that this documentary (if you can call it that) was the easiest he's ever produced, and I would hope that fact isn't sitting well with him. Easier is never better. Easier means compromises were made. With my limited knowledge of their process, I would guess that this particular doc was filmed and edited over the span of a 3 day weekend. This wasn't a 'how game A was made' or a celebration of series B documentary, this was on a topic that is incredibly relevant considering what is going on with the government and other journalistic outlets being pissed at the ESRB for not doing their ONE JOB. This could have had some real substance, but the tone of this video made it seem like it could have just as easily been filmed and edited by the ESRB's own PR team, and because of how long I've been following Danny, that makes me real sad. I really hope that he addresses the tone of this video and the fact that all he had was softball questions, framed to make an organization under nearly as much scrutiny as when they were first formed look good. Why not even mention the biggest controversy in this organizations history? Part of your thesis at the beginning of the video was to determine whether or not the ESRB was actually doing their job. If you aren't going to even addresses what was in your own thesis, why put in that last 2 minutes where they openly admitted to putting the person with the biggest inflict of interest to a genre of game in charge of that genre's rating? What level of oversight did the ESRB have in the overall making of this doc, from questions asked, edits made to final product? Governments around the world are working right now to undermine the autonomy of the biggest entertainment medium in the world with an unsettling level of regulation and No Clip had an opportunity to frame this to show that (if they wanted to help the ESRB which I understand why they would, self regulation is optimal) the ESRB understands why they weren't up to task before, and these are the changes they're making to fix the situation to prove the industry can self regulate. But they didn't make that video. Like at all. Honestly, if I was a politician, this vid would be my rallying cry to regulate the ESRB and gaming with industry impunity. I'm sorry for the short novel, but the Crux of my argument is that this video did more harm than good. The one dude's boss told him to stop talking I counted 3 times, and he literally said "don't admit that" at one point.

New found respect? They not only gave a pathetic reply to the loot box question, they also admitted they rate games without even playing them. What is there to respect? These guys are puppets.

They have never seen this))) So how would they know?)

It seems that their intended and stated purpose isn’t to protect the consumers-people who play the games-but rather to provide certain info to parents, whilst protecting the industry from government legislation. They clearly have failed, since the government is starting to get involved out of necessity. But they’ve never served ‘us’.

you’re acting like consumers are mindless robots incapable of “protecting” themselves or making informed decisions. I think we’ll be just fine.

Do they have professors in community colleges?

Well, since their fees can run up to a million, I guess they'd like some compensation along those lines per game.

As much as I get it, these guys are mostly trying to stay neutral I think. The ESRB has come into a bad light more than ever lately, so I'm sure that affected some of the questions being asked. NoClip is pretty good, cant really shit on em.

The uk has pegi 15

@@spongebobplushiestuff8612 here in Brasil we have L(everyone), 10,12,14,16 and 18

@@plaguedoctorjamespainshe6009 nic3

@@spongebobplushiestuff8612 PEGI 16, BBFC had a 15.

The US TV rating system has you covered TV-Y(the equivalent of EC) TV-Y7(between E and E10+) TV-G(equivalent to E) TV-PG(equivalent to E-10+) TV-14(between T and M but mostly T) TV-MA(the equivalent of M) There is no equivalent to AO

@@FractalPrism. You can't win money. But you can win items that are pay-to-win and encourage and reward continued attempts. You can get junk, the equivelant to nothing, encouraging you to spend more. You can see what others are winning, enticing you to play more. You don't always get items that are useful, and you certainly don't get the items you actually want. It's gambling. There's no reason they couldn't just allow direct purchases. The only reason they didn't is because it's easier to get people addicted to *literal gambling*.

@@psybovine Being addictive IS an issue, and devs (or rather publishers) have been using game mechanics like progression, loot and XP for years to get that same result (and the way Ubisoft is recently doing in-game purchases can be even more problematic that most lootboxes). Yet Gamers usually don't see this as a problem, even if they're very angry about gambling since the moment they learnt people could spend money and win more than them using lootboxes (just look at all those comments saying the same stuff). Worse, they paradoxically tend to get very angry at the notion that game could become addictive. So what is it, addictive or not? Some keep bringing up TCG's because that's literally the same thing (playing those TCG's checks every point you made), and that never bothered anyone. It's obviously not gambling since children have been buying those for ages, yet it should be considered gambling when it's in a game and most of the time impossible to sell what you got in the box? Sure, some people can get addicted to Skinner boxes, but if you care about that, you should care about the core of the problem, being every major video game since the 2000's using Skinner box design, so being potentially addictive, even without in-game purchases. Fixing this would fix most of lootboxes and in-game purchases, but I'm not sure Gamers would want that since that also means less easy dopamine while playing video games. Oh and you should absolutely not hope that games use direct purchases instead, seeing as Ubisoft is actively building boring games with literal "time savers" that cost money. Because that's the same issue, but in an even worse game. (Buuut technically no lootboxes so Gamers are happy. Until they found out they need to buy their dark vador separately, of course)

@@psybovine, do you believe trading card games such as pokemon or Magic are gambling?

@@sighrelief No, and that's a common argument against lootboxes being gambling. The difference is that trading cards are physical, you can *trade* them, you can even sell them, so no matter what, you are *always* getting something worth having. They're also incredibly cheap. You don't hear about people going bankrupt from buying trading cards.

@@Fachewachewa Even though "time-savers" are bullshit, they're not as egregious as literal gambling in $60 games. The gambling in lootboxes are worse than Trading Cards. No one has ever gone bankrupt from buying Trading Cards, and you always get something that you can either play with, trade for more cards, or sell for cash. Lootboxes are a worse form of gambling because they are more addicting and give you literal trash 6/10 times to encourage you to buy more.

@@Murderbits You might be right, but if that is the case, what is the point of this type of documentaries? If I want to see friendly people chatting and laughing and talking about uninteresting, irrelevant things, I just enter a bar.

@@kaederukawa1123 what are you on about? This wasnt some attempt to bring down the esrb, it was them inviting danny in to talk to him about the process of rating games, that's it. Your acting like a child.

It's a documentary, not an investigative journalism piece. Stop expecting one.

@@Clavus There are questions that can be asked, respectfully, without being an investigative journalist. It's about getting answers instead of letting people dance around your question, without ever replying. That is important for any person who asks questions, documentarists, journalists and interviewers in general. This format is still based on asking questions. The quality of it greatly depends on the quality of the questions asked.

Yes there were missed opportunities, but this is also the only inside look that’s been had. I think everyone involved was just thankful to have this opportunity and they didn’t want to push too hard in case it got rescinded entirely. There’s still a lot of good info here, and in seeing how they avoid topics like loot boxes and such we can still get an idea of what’s going on.

Here in the US the rating for TV only go up to 17 (even for streaming)

also MPA and TV ratings on DVD's are very small (usually on the back)

It even worse if the ACB is also on the front cover with the big ass USK and small PEGI ratings, in Australia they put the description on the FRONT instead of the back. I’ve seen one with the PEGI and the game company logo had to be on top of the USK and ACB rating

CRATES BAD OTHER MICROTRANSCTIONS GOOD Idiots want crates gone because they hate them not because they give a shit about kids LEL

Games already have the "post purchases" label and parental controls already restrict it. It's not really a huge problem

What is similar, what different?

@@schwarztaxi The procedure is mostly the same, the game reviewers play the full game and pick out essential scenes for the rating to show them to the jury. They also told us the same about the rating system for digital stores and how it is used by many rating companies around the world :) The only major difference are the categories for the ratings, in Germany they are organized by age

speaking of Germany I noticed Interspecies Reviewers is rated FSK 18 there yet in the US it has an 18 + warning with isn't the same as the FSK 18...aparently since FSK 18 can appear on streaming but American 18 + is ONLY allowed on DVDs and Blu-rays! (even the streaming version of Interspecies Reviewers was censored down to TV-MA(17+)

Parents should watch their kids

@@iamaidansmith7542 yep. Because that is completely feasible. They watch their children 24/7 because that’s the only thing parents have to do. They don’t work, cook, have a social life at all...

I’m tired of parents saying games should be censored it’s their job to watch their kids I should be able to play voelint games if I want to don’t censor games that’s parents job not game studios