DLC CAN Carry Different Rating, Says ESRB

Last week I went on a little rant for myself in regards to the ESRB's policy of not allowing DLC to exceed the rating of the game it is intended for.

As it turns out, that isn't exactly true.

The ESRB forbids mandatory DLC updates from including content that would effectively change the rating of the game. Optional DLC, on the other hand, can carry a higher rating if the developer/publisher wishes to create such content.

While we can't expect any AO content for games like GTAIV due to the fact that (as Joystiq points out) none of the console manufacturers are likely to allow it, it does seem like publishers could get away with censoring their games to get a T rating (cutting out blood, gore, strong language and the like) and then making that stuff available as an optional download.

Basically a 21st Century version of the old Mortal Kombat blood code.

I really hope this means that World of Goo's profanity pack will hit the Wii after all...

[via Joystiq]

ESRB: DLC Can Not Exceed Original Rating

Speaking at the recent MI6 Conference, ESRB Head Honchita Patricia Vance declared that post release downloadable content (DLC) for a game must stay within the bounds of the original rating or else the game would face re-rating. DLC for a T-rated game that added blood and gore, swearing, nudity, and/or other such shenanigans would therefore be allowed, but the game itself would then be reclassified as an M-rated game, whether you purchase or download the DLC or not.

Honestly, I'm surprised they had to clarify this because I would've assumed this to be the case anyway. Now that it has been brought up though, it really seems like kind of a shitty policy.

The ESRB rates downloadable games, so why can't DLC for a game be individually rated in the same way? Such content could even carry a warning that downloading it will effectively raise the rating of the game. Should the original game have to carry that rating on its packaging in stores then? Should a web browser be rated AO because you can download and view graphic pornography through it?

All the current gen consoles have parental control features on them that can be set to block users from playing games of a certain rating and also to disallow users from downloading content.

As it is I still really don't see the difference between the M rating and AO rating. One says 17-year-olds and older can play it, the other says 18-year-olds and older can play it. Are we really splitting hairs over one year here?

Why not just make the M-rating 18+ instead of 17+ and then do away with the AO rating? So far, the kind of things that have caused games to get AO ratings are tamer than what you can see in an R-rated (17+) movie.

I wonder how the XBLA versions of Fable 2's pub games will be rated seeing as Fable 2 itself will likely receive an M-rating. If they are being used to promote an M-rated game, will they also have to be M-rated even if their content isn't on that level?

[Multiplayer via 1up]

Bionic Commando ReArmed Garners M Rating.

The original Bionic Commando for NES had one of the most memorable endings of the 8-bit era with a short scene gorier than anything Nintendo would typically allow even into the N64 era. Nintendo required all references to Nazism removed from the game, so how this scene (spoilers!) survived censorship is anyone's guess.

Regardless, the developers of the game's XBLA/PSN remake were faced with the difficult decision of keeping the scene intact (with even more realistic graphics), and staying true to the original, or cutting it to score a T rating. Thankfully, they decided that since the entire game was about staying true to the original it'd be wrong to cut one of the most important scenes and as a result the game will carry an M-rating when it releases later this Spring.

It's strange to think that Bionic Commando would've been rated M if the ESRB had been around twenty years ago. Although, realistically, the game most certainly would've been censored in that case. Makes you wonder what else has been censored over the years to get a lower rating.

[via CVG]

Darwinia Heading to XBLA?

I was just spending some quality time over at the ESRB ratings page and noticed that the critically acclaimed PC strategy title Darwinia has received a T rating for Xbox 360. This is the first I've heard of the game making a 360 appearance (although a quick search shows that there were rumors going back almost two years) so I'm assuming it's going to be an XBLA title.

I played a bit of the game a couple years back and came away impressed by both its cross genre gameplay and its minimalistic graphics (think Tron meets Populous) but I haven't been convinced by titles like Battle for Middle Earth II or Command and Conquer 3 that RTS games can be done well without a mouse and keyboard.

Perhaps not coincidentally, developer Introversion began a closed beta test of Multiwinia, the long awaited multiplayer version of the game just two weeks ago, so one has to wonder if the multiplayer component will make it into the 360 iteration.

Among the other titles rated in this ESRB update are Silicon Knights' long delayed and even longer in development action-RPG, Too Human (Rated T), and indie developer Jonathan Blow's time manipulating XBLA platformer, Braid (Rated E).