Considering that the ESRB doesn't even touch the game and just watches a video that shows game play elements. I think they could handle the larger influx of games if they lowered the price.

I read that Sony is trying to prevent all the shovelware that's plaguing the iphone/itouch app store.. Which, if this is the case, Then Good for Sony!!!

Yes but it might be funny if Apple ends up having to fall inline, how they have gotten away without ratings is pretty fishy. Look! pretty fishy! Swimming! Wait! no! now it's floating on it side. Silly fish.

I think my mom would do it for fifty bucks. Especially if it was one of those object finding games... -.-

As a developer I'm a bit shocked to find I've been financially supporting the ESRB all these years. I had naturally assumed it was a non profit organization with the children's best interests at heart. So much for that naievete.

M. they're rated M

R for Ridiculous

R for Rape.

Another example of our wonderful free market at work.

It's just a way of categorizing the violent video games from the games meant for porn. So most major retailers have an easy way to opt out from sell them in stores...

I think KI got the M rating because of Orchid's "fatality" where she opens up her shirt :)

Walmart WILL sell a Rated M game....as will other retailers....none to my knowlege will sell a rated AO game....as that would be the equivalent to selling porn which they don't do

From my understanding, the ESRB was formed only because there was a desire for a consistent cross-platform rating system. The FCC certainly pushed for this (along with a few legislators), but the board is independent and isn't a government organization. The reason why virtually all games are rated is that every major brick and mortar software outlet requires an ESRB rating for games. This is why the App Store can get by without them. Apple uses their own rating system, bypassing the ESRB nonsense altogether.

In essence, Sony has revealed a benefit to the App Store that most developers took for granted. Other articles mentioning the cost of ESRB ratings have spun the story to say that Apple will eventually be pressured into using ESRB's ratings, but I doubt this will happen. There's no way Apple would let another company skim off of their profits so easily, especially if there's no law to force it to happen. And, as much as people demonize the App Store, $99 to start up a business is dirt cheap. I'm pretty sure Apple is happy to keep it that way.

It's a form of self-policing. The conundrum for Sony is that if they don't require ESRB ratings for Minis then they can become a lighting-rod for criticism. Last thing they want is be on Fox news being trashed by Bill O'reily, or another congressman trying to pander to old soccer mom's that don't know any better.

As everyone has probably noticed, videogames are the scape-goat for societies deficiencies. ESRB allows the industry to say that they are responsible, or else, there is a real fear of government regulation and censorship of games. Which would be much worse. The ESRB is much better then the FCC.

However, Sony still needs to think about the market. Taking away restrictions may be the right way to go about Minis release. Or Developers/Sony could rate them themselves with a "ESRB-like" system. Giving some level of guidance to parents but circumventing the ESRB's $2,500+ fee for rating them.

The angle that interests is closed-versus open nature of the market place.

For a PC, no one's reviewing the game, right? Microsoft or Dell or whoever makes a product and then EA or Ambrosia or whoever make some software. The ESRB provides a service to retailers (perhaps arguably to parents) who need to know the content but don't want to be responsible for previewing each title before it can show up on the shelf.

On the iPhone (and, I thought on the PSP Go) there is no independent channel. Everything has to pass by the equivalent of the "Microsoft or Dell or whoever" on the way to the consumer, cutting out the Gamespots or whoever.

If Apple stopped reviewing titles then there would be a need for a gatekeeper, perhaps. But for now I think a developer has to attach an age rating and then Apple's reviews evaluate whether that is accurate.

Let's cut the parents a little slack, here. If there is not rating on the game case, parents would actually have to be researching each game to find out what the deal is, and they'll probably end up with inconclusive results (not all parents are into or know about video games). Also, no rating means stores will sell games to anybody.

I'm not saying the game ratings are perfect, but at least they provide some sort of benchmark. Some stuff falls into a gray area, but again, no system is perfect.

Parents are not laze. State actively supports rating systems. Because state is lobbied by business and business wants parents to spend more time on their job - instead of parenting. Parenting isn't profitable in short term.

Have read the explanation once somewhere on the net...

I think the slew of 8 year olds playing Gears of War is sheer laziness on account of the parents.

There's nothing over PG13 in Apple's App Store because of Apple's excellent approval process.

/sarcasm

I guess then Google Voice is rated X for all the nasty things that can be sent to a joint voice mail account.

Go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

I could have sworn that it was in some states...

@ChrisD.
Pretty sure its a store enforced policy, it would be next to impossible to police that.

I do remember being carded at a brick and mortar retailer once when playing a demo game they had setup. I felt bad/old cause a bunch of underage kids were watching me play. So you can watch you just can't play.

Ohh and Hook Em!!

Because awful games still make money.

Please name one? Seriously though video game stores have existed for what a quarter century. The stores will slowly die off and very few people will notice.

I agree $4 extra per title means all you have to do is sell 625 games to make up the direct cost of ESRB requirements.

I think they are doing just fine and need to stop their whining.

No shenanigans. Even with the discount, the ESRB charges $2,500 for a rating. In fact, Kotaku, which you've linked to, has a newer article discussing the Minis directly.

http://kotaku.com/5378438/psp-minis-pay-a-premium-for-esrb-ratings

You have to understand, $2,500 is a sizable amount when you think about the volume and the budget of these games. You can do the math, if you are selling a 99 cent game on the iPhone you will need to sell 2,500 copies before you pay for the ESRB rating alone- then you have the development budget to think about. The reality with iPhone games are that only a small handful sell in the tens of thousands on the iPhone, the PSP Mini logically will sell a fraction considering the userbase that buys DL games on the system.

The whole point of these Minis is to give homebrew style developers. We are not talking $250,000 budgets for minis or iPhone games, we are likely talking $5,000-10,000 budgets, usually made by a single person on his freetime.

The ESRB needs a rating system that gives discounts for games that have budgets $5000 or less.

The article you link to just links back to the original article over which I'm calling shenanigans. It says 'up to $2500'

After about 20 minutes of searching, I can't find any kind of fee schedule for ESRB ratings. Joystiq links to a GameDev.net post that says 'another' site says the fee is $2500. I found an article from 2007 discussing this exact problem for Wii games:

http://www.digitalbattle.com/2007/07/01/wiiware-developers-required-to-spend-2500-us-for-esrb-rating/

That article also mentions a $2500 fee, but doesn't say whether or not that would be the fee for a small-time title.

My question is this - what is the 'base' price for an ESRB game rating? If it's $2500, then there is already in place a discount for low budget games. For a small game, the rating fee might be only $500. That's still a lot for a single person, but considering getting such a rating could give you access to a market of several million more potential customers, it could be considered an investment. And at an additional $4 per copy, you'd only need to sell 125 copies to cover that cost.

Now if the '80% off' price is $2500, that seems a bit exorbitant, as that indicates the price for rating a larger budget game could be as high as $12,500. Absurd.

Even so, how many copies does the dev expect to sell? 5,000? 10,000? Even if the fee was the ridiculous $12,500, charging $4 per copy to cover an ESRB rating would cover said cost in just 3,125 copies sold. I agree that the cost of an ESRB rating should be passed on to the consumer, and it's fair to pass it on only to those who make said cost necessary, but $4 per copy is exorbitant.

While $2500 (assuming that is the absolute lowest price for a rating) would be a significant barrier for entry for a single dev writing games on the side, if you're in it for the cash then it's really just an investment. What business wouldn't spend $2500 to gain access to several million more potential customers?