GameStop VP Talks ESRB & AO

GameStop VP Talks ESRB & AO

September 21, 2007
As the recent Manhunt 2 controversy swirled, common wisdom held that major retailers wouldn't carry a game rated Adults Only. But, could it be that the retail side of the game biz is reviewing its position on AO?

Gamasutra recently sat down with GameStop VP Bob McKenzie at the GameStop Expo in Las Vegas to talk about the company’s history as well as the nitty gritty of the video game retail industry.  Of particular interest to GamePolitics readers are McKenzie’s thoughts on the ESRB and the possibility of selling AO-rated games.

Asked if the ESRB rating system is effective and well executed, McKenzie said:
Being a parent myself... I believe that it is the responsibility of the consumer. But I believe that it is our responsibility as an industry and as a retailer to educate the consumer that there are choices. That these things do mean something; for every game that is rated M, there is a reason that it is. We have put systems in place for any consumers who purchase M rated games, it prompts for an ID [at the point of sale].

Manhunt 2 was originally rated AO.  Would GameStop consider carrying such a game in its stores?
I think that it is an opportunity that we would have to look at on a case-by-case. In this situation, I'm glad that they went back, reworked it, and it will be M rated. I can't say that we would have supported it at AO, and I can't say that we won't.

You don't know all of the games, and their reasons, whether it's language or violence or nudity... that is where the consumer needs to know. 'OK, here are the choices, and do I really want my son or my daughter playing it. Is that OK?' Obviously it is if the parent buys it for them in the store. We won't sell it to anyone under 17.

-Reporting from San Diego, GP Correspondent Andrew Eisen

Comments

I read through most of the interview. Some questions I skipped over, but read some interesting things.

For one, Gamestop partners with publishers to sell the games in stores. If you don't have a good relationship with Gamestop, they might not sell your games. So Just because your game is not AO does not mean that Gamestop will carry it.

But it is nice to see retailers taking some sort of action on this front. Maybe we will see a change in the console manufacturers. But with them, it is more difficult. With the manufacturer, they have to license the dev kit out based on a design doc. Retailers get to look at the finished product. So while retailers get to look at the game as a whole including rating, the console manufacturers base their decision on faith. Sure they can deny the game after production, but they run the risk of losing that developer to a rival console if they don't change.
Wait a minute. There's porn on the internet???!!! Yeeee-haaaaah!!!

This just in...

GAMESTOP VP BOB McKENZIE WAS RUSHED TO MT. ZION HOSPITAL THIS MORNING, SUFFERING FROM DAMAGED GENITALS. DOCTORS REPORT HIS INJURY WAS DUE TO REPEATEDLY STRADDLING A FENCE.

Hate to be the cynic here, but sounds to me like McKenzie was playing to the gamer crowd a bit. My money says GameStop won't carry any AO games in at least the next two years. Any takers?

By the by, would be interesting to follow up on this story a year from now to see if anything has changed at GameStop.
Mr. McKenzie's comments were long on vascillation and short on conviction, unfortunately. But hell, no one can do anything until the console makers decide to license AO games, anyway. Once they do that, I don't care what the retailers do, I'll buy everything online if I have to.
I think it shows that maybe, finally, retailers are starting to see themselves properly as part of the industry.

To me, they are just as much a part of the video game industry as developers and publishers are... I would dearly love to see a lot more involvement by them in things. Unfortunately, my experience is that they tend to act like all they are there is to sell things that just happen to be games, when infact they are the front line troops of the industry, and responsible for much bad, or good, press.
"I can’t say that we would have supported it at AO, and I can’t say that we won’t."

couldnt agree more. if they are just going to use the AO rating as a code name for the almighty ban label then it should be dropped because it isnt a rating actual adults can use to help them understand the games they are buying when it serves that purpose. manhunt 2 isnt my type of game but just because i dont like it doesnt give me the right to block people who do like the series from playing it. either let people who are of age to play the game or stop calling the rating AO because its not.
While I think the “can’t say we would, can’t say we wouldn’t” line is a cop-out, I am encouraged by McKenzie’s claim that GameStop would examine carrying AO titles on a case-by-case basis. That’s much preferable than a blanket “we won’t carry AO games” policy.

If you don’t want to carry porn, fine (sorry Water Closet: The Forbidden Chamber). Recognizing that not every AO game is a hentai game is a step in the right direction.


Andrew Eisen
I hope they allow AO games and I hope the big 3 allow them sometime soon.
To expand on my previous point, the console manufacturers should do the same thing: license AO titles on a case-by-case basis.

Nintendo and Sony knew what was in Manhunt 2 so we know they had no problem with the content, just the rating. That’s a silly reason to refuse a license, no?

Just like with the retailers, if you don’t want porn on your console, fine. Just recognize that AO games are not necessarily porn.

Oh, and let’s just conveniently ignore the fact that any console that allows the user to browse the internet already has porn on it!


Andrew Eisen
Of course, let's also not forget that while the console makers don't want AO rated games played on their systems, PC systems accept them. And making two versions, an M rated and an AO rated version isn't unreasonable. Even the movie industry knows the advantage to offering to a wider audience.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
He's not taking a stance on the issue because he doesn't have to.
But all DVD players can play porn and unrated movies. No matter who makes it.
"OK, here are the choices, and do I really want my son or my daughter playing it. Is that OK?"

What the on earth...

What is it with wrong with these people? That's the wrong question. Why do they always mix-in kids in this entirely, obviously adult only discussion?

I just don't get it, must be an american thing. Please, for crying out loud, ask why a resonsible adult shouldn't be able to buy the game for himself Leave those kids out of the whole question. The game is not for them. Not. For. Them.
@ Tammer

Kids were mentioned because he speaking about parents choices by using the ESRB. Honestly, if you are single (18+) or married and childless and then ESRB proably won't mean all that much, if anything. He is speaking of using the tools (ESRB) and the companies (GameStop) to help parents make informed decisions. If parents want to buy there 15 year old BioShock when they know or were told that it is rated M, then that is the parents choice.

I found one of Mr. McKenzies comments a bit strange:
"You don’t know all of the games, and their reasons, whether it’s language or violence or nudity… that is where the consumer needs to know"

Actually, you would know if parents simply flipped over the box and and spent all of 2 seconds toread the ESRB rating. It spells out why the game was given the rating it has.
@ Tammej

The question he posed wasn't as irrelevant to the "real" discussion as a lot of people seem to think. If "the children" weren't a factor in this whole equation, there wouldn't be a problem to begin with. If console manufacturers didn't have to worry about the perception of "porn on their children's toys", they'd eat up the opportunity to sell more material.

Neutralizing the "child factor" would alleviate the biggest source of pressure for these console manufacturers to save face by wagging a finger at "adult" games.
The concept is simple but it gets muddied by those who think it matters:

Do you want to make money?
Do you want to satisfy a demand from the marketplace?
Is the demand high enough as to justify investment of time and money?

If there is a demand for a certain product and one wants to make money, then one would satisfy this demand.

Simple.

Who cares what the colours of the pixels on the screen 'represent'. Irrelevent and a waste of time to discuss.
Selling AO games should be as easy as keeping them behind the counter away from kids and only selling them to people who come in and ask for the title and show appropriate ID. It's simple and doesn't require any cordoned off areas in the shops. At the very least it is a start and gives adults the opportunity to buy games that they are allowed to. If this was done, then the ESRB's rating wouldn't be considered to be such a terrible thing on the PC versions. As has been said already, consoles are another matter and up for the big 3 to decide how to proceed.
If the game stores keep them behind the counter how will people know they are there??? They should have them on the shelves but ask for an ID. If Wal Mart can have unrated versions of R rated movies on the shelves then the game stores should have AO games on the shelves.
Yeah these AO games aren't for kids, but kids keep getting mentioned because the public perception is that video games are FOR kids. Once video games become respected as an artform, we'll see more people fighting for video game developers to create what they want to create.

There was a time when rock and roll music wasn't considered art, but just the work of the devil, and that it would warp kids minds.
ESRB is just censorship, plain and simple. If a parent doesn't know what to expect from looking at the front and back of a game cover than that is the parent's fault. If they can't figure out what the likely content is inside then there are deeper issues at work.

We don't need hand holding by some board with political agendas behind it. All it does is add a level of beauracray to gaming and sends money to one part of the community that should have no part in receiving it. Lawyers should have no part in this or perhaps they should put an "M" rating on a baseball bat since you can commit violent acts with it.

As Andrew said, only time will cure the populace of this silliness.
@Lorolin

You're forgetting a very importance point... if the ESRB wasn't around, we'd have some far worse then what it is now. People plead ignornace on the issue no matter what system is in use.

The ESRB is still an indepent rating group like the MPAA is. It is not a government afflicated organzation, they have no legal control or bounary. Even if it shows flaws at times, it's still easier to fall back on when it comes to informing people of game content.

You realize given enough time, if the industy didn't rate itself, the government would do it for it... which would result in a deeper censorship then anything the ESRB could do.

@Daneil

There's a social aspect to this, acceptance. When was the last time you heard someone viciously attack an unrated movie, not many I'm sure. Movies have left the scapegoat era and most people don't even give them a second thought about them being good or bad. Wal-Mart's no AO or NC-17 policy was created before the time of violence video games or unrated movies, and from my understanding (From working there) is that the policy has never really been revised other then required ID checks for those who appear under the age of 27 for unrated, R, and M-rated games.

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 11/08/09 at 09:02am
DarkSaber: http://tinyurl.com/yez7jyo
Posted 11/08/09 at 09:01am
DarkSaber: Oh for gods sake, the Gearbox pres is gobbing off about Valve again
Posted 11/08/09 at 08:53am
JDKJ: But cheer up, Austin. If the unemployment rate continues to double-digit as predicted for the next few years, your half-dozen stands a better than likely chance of returning to power.
Posted 11/08/09 at 08:46am
JDKJ: @DS: If he had added the line about "or hiring illegals aliens under the table to work as nannies," it would have been a completely perfect descripition. And, yes, it's about the same difference between a six and a half-dozen.
Posted 11/08/09 at 08:31am
DarkSaber: My god, that description makes them sound almost Republican. Still what did you expect, Obama is only marginally more left than republicans.
Posted 11/08/09 at 01:07am
Austin_Lewis: Health insurance, brought to you by the same kind of bureacrats who couldn't, in timely fashion, investigate the comments of any of the men Obama appointed Czars. Or their past. Or their history of not paying taxes.
Posted 11/08/09 at 01:06am
Austin_Lewis: Yes, and what a piece of crap it was. Arresting and fining people just because they don't make a personal choice to buy healh insurance, creating over a hundred new bureacracies, and worse.
Posted 11/08/09 at 12:24am
ZippyDSMlee: JDKJ:the only trouble is a bunch of witless hacks wrote it....its going to be a train wreck....
Posted 11/07/09 at 11:33pm
JDKJ: BREAKING: In a photo-finish at the wire, House passes health care reform bill. Relatedly, in a fit of pique, Austin Lewis kicks innocent dog.
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:27pm
ZippyDSMlee: man I got alot of junk and dup files too >< god I need orginization...and no not the knee capping media mafia kind :P
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:26pm
ZippyDSMlee: replaced :P
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:23pm
ZippyDSMlee: beemoh:hey its like 60GB porn,400GB anime 100GB games and crap I have took from all my DVDs, I hate waiting on dvds to install stuff..... oh and 40GB of my porn was in the found.000 folder...mostly corrupted.... least I got names of wut needs to be repa
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:18pm
beemoh: @Zip: ...and you'd have to spend all that time re-downloading that porn?
Posted 11/07/09 at 03:34pm
ZippyDSMlee: ggrrrrr......vista lost one of my hard drives and I had a heart attack thinking I lost 1TB of data....
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:58am
JDKJ: Which could be explained by both (a) and (b).
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:56am
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: You forgot C) the fact that, for some reason, every time he did something that would suggest he shouldn't be in the military, let alone an officer, higher ups ignored it or let it slide.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:51am
JDKJ: Part of the problem is, I believe, that (a) the Army had a lot of time and money already invested in him and which they were unwilling to simply write-off and (b) an increasing need for the type of skills and services he provided.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:48am
JDKJ: And that even if he was begging not to get cut loose, he was apparently a real good candidate for being cut loose, anyway.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:11am
JDKJ: @chada: And while Kennedy once noted that there's usually more than enough blame for everyone to get a slice, the possibility that the Army was unwilling to cut loose someone who was asking to get cut loose could be a factor.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:07am
ZippyDSMlee: *noms on his feet*..nomnomnomnom*droooll* ...wuuutttttt uuu looking at?
Login or register to post shouts