![]() | Entertainment Software Rating Board has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: April 13, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | A fact from Entertainment Software Rating Board appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 April 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
File:ESRB users interact.jpg
So I noticed that images such as the one on the right have been gone. Do we need to have content abou "Users Interact" and "Shares Info", or is that too trivial? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Entertainment Software Rating Board. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
This blurry raster image is outdated in that the ESRB have updated their icon descriptors in 2013. Just go to their homepage, and you will notice that their new labels have a different format from the image. I am not saying that the image should not be there; I am saying that there is a clean, updated vector version that can replace the image for benefits. This thread is just to raise the issue of the image. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Entertainment Software Rating Board. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Games rated E are actually suitable for those aged 6 and up. 108.66.232.14 (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Just for the sake of a sample, here is the country-by-country table from the PEGI Article:
Country | Status | Local system |
---|---|---|
![]() |
De facto use of the PEGI labels, no specific legislative basis or official support. | |
![]() |
PEGI is legally adopted and enforceable in the regions of Vienna and Kärnten.[1] In the latter region, USK labels are also allowed. Represented in the PEGI Council. | |
![]() |
Officially supports PEGI, but there is no specific legislative basis. | |
![]() |
De facto use of the PEGI labels, no specific legislative basis or official support. | |
![]() |
Officially supports PEGI and is represented in the PEGI Council, but there is no specific legislative basis. | |
![]() |
De facto use of the PEGI labels, no specific legislative basis or official support. | |
![]() |
Officially supports PEGI, but there is no specific legislative basis. | |
![]() |
Officially supports PEGI, but there is no specific legislative basis. | |
![]() |
Officially supports PEGI and is represented in the PEGI Council, but there is no specific legislative basis. | |
![]() |
Officially supports PEGI and is represented in the PEGI Council, but there is no specific legislative basis. | |
![]() |
In Finland, games with PEGI ratings are exempt from mandatory classification with national age symbols. Both classifications are enforced by the penal code. Represented in the PEGI Council. | KAVI |
![]() |
France is adopting legislation to make classification of video games with age labels mandatory.[2][3] Represented in the PEGI Council. | |
![]() |
Officially supports PEGI and is represented in the PEGI Council, but there is no specific legislative basis. | |
![]() |
USK system is adopted and enforced.[4] PEGI is not formally recognised, although PEGI labelling can be found on games along with the USK rating. Not represented on the PEGI Council. | USK |
![]() |
De facto use of the PEGI labels, no specific legislative basis or official support. | |
![]() |
PEGI is officially supported and age classifications are mandatory for video games by law. | |
![]() |
PEGI ratings are exempt from mandatory classification by IFCO, which adopts PEGI. IFCO is still legally empowered to ban certain video game content from the market. Represented in the PEGI Council. | |
![]() |
PEGI has been adopted by law as the mandatory classification system for video games in Israel.[5] | |
![]() |
Officially supports PEGI and is represented in the PEGI Council, but there is no specific legislative basis. | |
![]() |
De facto use of the PEGI labels, no specific legislative basis or official support. | |
![]() |
De facto use of the PEGI labels, no specific legislative basis or official support. | |
![]() |
Lithuanian legislation has adopted PEGI which is exempt from mandatory classification with national age symbols. Both classifications are enforced by the penal code as of Nov 2010.[6] | |
![]() |
Officially supports PEGI and is represented in the PEGI Council, but there is no specific legislative basis. | |
![]() |
De facto use of the PEGI labels, no specific legislative basis or official support. | |
![]() |
Officially supports PEGI and is represented in the PEGI Council, PEGI is the legally enforceable system for game classification in Malta since January 2016. | |
![]() |
De facto use of the PEGI labels, no specific legislative basis or official support. | |
![]() |
De facto use of the PEGI labels, no specific legislative basis or official support. | |
![]() |
PEGI is officially adopted and legislation is in place to enforce age classification in shops where video games are sold.[7][8] | |
![]() |
Officially supports PEGI and is represented in the PEGI Council, but there is no specific legislative basis. | |
![]() |
Officially supports PEGI and is represented in the PEGI Council, and there are intentions to support PEGI as a self-regulatory system. | |
![]() |
PEGI has officially been adopted by the Portuguese Classification Board IGAC. | IGAC |
![]() |
Not an independent country but a Canadian Province. Nevertheless, it is the only entity in the Americas to use the PEGI system. | ESRB |
![]() |
De facto use of the PEGI labels, no specific legislative basis or official support. | |
![]() |
||
![]() |
De facto use of the PEGI labels, no specific legislative basis or official support. | |
![]() |
Slovak media law obliges distributors to add national age labels to products (generally using stickers). | |
![]() |
Officially supports PEGI, but there is no specific legislative basis. | |
![]() |
Officially supports PEGI and is represented in the PEGI Council, but there is no specific legislative basis. | |
![]() |
Officially supports PEGI and is represented in the PEGI Council, but there is no specific legislative basis. | |
![]() |
Switzerland is preparing national legislation to make classification of video games with age labels legally binding.[9] | |
![]() |
De facto use of the PEGI labels, no specific legislative basis or official support. | |
![]() |
PEGI is the legally enforceable system for game classification in the UK since 30 July 2012.[10][11] Has official support for PEGI, and is represented in the PEGI Council. |
My suggestion is to create a similar table for this Article. For this new table, I recommend that we list Canadian Provinces separately, followed by single entries each for the United States of America and Mexico. The rationale for this is that Canada has all provinces except one (Quebec) using ESRB, whereas the USA and Mexico both use ESRB nationwide.
In order to fill such a table, however, we need information on the legal status of the ESRB system in each province and country. I have a feeling that in most territories AO is the only rating legally enforceable rather than strictly voluntary, but we still need sources on each Canadian Province (minus Quebec, which uses PEGI) and then the USA and Mexico.
Let's all hunt down such sources! Once we have the sources for the "Status" Column, we can then build the table. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
...It can't hurt to make it include sources that others have linked to in Talk. Admittedly not necessary for a Talk Page, but it can't hurt anything, especially when codes in my other New Section post created a bot-generated list anyway.
Tags: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]
Signed: The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
References
((reflist-talk))
to the thread which contains the referenced content - typically this might be just after the post which contains that material, as here; but if there are several such posts, putting it at the bottom of the same thread may be better. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
That was meant to cut off a tangent, not close the whole Section. Feel free to comment below here. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there a source for Quebec using PEGI? Its the standard for the European Union as far as I know, and if you walk into game stores in Quebec the rating on the boxes is ESRB and the broadcasting region is NTSC. Most of the games sold in the Americas have English, French and Spanish included as playable languages. Arkroyale (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Entertainment Software Rating Board. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
((dead link))
tag to http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=09f7b9c0-f538-495c-97df-5bbfd8faadee&sponsor=When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@ViperSnake151: You have twice restored the claim "As in the U.S., most retailers voluntarily enforce the ratings regardless" to the Entertainment_Software_Rating_Board#Enforcement section. I believe you are missing my point. I am not disputing the fact that retailers voluntarily enforce the ratings in the United States, but rather the claim that most retailers in the United States voluntarily enforce the ratings. This is clearly not a WP:BLUESKY claim because it is not easily verifiable what most retailers do. Neither do the sources corroborating the claim about Canada corroborate the claim about the United States from what I can tell. Neither does your response at User_talk:Betty_Logan#Re: ESRB. There are many voluntary ratings bodies around the world and most of them are not enforced by the majority of the retailers, therefore the article is overstating the claim. Yes, the ESRB might be mostly enforced voluntarily by retailers, but that is not the same as most retailers voluntarily enforcing the ratings. I believe you actually mean the former (which is corrborated earlier in the article) but the latter is unsubstantiated. If we just jiggled the words around a bit then the issue would be resolved. It's a very good article and I can see you play an important role in keeping it that way, so it would be great if we could make the wording accurate. Betty Logan (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The EC (Early Childhood) rating did not apply to any more games after 2012. The ESRB no longer lists it as a major rating on their Rating Information page.--MDPgamer97 (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Every other video game ratings board Wikipedia page seemingly includes images for the old icons that were used, usually with a beginning and end date. I'm not sure when they stopped using the old icons for the ESRB, but I feel that the old icons and especially the K-A rating, should maybe have images on this page. Should this be added, or is this a bad idea? MontztheMan 01:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The diff will look something like this that separates the existing and discontinued ratings rather than combining them under one table. I invite other editors to comment if they believe the proposed changes should proceed or if the existing edits are fine and do not require changing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.190.70 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I believe the descriptions per rating are good and accurate, but I would like to make some small changes which can be seen here. I am asking if I could advance with the proposed changes indicated by the diffs or keep the current wording? Also, should we add for E10+ rating about the rating being the most recent (started in 2005) and how it serves as a bridge between Everyone (E) and Teen (T)? Thank you. (I don't know how to leave a signature as an IP sorry). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.190.70 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
For the AO-rating description, do you believe the wording should look something like this?. The problem I see with the current wording "The majority of AO-rated titles are adult video games, and received their ratings for their graphic sexual content" makes it sounds like this rating is reserved for pornographic video games. Previously, I added to the table that three video games were due to obscene violent content to make it sounds like the AO-rating should not be seen as pornographic or violent, but the content is solely aimed for adults. Should we change it to what I linked, or do you think it's fine the way it currently is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.149.126 (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
It would appear that after having reviewed the U.S. Attorney's manual concerning the Sherman Antitrust act, that the ESRB would be an implementation of an illegal market allocation scheme which the courts have historically considered to be a per se criminal violation of the Sherman Antitrust act. have there been any legal challenges to the right of the ESRB to exist under antitrust law? If so, they should be covered in the article, because that particular area of law has significant impact on the industry. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Can you add former descriptors please? (e.g. Animated Violence). Cdmxm8807i8x (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
So, rather than just the rating symbol image, would it be worth adding a "front-and-back" picture of a video game case to show the way the ESRB information looks on an actual game? Mrman19 (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this edit by User:Masem and the edit summary "Those three countries [United States, Canada, Mexico] are north america": No, they are not. North America at the least includes Greenland, St. Pierre and Miquelon, and the Bahamas. By the usual reckoning within the seven-continent system most commonly used in the English-speaking world, it also includes Central America and the islands of the Caribbean. If the origin of the software to which the organization assigns ratings is restricted to the three aforementioned countries, then defining their scope as North America is an overstatement. Largoplazo (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)