lultor said:
@quiqontcb
I understand the logic, what i am saying is that i disagree with it.
I dont think retailers and publishers should be looking to such ratings systems.
I would rather have a less forceful system as it should be consumers who pay attention to the rating not the shops that stock it and the game makers.
I never said they should give improper ratings or anything, though ratings policy do typicaly changes with the times.
You might of seen a lot of people complainning about violent games on the wii are too realistic when you do the actions yourself, whats the next phase of ratings? Rating based on wether a game has motion controls or not?
I might of explainned it badly but my whole point was id rather have consumers tend to the ratings not the businesses involved in gaming as this leads to indirect censorship, which in my opinion isnt any different from forced censorship.
On a side note why are people so distrustful of a government doing it rather then a organisation? |
That is based not on the system... but on the consumers choice. AO games don't sell so they don't want AO games.
If more people would buy AO games stores would stock them. People just don't buy them though. Even if it's just for the stigma of being AO that's not the ESRB's fault, it's the general populace's fault for making it as such.
Plenty of peole who don't care about M will flinch at AO or buying their kids an AO game. Your basically asking people to stock skunk flavored potato chips because occasionally people may want them. Even online distribution likely isn't going to make back the costs it takes to make two versions, and is going to actually cost you money as consumers get confused by their being two products out their and not buying it for their kids for said reasons.
It's just not very likely to happen.
