I find it hilarious that the ESRB is getting scourged for being the wall against child exploitation. This is merely the electronic form of tobacco, and alcohol prevention. The problem was and still is that these corporations are trying to market their products towards under aged consumers. Thus we have independent boards that have the purpose of trying to prevent this. The ESRB is no different.

The console market was and still is to a large part based around the child or teen consumer. The controllers have small buttons for a reason. The games that are violent or mature in nature are actually advertised towards young children that are easily manipulated into the purchase for the violence and the mature situations. These are not geared towards adults. They look adult to attract children.

Parents sadly do not appreciate ratings in the least. They merely buy what little Johny told them to buy. They would not buy smokes for their kid, or alcohol. They would not set up Johny with a playboy subscription. However they will let Johny play a game where he gets to rape women, solicit prostitutes. Murder the innocent. Torture the innocent. Someone has to take up the slack of incompetent parents. Someone has to protect children. Especially since children are being vigorously courted.

The ESRB is not keeping these games out of your hands. The console manufacturers are. They do not allow adult games on their systems. They do this, because they are selling explicitly towards the youth market. There is no adult console yet. Once there is a adult console this will not be a problem, and with the sku differentiation there should be one at some point.

This being said the developers gripe, because they want to create graphic games for small children. They are not griping about the console manufacturers blocking adult games. They know ultra violent mature games sell better to children. The more graphic they can make a game the more units they will sell. Yes it is that insidious. Consumers gripe ignoring the fact that this is a child welfare issue. You are playing with children guys you need to accept that their welfare is more important then a lust for blood.

You want Adult games on your console you have a say in that. You are a customer and especially if you subscribe to a service you have some say. Petition Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo to permit AO games on their system. Present a plan to keep those games away from children. I think it can happen, but many adult players are not making themselves heard.

The truth of the matter is the ESRB is the good guys looking out for child welfare. Game designers are often looking to exploit those children. They are like predators taking advantage of naive parents. We might need manufacturers to split the markets apart at some point. This is the argument that nobody is going to bring up especially since it is far from self serving.

@ceres: In my opinion too, it was the most stupiditest things i have ever heard in such cases. So, they want GTA for more younger people, basically meaning the idea stays the same?

@Topic: Ok. The ESRB rated the game. Am i right here? So what's the problem. It wasn't too violent to be banned. Manhunt 2 didn't get banned in the US, by ESRB.
Just the console makers don't want AO games to their consoles.

That whining about violent games not getting published and demanding that they should do so, is just pure BS, it sounds like someone on a skid row whining that he should be released, because he "wanted to do so". I don't think that when developing to Sony and Nintendo, Rockstar was unaware about the fact, that the console manufacturers don't allow AO games to their consoles.
About the double standards, how many games have been banned by ESRB? And how many movies have been banned?

@Happysqurriel: Well i don't completely agree with your trauma center example. If you are a normal adult, it doesn't affect you in a way you are meaning. Well if you are a normal adult, you don't play "murder simulators", or enjoy them. They may have effect with people under 25 (up to 25, brains are in a constant change).

@Ares: Dictatorial world? It's called capitalism.
Edit: @Dodece: Very good post, that's something i have been telling in few gaming forums i tend to visit. Especially that hypocracy among the games publishers. They want to release as mature game as possible, but still for some reason, it needs as low rating as possible.

@Happy,

I really think you are missing what I am saying. I am not disagreeing with you about recognizing that it can set people off. I am only saying that the ESRB is not the answer here. The answer is responsible parents and loved ones who don't just abandon these disturbed people. Thus my analogy at the end. As far as harming people psychologically...I really can't subscribe to this sort of belief that you can fundamentally change a person's morals and values by letting them play a video game.

I would actually be happier with a law that got rid of games ratings and required that anyone under the age of 17 not be able to purchase any video game. That type of situation forces parents to deal with their kids gaming habits and removes groups like the ESRB from putting taboo ratings on games and allows adults to make these choices for themselves. Then the market comes into play and tells these companies what is too far. Honestly though most people will find my idea here extreme..and I agree it probably is extreme, but I do find it preferable to the current situation which I think is even more extreme.

If you want to get a gaggle of mothers together and protest a game in front of a walmart that is one thing, that is consumer voices speaking out against the content. But when you have a group of 3 people who slap cookie cutter labels on a box and that information will follow the game for its life and possibly make or break it's sales...well I think that is just wrong.

@Sqrl: Then how would parents know, that what type of games to buy for their kids?

If you would limit the games only for over 17, there would be 2 options left, from which other would indeed protect kids.
1. It would kill the industry.
2. Parents would buy games for their kids.
In option 2, effect would be even the opposite, now parents wouldn't have anything to know what kind of game are we talking about. They would need at least 18 (AO, in US) to parents notice anything. And after that, we would be in option 1.

This argument doesn't hold water. For one thing., when I was younger (old enough not to get into R rated movies). I watched a ton of them without getting carded because I had a friend who worked at the theater and just let me in or if he wasn't working the other employees would just let me through. Supposedly there is supposed to be a control mechanism in place but it's flawed just like the control mechanism for Video Games. You can't jsut randomly say that one way works better than another when it is technically the same method for control. Besides most movies make it to the home market either signifigantly altered by (director's cut or unrated versions) with scenes that were deemed to graphic to make the theatrical release.

 The control method that needs to be excersied and is not because of either laziness, ignorance or both is PARENTAL.  Parents need to be restricting what games and movies their children partake in not developers, ratings boards or console makers. That's the whole reason we have ratings in the first place, to provide a guideline for parents[/] and consumers to decide what is appropriate for them.

 The sadest part is Americans, of which I am a part, are not willing to take responsibility for their own actions and like to blame shift until they are blue in the face. They think that it's the responsibility of corperations to make appropriate products so that they can buy whatever is on the market for their children without thinking twice about it, which in effect create Parents out of big business and government. When you think of it like that, all Americans are children ane are not mature (meaning responsible for their own actions) to handle even a mature rated game.