IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
MDMAlliance said:
This isn't about what the content is, this is about the rating itself.
|
Well, that's just silly since the rating is based on the game's content and nothing else.
Still, I'm with your friend or whoever it is and firmly believe that an 18+ rating scares away less than it attracts.
Edit: As a European, this whole M vs AO rating is not something I'm very familiar with. Here we have 16 or 18+ and I have seen 18+ titles in all stores that sell games. If an AO rating makes a substancial amount of retailers not sell a game I can see why a higher rating would make sales decline.
|
Here's what he says: _______ said, pretending that ESRB ratings ever stopped anyone from playing a game. Or parents from buying them for their kids.
All I did was say that putting giant penises on characters in a game would achieve it a rating of AO.
I start talking about AO ratings, not M ratings until he brings up GTA. He later says this: Holy shit bro. Naked phallus stops no one from buying. Get over it
ESRB's ratings regarding male nudity have proven to matter shit in terms of sales. You were claiming that wasn't true, right?
Kids request it BECAUSE of the rating. Parents buy it to shut the kid up. Game sales. An AO, which would not necessarily happen, helps.
The guy then goes to compare male genitalia to boobs in games.