self-

perpetuating cycle A self-perpetuating cycle

This isn't a coincidence — the marginalization of AO content is something that has been effectively institutionalized by all sides of the industry for the past two decades. It's a self-perpetuating, perceptually and financially motivated cycle that starts with how the ESRB defines AO content in the first place.

Officially, the ESRB says that an AO game contains "content suitable only for adults ages 18 and up. May include prolonged scenes of intense violence, graphic sexual content and/or gambling with real currency." It lists "Strong Sexual Content, Mature Sexual Themes, Nudity, Strong Language, Use of Drugs, Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Mature Humor, Use of Alcohol and Real Gambling" as potential triggers for the rating.

The age requirement between AO-rated games and M-rated games is just one year, but that separation has proven to be crucial for both console makers and retailers. None of them want anything to do with AO content. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all bar such games from ever appearing on their platforms. Since the trio requires its software to be examined and rated by the ESRB, this leaves zero wiggle room for any console game that seeks to go beyond what's acceptable under the M rating. Over on the PC, Valve allows certain unrated games on its popular Steam platform, but AO games are also nowhere to be found. Apple is notoriously prohibitive on the mobile side.

Retailers have shown the same sentiment. With the exception of online marketplace Amazon, the ESRB's U.S. retail partners do not allow AO games on their store shelves. This combined lockdown sets a ceiling on an AO game's potential profits by default, limiting any releases it could have to lesser-known outlets on PCs. In other words, the AO rating is more or less a financial death sentence. And in today's games industry, taking such a creative risk in the face of commercial isolation just isn't worth it for most. Even for the smaller independent developers that may be more willing to go after adult subjects without publishers monitoring them, losing so much retail support with their lesser resources could prove fatal to their ability to make games.

"I think there are a lot of different reasons [for why we haven't seen many AO games], depending who you are," says Miriam Bellard, whose independent studio No Reply Games released the erotic, AO-rated adventure title Seduce Me earlier this year.

"For a big publisher or developer, big companies tend to be more conservative and don't want to risk their reputations, or upset their employees, with adult content. For an indie developer with a day job, they have their professional reputations to consider. It's scary doing something that might offend current or future employers.

"For all of us there are the economic issues, the problems of getting funding and distribution. Even Kickstarter won't accept adult content. This is especially difficult for indie developers without a day job; we have to live off what we earn on our games, so doing something controversial is a huge risk."

Bellard knows that risk well, as her game was removed from the Steam Greenlight program last year for what Valve termed "offensive material." But instead of altering Seduce Me's vision — which has reportedly happened with initially AO games like Condemned 2: Bloodshot, Manhunt 2 and a number of others over the years — No Reply decided to carry on with the game even after it was stricken with the rating.

"[We stuck with the AO rating] for a number of reasons," she says. "We believed in what we were doing and wanted to make a game for adults. We were running out of money and couldn't afford to keep fiddling and making changes. And we just didn't realize how much hate we would get, and what the financial consequences would be."

Although the tiff with Valve allowed No Reply and Seduce Me to briefly make the rounds with the press, their popularity was ultimately short-lived, according to Bellard. "We naively believed that the unusualness of our content would make up for the lack of distribution channels and that we would succeed anyway through word-of-mouth," she says. "We were wrong."

According to ESRB president Patricia Vance, though, the AO rating doesn't restrict potential content on its own. "By and large, it's the audience that determines [a game's] commercial success and viability," she contends. "Publishing a commercially viable product sometimes requires making a few creative compromises in order to maximize its marketability. And that's true in every entertainment medium."

The AO rating is often discussed in terms of stifled creative freedom, but that doesn't really hold water. It's not as though a game developer is creating a game and the ESRB shows up wagging a finger, saying, 'You can't put that in your game or it'll get an AO.'

"If creative freedom is of the utmost importance, any developer or publisher is free to distribute their game online where marketplace constraints would not be in a position to influence their artistic vision. It's up to the developer or publisher to generate the demand for their product. And it's up to the market to respond. But freedom of expression doesn't guarantee the right to earn a living through one's art."

Vance says this isolation of AO content is something the ESRB cannot ultimately dictate. "We recognize that there are some commercial obstacles associated with publishing an AO-rated game," she says. "The reality right now is that consoles won't license AO games and retailers generally opt not to sell them. These factors are obviously beyond our control. But as providers of commercial products with brands to manage, it is their understandable right to determine the nature of the product they want to offer their customers.

"That said, this question is best directed to the console makers and retailers. Our job begins and ends with assigning the ratings we think will be most helpful and informative to the consumer and will best match their expectations about the age-appropriateness of content."