Evidence or not, what he's talking about is likely to happen in some form. There are games for the Android platform, and some of them have objectionable contents - not objectionable to me, perhaps not to you but to a potentially significant part of buying public. Blood, violence, the usual stuff. It won't be long until someone notices the "objectionable" ones are indistinguishable from the rest at Android Market, so parents don't have a way of telling whether or not a game is suitable for their kids. Ratings will be the remedy. This is just a repeat of what has already happened on other platforms, you don't have to be clairvoyant to expect this with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Obviously, whether ratings come tomorrow or in two years, or how much they will be remains to be seen. I don't expect them to be free though. Also, not promoting unrated games would be a natural thing to do for Google. Why would they want to promote potentially dodgy stuff that can get them into trouble and cause significant damage to their and Android's image? Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if unrated games end up banned from the Market after some time (just speculating here, although again based on experience from other gaming markets). On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Lew <[email protected]> wrote: > Binxalot wrote: >> >> There's nothing in writing from Google that games will not be promoted > > So you have no evidence whatsoever. > >> >> on the marketplace without a rating just rumors. - but - there is no >> other reason to suspect that the new rating system as it applies to >> mobile phones would be different than the one for desktops and >> consoles. Why would it? It’s the same content, just a different > > What system is that? Now you have to provide evidence that such a thing > applies to desktop games, and how it affects the very different Android > marketplace(s). > Your "evidence" for a claim even you admit has no substance is another claim > for which you provide no substance. >> >> distribution platform. So yes, when this announcement is made then > > I'm sorry, "when this announcement is made"? You can't prove a conclusion > by stating the conclusion itself as evidence. > That's a logical fallacy,. > >> >> there will be two types of games - games with a rating and games > > You're wrong, there won't be, not in any manner that justifies your attempt > at FUDwords.. > >> >> without - and like on all other platforms the hopes of getting your >> game in to a mainstream outlet would require an upfront cost of $800 >> for a rating. It couldn't be anything other than that or console game > > Baloney. > >> >> developers and other game developers would cry fowl at having to pay >> two fees for the same rating on two platforms. Also all of the mobile > > More nonsense. > You were asked for evidence, not more wild assertions based on your first > unproven one. > Unproven? Hell, not even supported. > >> >> companies involved would have to accept this agreement or be seen as >> allowing children access to violent games by customers / competition, >> and if they accept the terms of the ESRB mobile rating system then >> there's no addition need for more useless legislation from the >> government. > > >> >> In the end the small developer loses, I can pay $800 for a rating, it >> would take me months to save up for it, but in the end I have to now >> make up the loss of the rating cost and then after I dig out of that >> hole if I'm lucky. Only months later would I see a profit from my game >> on the store. Then we'd still be fighting against the mega AAA titles >> which now litter featured marketplace. >> >> Also this goes even further because now we have a breakup of the >> android marketplace with Verizon and Amazon both pushing their own >> separate app stores which all have a separate submission process and >> hoops to jump through. > > Since you provide no evidence, much less proof, of your thesis, only spin > more wild paranoid fantasies when pressed for evidence, I m led strongly to > my own conclusion - that your thesis is full of crap. > Otherwise you'd've responded to the call for evidence that, for some reason, > no one else but you has ever seen. Likely because it doesn't exist, and > your claims are so far beyond fallacious as to land in tin-foil-hat > territory. > -- > Lew > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Android Developers" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
