Frequently Asked QuestionsQ: Isn't TIGRS just like the ESRB™ ratings?A: No. In fact, the two rating systems have very different goals. TIGRS can never achieve the level of respectability or credibility that the ESRB™ ratings have. This lies in the fact that the TIGRS ratings are unregulated, whereas ESRB™ ratings are governed by an external body. If you want an industry recognized rating on your game, then you should contact the ESRB™ about a rating. If you cannot afford an ESRB™ rating or choose not to use one for ethical reasons, then you are welcome to self-rate with TIGRS.Q: Why can I only choose Family Friendly, Teen Content, and Adult Content?A: One of the intentions for the new system was to simplify it as much as possible.Q: Why doesn't the generator suggest ratings?A: The last version of TIGRS took incredible heat for imposing specific ratings. I wanted to avoid that, this time. It's no small task to discern an age-appropriate rating for a game based on some radio buttons; it takes the human touch, and that's something I just don't have time for. While it's possible to rate a game Family Friendly and enumerate strong sexual content within it, I'd like to believe the developer simply wouldn't bother rating their game at all. After all, there is no requirement anyone rate their game, and so I imagine it sort of solving itself.Q: Why have TIGRS at all?A: As stated earlier, TIGRS is neither a replacement nor even an alternative to the ESRB™ ratings. Its purpose and function, while similar in effect, are very much different. By appealing to the good nature of people, I hope that TIGRS can facilitate a change among free and low-cost downloadable games developers and publishers that cannot afford to persue an ESRB™ rating. TIGRS is by no means necessary, but it's important that we show initiative and responsibility within our community if we want to be taken seriously.Q: Will it remain free?A: It's important to understand that I have never intended to charge anyone to use TIGRS, nor do I ever plan to. There are already many organizations that will rate games for money, and as regulated bodies, they will provide a great deal more credibility than TIGRS can.More importantly, a voluntary rating system could not thrive on a for-pay basis. Without an incentive to use the system, such as retailers refusing to cary unrated games, it is already pressing to ask a developer to volunteer a rating. Fortunately, it would stand to reason that no retailer would in their right mind require a voluntary, self-rating system. As soon as an entity requires a self-rating system be used, the credibility of the rating becomes suspect, thus eroding confidence in the brand, and effectively negating the requirement to begin with. In short, not only is it not -- nor has it ever been -- my intention to charge for such a service, its sustainability is not even possible. Q: Can we have other descriptors, such as...?A: Indeed! I'm keeping a list of suggestions and will include the suitable ones. TIGRS is always evolving and changing to suit your needs! |
|
|
Copyright ©2005-2010 Daniel Kinney. All rights reserved.
The TIGRS™ name, logo, and ratings are trademarks of Daniel Kinney. Their use is prohibited except as outlined in the usage guidelines. Legal Information |