Why doesn’t China have a video game rating system?

To the government, a rating system means less control, not more.

Person holding game controller

Video game fans and developers in China have long called for a rating system.

Photo: Kelly Sikkema/Unsplash

More bad news for China's teen gamers: with summer break ending soon, Beijing just published the strictest-ever regulations to limit gaming time for minors. On Aug 30, China's National Press and Publication Administration declared that anyone under 18 will only allowed to play games between 8pm to 9pm on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

To enforce the new regulations, NPPA is asking game providers in China to block underage gamers from accessing those developers' own games, a move that would require identity verification technologies. It's much more complicated than the solution widely used outside China: a universal game rating system. So why doesn't the country have one already?

Video game fans and developers in China have long called for a rating system similar to those in the United States or Japan. Since 2004, many Chinese institutions, from state-affiliated industry associations to academic research centers, have tried to propose one that suits China. Yet nearly two decades later and with a $43 billion video games market, China is still only on the edge of having it in place, despite a government obsession with protecting children from video games. What gives?

The short answer is that while a rating system means more restraint on video games in the West, it would lead to the opposite result in China. Regulators there are accustomed to having strict control over any content being produced. A traditional rating system, usually based on voluntary disclosure, actually grants game developers more flexibility and enables uncertainty — the very thing regulators fear the most.

Meanwhile, both the regulators and gaming companies have come up with other ways to cut down children's game time to the extent that maybe adding a rating system is not going to have much impact now.

Unfinished attempts

For the past two decades, China's gaming industry has appeared to go in circles when it comes to attempts to develop a rating system.

Serious discussions started as early as 2004, when two separate government-affiliated groups took it upon themselves to research the system. One was led by the government-backed China Consumers Association, the other by the party-affiliated Communist Youth League of China. The latter released its draft rating system in November 2004, and it looked very similar to what gamers are used to today outside China: four levels from family-friendly to 18+, plus an extra level for games that are deemed "dangerous" and need extra monitoring but are still allowed to release.

It never went anywhere.

Then in 2010, the Institute for Cultural Industries at Beijing-based Peking University proposed its own comprehensive, 20-criteria rating system. In 2011,, a Communist Youth League affiliate website, started reviewing over 6,000 existing games using the criteria it developed. In 2019, the party mouthpiece People's Daily, along with support from major Chinese gaming companies like Tencent and NetEase, released another version of a rating system. But none of these proposals made it to the implementation stage.

The government only responded publicly to one attempt: In 2010, China's then Ministry of Culture (now called the Ministry of Culture and Tourism) told the media that it had no plan to replace the current approval system with a rating system. "Regulators have been conducting strict content reviews of online games, which is the foundation to guarantee the public and the society are served with healthy, beneficial online games," the Ministry's affiliate paper China Culture Daily quoted a ministry official as saying at the time. "This is fundamentally different from a 'rating system' and shouldn't be seen as the same."

"The government is not willing to let go of the [market] control," Zhang Chundi, gaming analyst at London-based research firm Ampere Analysis, told Protocol. He explained that most rating systems involve an industry association that designated age-based labels for games, but Chinese regulators are wary of transferring such power to a private organization.

Instead, in today's China, the government exercises strict control over the release of new games through a pre-approval system. In 2020, about 1,400 games were permitted to enter the market, of which only 97 were imports. Developers have long been complaining about the process, which can take several months and is seen as a black box. This is especially hard for independent game developers as the uncertainty and wait time can overwhelm a small studio with less of a financial buffer.

So when developers call for a Chinese rating system, what they have in mind is getting clear instructions on what is allowed for each age category. This would ultimately shift more agency to the industry, which is why the government opposes it.

In 2016, a Shanghai-based gaming developer even crowdfunded over 50,000 RMB (about $7,700 today) to sue China's content review authority over the lack of clear rules. The developer scaled back his plans after consulting lawyers, merely submitting a public letter to the State Council that laid out the claims of indie game developers. That effort also went nowhere.

New toolboxes

In the absence of a rating system, China has developed its own unique methods to keep children away from video games. It's one of the only two countries to have a state-ordered anti-addiction system — and Korea just decided to retire its "shutdown law" this week — that combines identity verification and back-end control to limit how long a child can play games each day.

This new regime started with a voluntary act by the gaming companies. In 2017, Tencent announced it would limit the play time of children under 12 to one hour per day and two hours for those under 18. Similar practices soon spread to most major game developers eager to show they were "doing their part" to protect children.

But a vicious cycle ensued in which underage gamers found loopholes in the system, media exposed them and companies like Tencent then announced the latest technology-enabled patch to fix it. Today, Tencent boasts using AI, machine learning, facial recognition and other advanced technology all to stop children from playing their games. It also released its first game, a dating simulation, that banned anyone under 18 to even play it. Yet it is still frequently accused of not doing enough.

The anti-addiction system has also grown from an operation discrete to each company into a centralized one managed by the Party's Publicity Department and connected to over 10,000 games available in China. It means teenagers who like to play games are always being watched.

Can this time be different?

Everything seems to suggest that China is now at its closest to finally having a video game rating system, even though it doesn't call it that.

In December 2020, the China Audio-Video and Digital Publishing Association, an affiliate to the government body that grants games approvals, released the latest iteration of a rating system. This time, there are only three categories: 8+, 12+ and 16+.

"I think this is definitely the one that will become the closest to an ESRB or PEGI style system," — the systems in use in the United States and Europe — said Daniel Ahmad, senior analyst at the Asia-focused gaming consulting company Niko Partners. "The key aspect here is that it's very different to the West because this system does not impact the content moderation regulations in place today. So a 16+ game cannot have anything that a normal 18+ game would have."

Over 350 games have been included in the trial of this system, the majority of which are mobile games. But while much anticipated, the latest stab at a ratings system is probably not what the game developers had hoped for. It won't replace the existing rigid content review process, and means little for underage gamers. The only group who may celebrate it is probably the parents, who can now point to a small label and tell their children: This game is not for you.

Update, Aug. 30, 2021: This article was updated to include new regulations released Aug. 30.


Judge Zia Faruqui is trying to teach you crypto, one ‘SNL’ reference at a time

His decisions on major cryptocurrency cases have quoted "The Big Lebowski," "SNL," and "Dr. Strangelove." That’s because he wants you — yes, you — to read them.

The ways Zia Faruqui (right) has weighed on cases that have come before him can give lawyers clues as to what legal frameworks will pass muster.

Photo: Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images

“Cryptocurrency and related software analytics tools are ‘The wave of the future, Dude. One hundred percent electronic.’”

That’s not a quote from "The Big Lebowski" — at least, not directly. It’s a quote from a Washington, D.C., district court memorandum opinion on the role cryptocurrency analytics tools can play in government investigations. The author is Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui.

Keep ReadingShow less
Veronica Irwin

Veronica Irwin (@vronirwin) is a San Francisco-based reporter at Protocol covering fintech. Previously she was at the San Francisco Examiner, covering tech from a hyper-local angle. Before that, her byline was featured in SF Weekly, The Nation, Techworker, Ms. Magazine and The Frisc.

The financial technology transformation is driving competition, creating consumer choice, and shaping the future of finance. Hear from seven fintech leaders who are reshaping the future of finance, and join the inaugural Financial Technology Association Fintech Summit to learn more.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Financial Technology Association (FTA) represents industry leaders shaping the future of finance. We champion the power of technology-centered financial services and advocate for the modernization of financial regulation to support inclusion and responsible innovation.

AWS CEO: The cloud isn’t just about technology

As AWS preps for its annual re:Invent conference, Adam Selipsky talks product strategy, support for hybrid environments, and the value of the cloud in uncertain economic times.

Photo: Noah Berger/Getty Images for Amazon Web Services

AWS is gearing up for re:Invent, its annual cloud computing conference where announcements this year are expected to focus on its end-to-end data strategy and delivering new industry-specific services.

It will be the second re:Invent with CEO Adam Selipsky as leader of the industry’s largest cloud provider after his return last year to AWS from data visualization company Tableau Software.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donna Goodison

Donna Goodison (@dgoodison) is Protocol's senior reporter focusing on enterprise infrastructure technology, from the 'Big 3' cloud computing providers to data centers. She previously covered the public cloud at CRN after 15 years as a business reporter for the Boston Herald. Based in Massachusetts, she also has worked as a Boston Globe freelancer, business reporter at the Boston Business Journal and real estate reporter at Banker & Tradesman after toiling at weekly newspapers.

Image: Protocol

We launched Protocol in February 2020 to cover the evolving power center of tech. It is with deep sadness that just under three years later, we are winding down the publication.

As of today, we will not publish any more stories. All of our newsletters, apart from our flagship, Source Code, will no longer be sent. Source Code will be published and sent for the next few weeks, but it will also close down in December.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bennett Richardson

Bennett Richardson ( @bennettrich) is the president of Protocol. Prior to joining Protocol in 2019, Bennett was executive director of global strategic partnerships at POLITICO, where he led strategic growth efforts including POLITICO's European expansion in Brussels and POLITICO's creative agency POLITICO Focus during his six years with the company. Prior to POLITICO, Bennett was co-founder and CMO of Hinge, the mobile dating company recently acquired by Match Group. Bennett began his career in digital and social brand marketing working with major brands across tech, energy, and health care at leading marketing and communications agencies including Edelman and GMMB. Bennett is originally from Portland, Maine, and received his bachelor's degree from Colgate University.


Why large enterprises struggle to find suitable platforms for MLops

As companies expand their use of AI beyond running just a few machine learning models, and as larger enterprises go from deploying hundreds of models to thousands and even millions of models, ML practitioners say that they have yet to find what they need from prepackaged MLops systems.

As companies expand their use of AI beyond running just a few machine learning models, ML practitioners say that they have yet to find what they need from prepackaged MLops systems.

Photo: artpartner-images via Getty Images

On any given day, Lily AI runs hundreds of machine learning models using computer vision and natural language processing that are customized for its retail and ecommerce clients to make website product recommendations, forecast demand, and plan merchandising. But this spring when the company was in the market for a machine learning operations platform to manage its expanding model roster, it wasn’t easy to find a suitable off-the-shelf system that could handle such a large number of models in deployment while also meeting other criteria.

Some MLops platforms are not well-suited for maintaining even more than 10 machine learning models when it comes to keeping track of data, navigating their user interfaces, or reporting capabilities, Matthew Nokleby, machine learning manager for Lily AI’s product intelligence team, told Protocol earlier this year. “The duct tape starts to show,” he said.

Keep ReadingShow less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories