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.


Netflix looks to expand gaming with major IP deals, Fortnite-like updates

Remarks made to investors and recent job postings hint at big ambitions for Netflix’s nascent gaming efforts.

Netflix may be taking some cues from games like Fortnite and Apex: Legends for its own video game initiative.

Photo: Cameron Venti/Unsplash

Two months after launching mobile games to all of its members, Netflix is looking to double down on gaming: The company told investors Thursday that it wants to expand its portfolio of games “across both casual and core gaming genres.” Recent job offers suggest that this could include both live services games as well as an expansion to PC and console gaming, and the company's COO hinted at major licensing deals ahead.

Keep Reading Show less
Janko Roettgers

Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.

Sponsored Content

A CCO’s viewpoint on top enterprise priorities in 2022

The 2022 non-predictions guide to what your enterprise is working on starting this week

As Honeywell’s global chief commercial officer, I am privileged to have the vantage point of seeing the demands, challenges and dynamics that customers across the many sectors we cater to are experiencing and sharing.

This past year has brought upon all businesses and enterprises an unparalleled change and challenge. This was the case at Honeywell, for example, a company with a legacy in innovation and technology for over a century. When I joined the company just months before the pandemic hit we were already in the midst of an intense transformation under the leadership of CEO Darius Adamczyk. This transformation spanned our portfolio and business units. We were already actively working on products and solutions in advanced phases of rollouts that the world has shown a need and demand for pre-pandemic. Those included solutions in edge intelligence, remote operations, quantum computing, warehouse automation, building technologies, safety and health monitoring and of course ESG and climate tech which was based on our exceptional success over the previous decade.

Keep Reading Show less
Jeff Kimbell
Jeff Kimbell is Senior Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer at Honeywell. In this role, he has broad responsibilities to drive organic growth by enhancing global sales and marketing capabilities. Jeff has nearly three decades of leadership experience. Prior to joining Honeywell in 2019, Jeff served as a Partner in the Transformation Practice at McKinsey & Company, where he worked with companies facing operational and financial challenges and undergoing “good to great” transformations. Before that, he was an Operating Partner at Silver Lake Partners, a global leader in technology and held a similar position at Cerberus Capital LP. Jeff started his career as a Manufacturing Team Manager and Engineering Project Manager at Procter & Gamble before becoming a strategy consultant at Bain & Company and holding executive roles at Dell EMC and Transamerica Corporation. Jeff earned a B.S. in electrical engineering at Kansas State University and an M.B.A. at Dartmouth College.

The Senate antitrust bill just created some very weird alliances

Democrats and Republicans have found the tech reform debate scrambles traditional party politics — and Tim Cook and Ted Cruz have found themselves chatting.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill on Thursday that could remake the tech industry.

Photo: PartTime Portraits/Unsplash

Strange alliances formed ahead of Thursday's vote to advance a key antitrust bill to the Senate floor, with frequent foes like Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Ted Cruz supporting the measure, and prominent Democrats including California Sen. Dianne Feinstein pushing back against it.

Ultimately the bill moved out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16-6 after a surprisingly speedy debate (at least, speedy for the Senate). Even some of the lawmakers who called for further changes agreed to move the bill forward — a sign that the itch to finally regulate Big Tech after years of congressional inaction is intensifying, even as the issue scrambles traditional party politics in a way that could threaten its final passage.

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.

Boost 2

Can Matt Mullenweg save the internet?

He's turning Automattic into a different kind of tech giant. But can he take on the trillion-dollar walled gardens and give the internet back to the people?

Matt Mullenweg, CEO of Automattic and founder of WordPress, poses for Protocol at his home in Houston, Texas.
Photo: Arturo Olmos for Protocol

In the early days of the pandemic, Matt Mullenweg didn't move to a compound in Hawaii, bug out to a bunker in New Zealand or head to Miami and start shilling for crypto. No, in the early days of the pandemic, Mullenweg bought an RV. He drove it all over the country, bouncing between Houston and San Francisco and Jackson Hole with plenty of stops in national parks. In between, he started doing some tinkering.

The tinkering is a part-time gig: Most of Mullenweg’s time is spent as CEO of Automattic, one of the web’s largest platforms. It’s best known as the company that runs, the hosted version of the blogging platform that powers about 43% of the websites on the internet. Since WordPress is open-source software, no company technically owns it, but Automattic provides tools and services and oversees most of the WordPress-powered internet. It’s also the owner of the booming ecommerce platform WooCommerce, Day One, the analytics tool and the podcast app Pocket Casts. Oh, and Tumblr. And Simplenote. And many others. That makes Mullenweg one of the most powerful CEOs in tech, and one of the most important voices in the debate over the future of the internet.

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editorial director. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.


Should your salary depend on meeting DEI goals?

Diversio just raised $6.5 million to use AI to fix DEI.

Laura McGee has spent her entire career thinking about diversity and business. At one point, she helped lead the Trump-Trudeau Council for Advancement of Women, working with the prime minister and president to build a plan to grow the North American economy through diversity. During that time, she kept hearing from CEOs that they cared about diversity and wanted to improve, but that they had “no data and no metrics.”

That was when she decided to build Diversio: a platform that makes data collection, as well as acting on it, “super simple.”

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma

Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol, where she writes about management, leadership and workplace issues in tech. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at


Why low-code and no-code AI tools pose new risks

The low-code trend has come to AI, but skeptics worry that gifting amateurs with Easy-Bake Ovens for machine-learning models is a recipe for disaster.

The same things that make low- and no-code AI so appealing can pose problems.

Image: Boris SV/Moment/Getty Images

“No code. No joke.”

This is the promise made by enterprise AI company C3 AI in splashy web ads for its Ex Machina software. Its competitor Dataiku says its own low-code and no-code software “elevates” business experts to use AI. DataRobot calls customers using its no-code software to make AI-based apps “AI heroes.”

Keep Reading Show 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