Introducing a New System to Evaluate Online Toxicity in Video Games

The traditional method of rating video games, as seen with organizations like the ESRB and PEGI, focuses on evaluating the content and subject matter within the game itself. However, this approach leaves a significant gap: it does not assess the online community associated with the game. A recent report, 'Toxicity In Online Gaming', aims to address this gap by providing a toxicity rating system. This initiative, led by The Watch, Melanin Gamers, Leo Burnett, and The Angus Reid Group, seeks to create greater transparency and understanding of the online gaming environment. In an interview with GamesIndustry.biz, Kohl Forsberg, Executive Creative Director of Leo Burnett Canada, emphasized the importance of this mission, stating that it aligns with Melanin Gamers' long-standing goal of making gaming a more inclusive space for everyone. Forsberg highlighted the challenges faced by parents and caretakers in understanding the online gaming experiences of their children, especially with the current rating systems only evaluating gameplay and content. The new toxicity ratings are designed to provide an additional tool for parents, offering insights into the online community of a game, even after its launch. Forsberg believes that having access to such information is crucial, not just for parents, but also for gamers themselves, as it helps them navigate online spaces more safely. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the toxicity rating system, five popular titles - Call of Duty, Fortnite, Minecraft, Apex Legends, and Valorant - were rated based on six key factors: racism, controlled substances, crude humor, sexual content, violence, and gender discrimination. The results showed varying levels of toxicity across these games, with Activision Blizzard's Call of Duty receiving the highest rating and Minecraft scoring the lowest. Forsberg acknowledged that collecting and interpreting the data for these ratings is a complex and ongoing process, requiring significant input and collaboration with research companies and the gaming community. The initiative has received positive feedback from both the gaming industry and consumers, with many expressing appreciation for the increased transparency and awareness it provides. Over time, online gaming has been a source of concern for many, prompting the creation of communities like Melanin Gamers, which aim to foster more inclusive and safe spaces for marginalized groups. Forsberg believes that working closely with these communities has been essential in ensuring the robustness and relevance of the toxicity rating report. While the gaming industry has not been oblivious to the issues of online toxicity, with many companies implementing moderation tools and reporting systems, Forsberg sees the toxicity rating report as a complementary effort, encouraging game developers to strive for more inclusive and safe environments. He notes that the rating system not only informs the public but also incentivizes game creators to produce content that is accessible and enjoyable for a broader audience. As the report's impact continues to unfold, Forsberg remains optimistic, citing positive reactions from the ESRB, charities, and parents, who appreciate the initiative's mission and usefulness. However, he also acknowledges the challenge of ensuring the rating system remains a valuable and helpful resource, emphasizing the need for continuous improvement and perfection in addressing the complex issue of online toxicity.