It has been confirmed that 'Grand Theft Auto VI' (hereinafter 'GTA 6') came close to being refused classification during domestic rating reviews in South Korea. In the first review held by the Game Content Rating Board (GCRB) on September 10, the voting result was deadlocked at 3 votes for Adults Only (19+, hereinafter Adults Only) and 3 votes for Refused Classification. After two decision postponements, 'GTA 6' received an Adults Only rating by an 8-to-1 vote in its third review on October 16.
According to the 'GTA 6' rating classification meeting minutes obtained by Inven on the 12th, concerns among gamers prior to release about a domestic refusal of classification were not baseless rumors. Throughout all three reviews, committee members clashed over out-of-context genital exposure and the legal grounds for refusing classification.
Beyond simply determining the rating for a single major blockbuster, the proceedings exposed the lingering challenges facing private rating deliberation all at once.
Two Postponed Decisions: The Key Issue Was 'Out-of-Context Genital Exposure'
The rating classification application for 'GTA 6' was submitted on September 1. When the first review on September 10 resulted in a 3-3 tie between Adults Only and Refusal, the committee chose to postpone the decision following a recommendation for revision instead of reaching a conclusion. A playable build was delivered to the committee only on September 28 due to security concerns. The second review on October 2 postponed the decision again, citing the need for "thorough play-testing." A meeting scheduled for October 8 did not take place due to a lack of quorum. In the third review on October 16, the rating was finalized with 8 votes for Adults Only and 1 vote for Refusal. The content descriptors assigned were Sexuality, Violence, Crime, Drugs, and Language.
The reason the game came close to refusal was not violence, but sexual content. What committee members took issue with was frequent male genital exposure appearing in the background without any sexual context. The consensus was that depictions of violence, crime, and drugs were not significantly different from 'GTA 5'. In 2013, 'GTA 5' received an Adults Only rating with content descriptors for Sexuality, Violence, Language, Drugs, Crime, and Gambling.
Behind the debate was an amendment to the regulations. Prior to the September 2025 revision, rating regulations classified instances where "genitals or other private parts are not fully exposed, but suggestive bodily exposure is excessively depicted" as Adults Only. After the revision, this clause was changed to "where suggestive bodily exposure is directly and specifically depicted." The criterion under which genital exposure automatically led to refusal of classification had been relaxed. 'GTA 6' served as a test case for applying this relaxed wording to a blockbuster title for the first time.
The issues extended beyond sexual content. Because refusing classification is an administrative action that effectively blocks a domestic release, committee members repeatedly pointed out that clear legal grounds were necessary. It was noted that the handbook used for judging sexual content refusals holds no legal force, and there are no refusal criteria for crime and drugs at all. The limitations of verification also came under scrutiny—specifically whether the committee could realistically review content spanning over n hours for the storyline alone. Additionally, the burden of South Korea being the sole country to refuse classification while 10 overseas rating boards had already assigned adult ratings was raised.
The final conclusion was Adults Only. However, official documents do not clarify how the recommendation for revision issued during the first review was handled. Committee members were mindful that this decision would set a precedent for future games. Proposals were subsequently raised to amend regulations regarding out-of-context genital exposure and to establish internal guidelines.
1. First Review on September 10: 3 Votes for Adults Only vs. 3 Votes for Refusal
During the first review, committee members discussed the level of sexual content for about 30 minutes. At that time, the committee had not yet received an actual playable build. Key statements from committee members are summarized below in meeting-minute format. The remarks have been edited from the original text without altering their underlying meaning.
Arguments for Refusal
Member A: Genital exposure isn't entirely prohibited, but it has never appeared this frequently without context. We've allowed genital exposure to some degree when contextually justified. However, we've never granted a rating to out-of-context genital exposure like this, even outside of explicit sexual acts. Usually, in cases like this, we issued a recommendation for revision.
The level of sexual content is definitely much higher than in the previous title. Under the old rating regulations, any genital exposure resulted in automatic refusal. The wording was softened slightly in the recent revision to allow some exposure when contextually necessary. I don't believe this level of genital exposure is acceptable even now.
Arguments for Adults Only (Approval)
Member B: According to the rating classification guide, refusing classification requires that overall sexual acts—including depiction of body parts such as genitals, vulva, pubic hair, and anus—be expressed specifically and explicitly. In this game, scenes with heavy exposure are not particularly sexual. Conversely, exposure is restricted during actual sexual scenes. We must judge this comprehensively.
This game has stronger criminal elements than violence in its content. However, since there are no regulations for refusing classification based on criminal elements, I believe it fits the Adults Only level. Drugs are also depicted specifically and explicitly, down to player controls for inhalation methods. I consider this quite problematic, but without refusal criteria for it, we have no choice but to pass it.
Member C: It's true that criminal elements cannot be used as grounds for refusal. Setting that aside, compared to 'GTA 5' rated by GRAC, it's hard to say the depiction of cruelty, crime, or drugs has gotten worse. If we respect the ruling on the predecessor, not much has changed other than sexual content.
Member A: Since the rating regulations are a higher-level norm than the guide, shouldn't we follow the regulations?
Member C: Even considering that point, compared to the previous game, it's difficult to argue that elements other than sexual content have become significantly stronger.
Member D: If we respect the previous title, ratings will be issued worldwide and media articles will come out. If South Korea alone holds back, there will be a burden attached to that.
Member C: Even so, we should consider whether gamers actually feel sexual arousal from frequent male genital exposure. From the perspective of gamers playing this title, and considering that our society tends to be somewhat more lenient toward male exposure, we must carefully think about whether this truly reaches a level that stimulates sexual desires.
The vote resulted in a 3-3 tie. Member E summarized: "The vote came out 3-3 between Adults Only and Refusal. It is ambiguous whether the exposure results from in-game interaction or occurs as background content regardless of player action." The committee opted to postpone the decision following a recommendation for revision. The committee conveyed the reason for postponement to the publisher and asked if they intended to make revisions.
2. Second Review on October 2: Postponed Again for 'Sufficient Play-Testing'
According to progress report documents, a playable build was delivered only on September 28 due to security issues. The review researcher played the game focusing on key issues from the Monday afternoon of the second review week until the morning of the meeting. Since the publisher stated that completing just the story campaign takes over n hours, the researcher explained that it was impossible to finish the story within the review window. The report added that because it is a game with high player freedom, hidden elements are difficult to locate with certainty unless disclosed by the developer.
The researcher's play-test report formed the basis for evaluating sexual content. Most genital exposure scenes appeared during one-off missions or as background elements within missions, without leading to sexual interactions. Due to the expansive map, the location containing exposure scenes was found only after requesting maps from the publisher multiple times. Once there, no sexual interaction was possible beyond attacking another character, ending with the player character being arrested by the police. The researcher also presented reference cases of other games that received ratings despite containing genital exposure.
Play Verification Issues
Member E: This is a sensitive game, so I wonder if it's okay for us not to inspect elements beyond what the publisher disclosed, and that is our biggest burden. Ratings have been issued by seven overseas bodies, but we don't know what lies outside of what the publisher disclosed.
Member C: If a rating is granted, I'm worried that elements we failed to discover might become a societal issue. Conversely, if we don't grant a rating, criticism will arise that we refused it without thoroughly examining everything. We must review this as carefully as possible.
Member F: For other games as well, we don't review by playing through every single scenario. If there are missed parts in this 'GTA', the fault lies with the publisher for failing their reporting obligations. It is practically impossible for the committee to play through everything just to issue a rating.
Arguments for Refusal
Member D: I don't think gameplay differs much from 5. Only the graphics improved and content expanded. What caught our attention is that there is too much genital exposure. It feels like the publisher keeps pushing the line. With every new entry in the series, the issue is whether we permit that line or not.
Member A: There are likely other games with exposure that received ratings. However, there is a considerable difference in detail and frequency. The guide dictates refusal even if only a silhouette is shown. Here, too, it's just photos without interaction. If it were only a nude resort, one could argue it's not obscene. But there are other explicit scenes. Explicit scenes involving the main couple aren't grounds for refusal in themselves. However, seeing this kind of exposure alongside those scenes makes it hard to view it as mere black humor.
Member H: The core principle of refusing classification applies when bodily exposure or sexual acts are depicted explicitly or excessively so as to disrupt social order. By that standard, the current bodily exposure is sufficiently explicit and excessive.
Member B: Exposure doesn't occur only during character creation or special cases. It's an area visible throughout gameplay. Looking solely at the submitted content, I doubt we can issue an Adults Only rating unless standards change.
Arguments for Adults Only (Approval)
Member F: The content level is indeed intense. However, current standards target cases where sexual context or obscenity is prominent. When refusing a rating, the guide is important, but legal provisions are even more critical. Since there are statutory provisions for refusal in the law, we must examine whether the content matches what is specified there.
Member E: We must carefully look at how much these scenes occupy out of the overall content. Since it's a game with player freedom, these are elements players can avoid if they wish.
Legal Grounds for Refusal
Member F: Even if we determine ratings up to Adults Only using guidelines, refusing classification is not a matter of assigning an age tier—it is a major exercise of authority that blocks market release. We cannot look solely at our own standards; we must examine whether we possess legal grounds to restrict that right. We must also determine whether we can claim we didn't restrict rights beyond the refusal standards specified by law.
Member C: In past lawsuits over refusals or revocations, specific statutory provisions relied upon had to be explicitly cited. If we issue a refusal, responding merely that 'it violates rating classification criteria' is insufficient; we must conclude which specific article of the law it falls under.
Member E: If we issue a refusal rather than an Adults Only rating, we must secure that legal logic to a reasonable extent.
Overseas Ratings and the Burden of Being 'Sole Refuser'
Member E: The reason Phase 2 of private transfer is being carried out in late October is precisely to align realistically with overseas standards rather than enforcing excessive rating regulations. If ratings are being issued abroad while South Korea alone refuses, it creates a burden.
Member D: If this game fails to get rated only in South Korea, it will become a massive issue. Globally, we would be the sole country where a rating isn't issued. Had they developed it based on the standard of 5, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But they keep pushing the line. Given that approvals have been granted in other regions, even in the Arab world, it puts us in a dilemma. Violence was originally the main issue for this franchise, so in the past, violence was the criterion we judged it by.
Member C: Whether we refuse or issue a rating, we must reach a decision with the justification that we reviewed it in as much detail as possible.
Member E: Refusing classification blocks the release. News articles will be published whether a rating is granted or not, so whether we played through it sufficiently is most important. Once articles surface, defending the decision falls on the committee, so researchers must review thoroughly for us to defend it. Refusal is the maximum authority we can exercise, and we must bear that responsibility. If simply feeling uncomfortable becomes the center of judgment, it cannot be defended later.
Regulations and Precedents
Member B: Further review is necessary, but if a rating is indeed issued, we should use this opportunity to consider revising regulations that cite simple genital exposure as grounds for refusal. If we refuse, there is no need to change regulations. But if we issue an Adults Only rating, it makes sense to amend sexual content regulations so that genital exposure without sexual context can receive an Adults Only classification. However, I am not sure if that aligns with our legal system.
Member C: I hope we proceed cautiously. This is not something that ends with rating a single game. If a rating is granted, it also sets our direction for games submitted afterward. If necessary, we must update the standards.
Member E: We plan to hold an industry advisory meeting in Seoul in mid-October regarding the guidelines. Although scheduled for public release in late October, they were drafted internally without external input. It is right to hear feedback from business operators at least minimally and make applicable adjustments before releasing them.
The committee postponed the decision once more, stating that further play-testing was required. The meeting on October 8 was not held due to a lack of quorum.
3. Third Review on October 16: Adults Only Rating Approved 8-to-1
All nine committee members attended the third review. Ahead of the session, the progress report outlined key considerations, beginning with Article 3 of the Rating Classification Regulations—which states that "rating classification aims for international universal values"—alongside status updates on overseas ratings. As of October 16, 10 rating authorities—including North America's ESRB, Europe's PEGI, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, South Africa, and Brazil—had granted adult ratings to 'GTA 6'. Saudi Arabia and the UAE assigned ratings of 21 and older. Japan's CERO had yet to issue a decision.
Legal grounds were also compiled. The progress report specified that evaluation elements in the handbook used for judging sexual content refusals were developed internally using reference materials from GRAC, carrying no legal or regulatory force. As legal grounds for refusal, Article 22, Paragraph 2 and Article 32, Paragraph 2, Item 3 of the Game Industry Promotion Act, along with Article 44-7 of the Information and Communications Network Act, were reviewed. Next to the Information and Communications Network Act provision, a note was attached reading "Needs verification for applicability."
The researcher reported findings from additional play-testing on the build. No sexual interaction was possible during genital exposure scenes, and no scenes showed higher levels of harmfulness than the previously received footage. Scenes raised as problematic in overseas leak videos—specifically instances where a character was stripped completely naked or where the camera could be manipulated to view genitals—were not observed in the current build.
The researcher classified 'GTA 6' as an action-adventure game rather than a game intended for sexual acts. Scenes where male and female protagonists build intimacy leading to sexual activity could only be watched like cinematic cutscenes, displaying exposure up to the breasts with no genital exposure. A reference title presented for comparison also featured background genital exposure, such as a nudist village, and had been released domestically in Korea. However, the researcher noted that the frequency of genital exposure was clearly higher in 'GTA 6'.
Arguments for Refusal
Member A: Suppose we allow background genital exposure in adventures or RPGs considering genre characteristics while taking a conservative stance only on explicitly sexual games. I worry that background genital exposure might then appear frequently in future RPGs.
Arguments for Adults Only
Member B: Perspectives vary by individual, but a game previously submitted for content modification felt higher in suggestive content because it actively pursued explicit scenes, even though the nudity was covered up.
Member C: It appears they intentionally obscured genital exposure in sexually suggestive scenes while permitting exposure in background settings.
Member D: Games are developed with a target audience in mind anyway. Titles that lacked such elements won't all suddenly gravitate toward this direction. Rather than over-extrapolating, it's better to evaluate this game on its own merits.
Member E: Unlike assigning an age rating, refusing classification is an administrative action, so we must state explicit legal grounds, and I understand there are relevant court precedents. Refusing based solely on rating classification regulations is invalid because those are internal administrative processing rules. Finding explicit legal grounds is what concerns me.
Member F: Taking this case as an opportunity, how about establishing internal rules—similar to films—to judge simple genital exposure without sexual expressions at the Adults Only level?
Member G: Determining whether something is obscene inherently involves subjectivity. I think each member can make their own judgment.
The voting result was 8 votes for Adults Only and 1 vote for Refusal. Even in the final review, a dissenting vote for refusal remained to the end. The content descriptors were finalized as Sexuality, Violence, Crime, Drugs, and Language. Fear and Gambling, which had been marked as harmful content items in the preliminary review report, were dropped during committee evaluation.
The game publisher had requested that rating classification results be kept confidential until the upcoming release date on November 19. Prior news of the rating decision had effectively been a leak.
4. What Changed After the Recommendation for Revision?
'GTA 6' is set for release on November 19. However, how the recommendation for revision issued by the committee in the first review was processed remains unconfirmed. According to progress reports, following the 3-3 vote on September 10, the committee informed the publisher of the reasons for postponement and asked whether they intended to make revisions. What response the publisher gave and which scenes were actually modified are not documented in subsequent meeting minutes or progress reports.
The records from the third review also fail to clarify whether changes were made. The researcher reported that problematic scenes from overseas leaked videos were not observed in the current build. Whether the publisher removed those scenes following the recommendation for revision or whether they were absent from the release build from the start remains unknown.
On the other hand, the key issue from the first review—out-of-context male genital exposure—remained a topic of discussion during the third review. The researcher confirmed that the frequency of genital exposure in 'GTA 6' was clearly higher than in the reference title. It is highly probable that the final decision was rendered without major changes to the scenes that prompted the original recommendation for revision.
If so, the shift from 3-3 to 8-1 appears to stem not from changes to the game itself, but from the committee's judgment. The committee verified by directly playing the build that exposure scenes involved no sexual interaction. They also repeatedly emphasized that because refusing classification is an administrative action, clear legal grounds were necessary. The fact that 10 overseas rating bodies had assigned adult ratings also influenced the judgment. Reaching a conclusion after thorough deliberation is commendable in itself.
Yet the void regarding legal grounds remains unchanged. Article 32, Paragraph 2, Item 3 of the Game Industry Promotion Act—reviewed as grounds for refusal—prohibits the production and import of content that "excessively depicts crime, violence, obscenity, etc." and is "likely to disrupt social order." This is the exact provision against which gamers filed a constitutional complaint in October 2024, citing a violation of the principle of clarity. In effect, the review members themselves questioned whether a single ambiguous statutory clause could block the release of a blockbuster title.
Another remaining question is what the recommendation for revision procedure actually accomplished. If the committee requested revisions and the publisher made none, the recommendation served merely as a tool to delay a decision. If the publisher did modify certain parts, knowing which specific revisions swayed the judgment would serve as the most useful standard for future titles. Either way, this is information the industry needs to know.
Ultimately, there is still no clear wording to indicate in advance whether the next game bringing similar scenes will pass or be refused. How far out-of-context exposure will be tolerated, and which statutory article will ground a refusal if issued, are questions raised by the committee members themselves. To these must be added the question of what changed following recommendations for revision. Delivering those answers in the form of published, transparent standards is the next task facing private rating deliberation.
