It has been confirmed that 'Grand Theft Auto VI' (hereinafter 'GTA 6') came close to a rating refusal in South Korea's rating classification review. In the initial review held by the Game Content Rating Board (GCRB) on September 10, the vote was deadlocked at 3 votes for Adults Only and 3 votes for rating refusal. After two decision postponements, 'GTA 6' was granted an Adults Only rating by an 8-1 vote in its third review on October 16.
According to the meeting minutes for the rating classification of 'GTA 6' obtained by Inven on the 12th, concerns among gamers prior to release about a domestic rating refusal were not groundless rumors. Throughout the three review sessions, committee members clashed over uncontextualized male genitalia exposure and the legal grounds for rating refusal.
Beyond determining the rating for a single major blockbuster, the proceedings exposed all at once the challenges facing private-sector rating classification.
Decision Postponed Twice: The Core Issue Was 'Uncontextualized Genitalia Exposure'
The application for 'GTA 6''s rating classification 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 modification rather than 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 and review." The meeting scheduled for October 8 was canceled 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 it reached the brink of refusal was not violence, but sexuality. What the members took issue with was the frequent appearance of male genitalia in the background without sexual context. The consensus was that depictions of violence, crime, and drugs were not significantly different from 'GTA 5'. 'GTA 5' received an Adults Only rating in 2013 with content descriptors for Sexuality, Violence, Language, Drugs, Crime, and Gambling.
Behind this debate was a regulatory revision. Prior to the September 2025 revision, the Rating Classification Regulations categorized "cases where body exposure is excessively expressed in a sexually suggestive manner, even if genitalia are not fully exposed" as Adults Only. Following the revision, this wording changed to "cases where sexually suggestive body exposure is directly and specifically depicted." This relaxed the standard where genitalia exposure automatically led to a rating refusal. 'GTA 6' served as a testing ground for applying this relaxed wording to a major blockbuster for the first time.
The issues did not stop at sexuality. Since a rating refusal is an administrative disposition that prevents local release entirely, members repeatedly pointed out that clear legal grounds were necessary. It was noted that the guidebook used to judge refusal based on sexuality carries no legal effect, and that there are no refusal criteria for crime and drugs at all. The limitations of verification—whether the committee could realistically inspect content with a storyline exceeding 80 hours—were also brought to the table. The pressure of South Korea being the sole country to refuse a rating when 10 overseas rating boards had already issued mature ratings was also mentioned.
The final decision was Adults Only. However, it cannot be confirmed from the documents how the recommendation for modification issued during the first review was handled. Members were conscious that this decision would set a precedent for future titles. Proposals followed to revise the regulations regarding uncontextualized genitalia exposure and to establish internal rules.
1. First Review on September 10: Tied 3-3 Between Adults Only and Refusal
During the first review, committee members spent about 30 minutes discussing the level of sexuality. At this point, the committee had not yet received an actual playable build. Key statements from committee members are presented below in minute format. The remarks have been edited based on the original document to maintain clarity without altering their intent.
Arguments for Refusal
Member A: It isn't that genitalia exposure is completely prohibited, but it has never appeared this frequently without context. We have allowed genitalia exposure to some extent when there was narrative probability. However, even outside of sexual act scenes, a rating has never been granted for genitalia exposure that appears so out of context. Usually, in cases like this, we issued a recommendation for modification.
It is clear that the level of sexuality is much higher than in the previous title. Under the old Rating Classification Regulations, any exposure of genitalia resulted in an unconditional refusal. The wording was softened slightly in the recent revision to allow partial exceptions for exposure that might be contextually necessary. I do not believe the current level of genitalia exposure falls within an acceptable range.
Arguments for Adults Only (Approval)
Member B: According to the rating classification guide, a rating refusal requires that overall sexual acts, including depictions of body parts such as genitalia, 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 in sexual scenes. We must evaluate this comprehensively.
This game has stronger crime elements in its content than violence. However, since there are no refusal regulations regarding criminal elements, I believe it falls under the Adults Only level. Drugs are also depicted specifically and explicitly, to the point where the player controls the inhalation method. While I consider this quite problematic, there are no refusal criteria for it either, so we have no choice but to let it pass.
Member C: It is correct that criminal elements cannot be used as grounds for refusal. Setting that aside, even compared to 'GTA 5', which was rated by GRAC, it is hard to say that depictions of cruelty, crime, or drugs have gotten worse. If we respect the decision made for the predecessor, not much has changed other than sexuality.
Member A: Since the Rating Classification Regulations are a higher normative authority than the guidebook, shouldn't we follow the regulations?
Member C: Even considering that, compared to the previous title, it is difficult to see that elements other than sexuality have been significantly amplified.
Member D: If we respect the previous title, while ratings are being issued and articles published worldwide, there will also be a burden if South Korea alone holds back.
Member C: Nevertheless, we need to consider whether gamers perceive frequent male genitalia exposure as sexually suggestive. From the perspective of gamers playing this title, and considering that our society is somewhat more tolerant of male exposure, we should carefully reflect on whether this truly reaches a level that arouses sexual desires.
The vote resulted in a 3-3 tie. Member E summarized, "The vote came out 3 to 3 between Adults Only and refusal," adding, "It is ambiguous whether the exposure results from in-game interaction or occurs in the background regardless." The committee opted for a postponement of the decision following a recommendation for modification. The rationale for the postponement was communicated to the company, alongside an inquiry into whether they intended to make modifications.
2. Second Review on October 2: Postponed Again for 'Sufficient Play-Testing'
According to the progress report document, the playable build was delivered only on September 28 due to security issues and other reasons. The review researcher played the game focusing on key points of contention from Monday afternoon of the week the second review took place until the morning of the meeting. As the developer stated that following just the main storyline takes over n hours, it was explained that finishing the story within the review period was difficult. The report added that because it is an open-ended game with high freedom, it is difficult to reliably locate hidden elements unless disclosed by the developer.
The researcher's gameplay report served as the foundation for judging sexuality. Most genitalia exposure scenes appear as background elements during one-off tasks or missions and do not lead to sexual interaction. Due to the expansive map, the location with the exposure scene was located only after requesting maps from the developer multiple times. Once there, no sexual interaction was possible beyond attacking another character, which ended with the character being arrested by the police. The researcher also presented case studies of other games that received ratings despite containing genitalia exposure as reference material.
Gameplay Verification Issues
Member E: Given how sensitive this game is, I wonder if it is okay for us not to examine content beyond what the company disclosed, and that is our biggest concern. Although ratings have been issued in seven overseas jurisdictions, we remain unaware of anything outside of what the company provided, don't we?
Member C: I worry that if a rating is granted and an undiscovered element causes a societal issue later, it will be problematic. Conversely, if we do not grant a rating, we will face criticism for refusing it without thoroughly examining everything. We are in a position where we must proceed with maximum caution.
Member F: For other games, we do not play through every single scenario before rating them either. If something was missed in 'GTA' this time, it falls under the responsibility of the company for failing to fulfill its disclosure obligations. It is practically impossible for the committee to inspect every detail before issuing a rating.
Arguments for Refusal
Member D: I do not think the gameplay differs significantly from Part 5. It is merely improved graphics and expanded content. Our issue is that there is too much genitalia exposure. It feels like the company is constantly pushing the boundary. It is a matter of whether we condone that line every time a new title in the series comes out.
Member A: There may be other games that received ratings despite containing exposure. However, there is likely a considerable difference in detail and frequency. The guide states that even silhouette exposure warrants refusal. Here, it is also just static imagery without interaction. If it were only a nude resort, one might claim it is not obscene. But there are other explicit scenes. The suggestive scenes between the protagonist couple themselves are not grounds for refusal. However, when viewing this type of exposure alongside such scenes, it becomes hard to argue that it is merely exposure meant as black humor.
Member H: The basic principle for rating refusal applies when body exposure or sexual acts are depicted explicitly or excessively so as to disrupt social order. By that standard, the body exposure here is sufficiently explicit and excessive.
Member B: This exposure does not occur only during character creation or in special circumstances. It is an area visible continuously throughout gameplay. Looking solely at the submitted content, I question whether we can issue an Adults Only rating unless our standards change.
Arguments for Adults Only (Approval)
Member F: The content level is indeed high. However, the current standard targets instances where sexual context or obscenity is prominent. When refusing a rating, the guide is important, but legal aspects are far more critical. Since there are statutory provisions for refusal in the law, we must evaluate whether the content matches what is explicitly stated there.
Member E: We must carefully examine how much proportion such scenes take up in the entire game. Since it is a game with high player freedom, these are parts that players can avoid if they wish.
Legal Grounds for Refusal
Member F: Even if we assign ratings up to Adults Only based on our guide, a rating refusal is not a matter of determining a grade—it is a major rights issue that blocks market release. We must look not only at our standards, but whether we possess the legal grounds to restrict those rights. We must also examine whether we can justify that we are not restricting rights beyond the refusal criteria established by law.
Member C: In past lawsuits over rating refusals or revocations, the specific statutory provision relied upon had to be explicitly cited. If we refuse a rating, answering that it 'violates rating classification standards' is insufficient; we must conclude which article of the law it falls under.
Member E: If we choose refusal over Adults Only, we must secure that legal logic to a reasonable extent.
Overseas Ratings and the Burden of 'Korea-Only Refusal'
Member E: The reason we are implementing Phase 2 of the private sector transfer in late October is to move away from excessive rating regulation and realign realistically with international standards. If ratings are being granted overseas while South Korea alone refuses, it creates a burden.
Member D: If this game fails to receive a rating only in our country, it will become a massive issue. It effectively means we are the only market globally where a rating isn't issued. If they had made it strictly based on Part 5's standards, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But they keep crossing the line. Considering that other regions, even Arab nations, have approved it, it makes us hesitate. Since this series originally had violence as its main issue, we used to evaluate it based on violence in the past.
Member C: Whether we refuse or grant a rating, we must reach a decision with the justification that we reviewed it as thoroughly as possible.
Member E: Issuing a rating refusal blocks its release. Articles will be published about this game whether a rating is granted or not, so whether we played it sufficiently is what matters most. Once articles break out, defending the decision falls on the committee, so researchers must review it 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, we won't be able to defend it later.
Regulations and Precedents
Member B: While further review is necessary, if a rating is indeed granted, we should take this opportunity to consider revising the regulation that treats simple genitalia exposure as grounds for refusal. If we refuse it, there is no need to change the regulation. But if we grant an Adults Only rating, it is right to modify the sexuality regulations so that genitalia exposure without sexual context can receive an Adults Only rating. That said, I am not sure if that aligns with our legal framework.
Member C: I hope we exercise caution. This is not a matter that ends with rating this single game. If a rating is granted, it also establishes our direction for games submitted in the future. If necessary, we must change the criteria.
Member E: We plan to hold an industry advisory meeting in Seoul in mid-October regarding the guidelines. Although we agreed to make them public at the end of October, they were drafted entirely internally without seeking outside feedback. It is proper to hear at least some input from industry stakeholders, refine what can be incorporated, and then disclose them.
The committee postponed the decision once more, stating that further thorough play-testing was required. The meeting on October 8 was not held due to lack of a quorum.
3. Third Review on October 16: Adults Only Rating Approved 8 to 1
All nine members attended the third review. The progress report document summarized considerations ahead of this review, placing Article 3 of the Rating Classification Regulations—stating that "rating classification aims for international universal values"—alongside global rating statuses at the top. 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 mature ratings to 'GTA 6'. Saudi Arabia and the UAE assigned an age rating of 21 and older. Japan's CERO had not yet rendered a decision.
The legal basis was also outlined. The progress report explicitly stated that the evaluation factors in the guidebook used to judge refusal based on sexuality were created internally by referencing Game Rating and Administration Committee educational materials, and carried 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, as well as Article 44-7 of the Information and Communications Network Act, were examined. A note reading "Needs verification for applicability" was attached next to the Information and Communications Network Act clause.
The researcher reported the results of additional play-testing on the build. No sexual interactions were possible during genitalia exposure scenes, and no scenes of higher harmfulness than the previously received footage were found. Scenes that had been flagged as problematic in leaked overseas gameplay—namely, scenes where a character's clothing was fully removed or where the camera could be manipulated to view genitalia—were not confirmed in the current build.
The researcher viewed 'GTA 6' not as a game intended for sexual acts, but as an action-adventure title. Scenes where the male and female protagonists build affinity leading to sexual acts can only be viewed passively like cutscenes, depicting exposure only up to the chest without genitalia. The reference game presented for comparison was a title officially released in South Korea where genitalia exposure appears in the background, such as in a nudist colony. However, the researcher answered that the frequency of genitalia exposure was undeniably higher in 'GTA 6'.
Arguments for Refusal
Member A: Suppose we take genre characteristics into account and permit background genitalia exposure in adventures or RPGs while taking a conservative stance only on sexually explicit games. I worry that background genitalia exposure might then appear frequently in future RPGs.
Arguments for Adults Only
Member B: While perception varies by individual, a game previously submitted for a content modification report felt even more sexually suggestive because it actively pursued suggestive scenes despite censoring exposure.
Member C: It appears they intentionally obscured genitalia exposure in sexually suggestive scenes while permitting exposure in the background.
Member D: Games are created with a target audience in mind anyway. Games that lacked such elements won't suddenly all move in this direction. Rather than over-extrapolating, it is better to evaluate this game on its own merits.
Member E: Unlike setting an age rating, a refusal is an administrative disposition, so clear statutory grounds must be cited, and I understand there are relevant legal precedents. Refusing based solely on Rating Classification Regulations cannot serve as grounds because those are merely internal administrative rules. We must find legal backing, and that aspect concerns me.
Member F: Taking this opportunity, how about establishing internal rules—similar to films—where simple genitalia exposure lacking sexual expression is evaluated at the Adults Only level?
Member G: Determining whether something is obscene inevitably involves subjectivity. I believe each member should make their own judgment.
The vote concluded with 8 votes for Adults Only and 1 vote for refusal. Dissenting votes for refusal persisted even in the final review. Content descriptors were established as Sexuality, Violence, Crime, Drugs, and Language. Horror and Gambling, which were flagged as harmful categories in the preliminary review report, were dropped during committee review.
The game developer had requested that the rating classification result remain undisclosed until the release date on the 19th. The earlier news had essentially been a leak.
4. What Changed After the Recommendation for Modification?
'GTA 6' is set to launch on November 19. However, it cannot be confirmed how the recommendation for modification issued by the committee during the first review was handled. According to the progress report, following the 3-3 vote on September 10, the committee informed the company of the reason for postponement and asked about their intent to make modifications. What response the company gave or which scenes were actually modified are not detailed in subsequent minutes or progress reports.
The third review records also do not clarify whether modifications took place. The researcher reported that problematic scenes from leaked overseas videos were not found in the current build. It remains unknown whether the company removed those scenes in response to the recommendation for modification or if they were absent from the release build from the start.
On the other hand, uncontextualized male genitalia exposure—the core point of contention during the first review—remained a subject of debate in the third review. The researcher confirmed that the frequency of genitalia exposure in 'GTA 6' was clearly higher than in the reference game. It is highly likely that the final decision was reached without significant changes to the scenes that prompted the recommendation for modification.
If so, the shift from a 3-3 tie to an 8-1 decision appears to stem not from changes to the game itself, but from a shift in judgment. The committee directly play-tested the build and verified that exposure scenes involved no sexual interaction. They also repeatedly emphasized that because refusal is an administrative disposition, the legal basis must be clear. The fact that 10 overseas rating authorities had granted mature ratings also influenced the judgment. Reaching a conclusion after thorough deliberation is commendable.
The gap in legal grounds also remains. Article 32, Paragraph 2, Item 3 of the Game Industry Promotion Act—examined as grounds for refusal—prohibits the production and import of games that "excessively depict crime, violence, obscenity, etc., and are feared to disrupt social order." This is the exact clause against which gamers filed a constitutional complaint in October 2024, alleging a violation of the principle of clarity. The review members themselves essentially questioned whether a single vague statutory provision could justify blocking the release of a major blockbuster.
What the recommendation for modification procedure actually accomplished also remains an open question. If the committee demanded modifications but the company did not make them, the recommendation served merely as a means to defer the decision. If the company did modify parts of the game, knowing which modifications shifted the judgment would serve as the most useful benchmark for upcoming titles. Either way, it is information the industry needs to know.
Ultimately, there is still no explicit guideline predicting whether the next game presenting similar scenes will pass or be refused. How far uncontextualized exposure should be allowed, and which statutory article would justify a refusal, are questions the members raised themselves. To this, the question of what actually changed after recommendations for modification must be added. Providing those answers through public criteria is the next challenge facing private-sector rating classification.
