Maybe it's just being from the UK, but I don't see the rage behind this. Seems pretty normal to stop exposing kids to too much violence/sex/swearing etc.
I mean I'm pretty liberal and nothing is stopping the kid's parents from getting them the game anyway. Might even allow the parents to bond with their kids more by getting themselves involved in their hobby.
The issue isn't with keeping mature games away from kids, the issue is with making it a law. As the article said, the only things controlled for age by law right now are alcohol, tobacco and pornography. The movie industry self-polices, as does the game-industry, but politicians keep using games as a convenient scape-goat for political brownie-points.
Fear you're wrong there.
Video Recordings Act 1984 makes BBFC age ratings legally binding for videos.
Cinemas are also age-controlled by law, but it gets more complex, as the law in question is technically the province of the local council.
The film industry is only self-policing in the US, not Britain.
Just to be pedantic: knives, solvents, heavy good vehicles, membership of the house of lords and being allowed to claim benefits for more than a single bedroom are also age-controlled.
Maybe it's just being from the UK, but I don't see the rage behind this. Seems pretty normal to stop exposing kids to too much violence/sex/swearing etc.
I mean I'm pretty liberal and nothing is stopping the kid's parents from getting them the game anyway. Might even allow the parents to bond with their kids more by getting themselves involved in their hobby.
The issue isn't with keeping mature games away from kids, the issue is with making it a law. As the article said, the only things controlled for age by law right now are alcohol, tobacco and pornography. The movie industry self-polices, as does the game-industry, but politicians keep using games as a convenient scape-goat for political brownie-points.
Fear you're wrong there.
Video Recordings Act 1984 makes BBFC age ratings legally binding for videos.
Cinemas are also age-controlled by law, but it gets more complex, as the law in question is technically the province of the local council.
The film industry is only self-policing in the US, not Britain.
Just to be pedantic: knives, solvents, heavy good vehicles, membership of the house of lords and being allowed to claim benefits for more than a single bedroom are also age-controlled.
And considering the law being proposed that we're talking about is in the US, it would make sense that I'm talking about the US, right?
Maybe it's just being from the UK, but I don't see the rage behind this. Seems pretty normal to stop exposing kids to too much violence/sex/swearing etc.
I mean I'm pretty liberal and nothing is stopping the kid's parents from getting them the game anyway. Might even allow the parents to bond with their kids more by getting themselves involved in their hobby.
The issue isn't with keeping mature games away from kids, the issue is with making it a law. As the article said, the only things controlled for age by law right now are alcohol, tobacco and pornography. The movie industry self-polices, as does the game-industry, but politicians keep using games as a convenient scape-goat for political brownie-points.
Fear you're wrong there.
Video Recordings Act 1984 makes BBFC age ratings legally binding for videos.
Cinemas are also age-controlled by law, but it gets more complex, as the law in question is technically the province of the local council.
The film industry is only self-policing in the US, not Britain.
Just to be pedantic: knives, solvents, heavy good vehicles, membership of the house of lords and being allowed to claim benefits for more than a single bedroom are also age-controlled.
And considering the law being proposed that we're talking about is in the US, it would make sense that I'm talking about the US, right?
America, fuck yeah! Also, you will note that the BBFC applies equally to video games and movies and is national.
Revenue for Xbox Live could well have reached $1bn in Microsoft's last financial year, Bloomberg is reporting.
Microsoft has told the financial news site that half of the services' 25 million users paid for a Gold membership last year - which equates to around $600 million in sales. Sales of downloadable movies, TV shows and other services have also topped subscription revenues for the first time, claims Xbox COO Dennis Durkin.
“The old playbook of launch and leave is a relic of the past,” said Durkin.
“Today with Xbox live, it’s now about ‘launch, sustain, retain’ by continually adding new content that enhances the original experience.”
BBFC no longer applies to games, the PEGI thing took over so it can apply rules from one countries sensibilities across the entirety of Europe. Thanks Labour.
The best way to see why 'western' and Japanese cultures don't really like the others games is to just look at the differences in their robots in popular media. Sure, you get some 'western' people who like humanoid robots that fly, and you get some in the Japanese audience who like heavy, hulking mechs, but it's two different schools of thought.
Though this might just be me wanting more games based on robots.
What? Japanese people, if anime is any indication, just plain love robots. Sure you've got your Astro Boy types that are humanoid fly around robots, but you've also got, off the top of my head, Big O; the various Gundams; Voltron; and Robotech. And then when you look at games you've got Front Mission and the Armored Core series.
The Japanese like big, stompy mechs just as much as anybody else. Because big, stompy mechs are awesome.
Maybe it's just being from the UK, but I don't see the rage behind this. Seems pretty normal to stop exposing kids to too much violence/sex/swearing etc.
I mean I'm pretty liberal and nothing is stopping the kid's parents from getting them the game anyway. Might even allow the parents to bond with their kids more by getting themselves involved in their hobby.
The issue isn't with keeping mature games away from kids, the issue is with making it a law. As the article said, the only things controlled for age by law right now are alcohol, tobacco and pornography. The movie industry self-polices, as does the game-industry, but politicians keep using games as a convenient scape-goat for political brownie-points.
Fear you're wrong there.
Video Recordings Act 1984 makes BBFC age ratings legally binding for videos.
Cinemas are also age-controlled by law, but it gets more complex, as the law in question is technically the province of the local council.
The film industry is only self-policing in the US, not Britain.
Just to be pedantic: knives, solvents, heavy good vehicles, membership of the house of lords and being allowed to claim benefits for more than a single bedroom are also age-controlled.
And considering the law being proposed that we're talking about is in the US, it would make sense that I'm talking about the US, right?
Sorry, thought it was the tailend of the Keith Vaz argument.
Worth nothing, though:
a) Having age ratings be legal has hardly led to vast problems in the UK. In fact, it meant we didn't get as much fuss about, say, the Hot Coffee scandal, becuase there were already measures in place to prevent small children buying GTA. Mainstream shops simply carried on selling it.
b) If you do any kind of detailed study of US ratings law, it quickly becomes apparent that it isn;t really working at all.The MPAA being governed by the film industry rather than independent (like the BBFC) means that it displays some very disturbing biases, giving lenient ratings to big-budget studio ones by comparison with smaller indepdent pictures.
While its ratings have no legal weight in principle, they do have one in practice, since refusing an R rating will prevent the work from achieving commercial success. Since the content standards for the R rating are stricter than the British 18, this in practice leads to far more censorship in Amercian media in order to avoid being blacklisted by cinemas.
c) the MPAA and the other US censorship bodies have other charming habits, like censoring nudity far more strictly than violence (which is odd) or being more leninet on male sexuality than female (which is odder). Again, this is partly because it lacks independence due to being beholden to the film industry.
TL; DR: US's self-governing media ratings actually lead to more censorship than the UK system. Is that really what you want to see?
Getting NC-17 at this point would require you to basically make actual porn. The pg-13/R crap is where it is all at. Even then, an R rating isn't a death sentence for a movie. That is just the movie studios being retarded.
Also, the BBFC and similar are just regularly inconsistent instead of biased!
TL; DR: US's self-governing media ratings actually lead to more censorship than the UK system. Is that really what you want to see?
TL;DR: This is bullshit. Financial decisions based on demographics with the ratings exist everywhere. That is nothing new.
a) Having age ratings be legal has hardly led to vast problems in the UK. In fact, it meant we didn't get as much fuss about, say, the Hot Coffee scandal, becuase there were already measures in place to prevent small children buying GTA. Mainstream shops simply carried on selling it.
Or because they aren't as stupid about sex as the USA.
While its ratings have no legal weight in principle, they do have one in practice, since refusing an R rating will prevent the work from achieving commercial success. Since the content standards for the R rating are stricter than the British 18, this in practice leads to far more censorship in Amercian media in order to avoid being blacklisted by cinemas.
In practice, the BBFC actually bans things. Stupid not rated crap being released on DVD or alternate NC-17 versions as done with many older films. Any voluntary cutting in order to reach an age rating isn't much of a problem in even the short run as the person can still release alternate cuts with different ratings if they want. For example, the porno version of Alice in Wonderland.
c) the MPAA and the other US censorship bodies have other charming habits, like censoring nudity far more strictly than violence (which is odd) or being more leninet on male sexuality than female (which is odder). Again, this is partly because it lacks independence due to being beholden to the film industry.
Or it has everything to do with American social mores. It is like you think America isn't puritanical about sex while having a fetish for violence.
The majority of gamers still prefer to purchase their games on physical discs, according to a new study done by UK media research firm Ipsos MORI.
The study conducted in May, which surveyed over 1000 people between the ages of 15 to 55 (of which 577 were owners of next gen consoles - Wii, PS3, Xbox 360), showed that 64% still prefer to purchase games on physical discs. 25% say they prefer digital downloads while 11% said they had no preference. Other forms of media, newspapers, films, and music, showed higher interest in digital preference.
Ian Bramley, Senior Director at Ipsos MORI, told IGN the used game market is likely the cause of gamers choosing discs over downloads.
"The preference for physical discs amongst next gen gamers, despite the high levels of interest for digital models, reflects the value gamers derive from the second-hand resale market which likely contributes to holding up the preference for physical - this is unlike the music and film markets," Bramley said.
"Also the physical disc has a long and well established history in the games market which is deep mindset to change, particularly when building a physical collection and in-store browsing are important to gamers, as are fears of losing digital versions."
"The preference for physical discs amongst next gen gamers, despite the high levels of interest for digital models, reflects the value gamers derive from the second-hand resale market which likely contributes to holding up the preference for physical - this is unlike the music and film markets," Bramley said.
The majority of gamers still prefer to purchase their games on physical discs, according to a new study done by UK media research firm Ipsos MORI.
The study conducted in May, which surveyed over 1000 people between the ages of 15 to 55 (of which 577 were owners of next gen consoles - Wii, PS3, Xbox 360), showed that 64% still prefer to purchase games on physical discs. 25% say they prefer digital downloads while 11% said they had no preference. Other forms of media, newspapers, films, and music, showed higher interest in digital preference.
Ian Bramley, Senior Director at Ipsos MORI, told IGN the used game market is likely the cause of gamers choosing discs over downloads.
"The preference for physical discs amongst next gen gamers, despite the high levels of interest for digital models, reflects the value gamers derive from the second-hand resale market which likely contributes to holding up the preference for physical - this is unlike the music and film markets," Bramley said.
"Also the physical disc has a long and well established history in the games market which is deep mindset to change, particularly when building a physical collection and in-store browsing are important to gamers, as are fears of losing digital versions."
Geez, not even newspaper readers are as attached to meatspace objects like gamers.
Rainbow Despair does it right, though. Downloadable games need to be, on the whole, cheaper than their physical counterparts because I'm getting less for my money. I can't trade that game in, I can't lend it to my friend, and I can't easily store it in another room when I'm done playing and want space but don't want to get rid of it.
Seriously, there's no reason for Crackdown to be $20 on Games on Demand $15 used from GameStop. If nothing else the prices should be the same because I have a feeling that Microsoft (or whoever published Crackdown) would rather they get $15 than GameStop get $15. Because either way they're not getting my $20.
I love DD services, but I think the only thing in my Steam list that I bought at full price was Plants Vs. Zombies and that was only $10. XBLA I'm more prone to buy at full price, but that's because full price is seldom more than $15.
"The preference for physical discs amongst next gen gamers, despite the high levels of interest for digital models, reflects the value gamers derive from the second-hand resale market which likely contributes to holding up the preference for physical - this is unlike the music and film markets," Bramley said.
"The preference for physical discs amongst next gen gamers, despite the high levels of interest for digital models, reflects the value gamers derive from the second-hand resale market which likely contributes to holding up the preference for physical - this is unlike the music and film markets," Bramley said.
TL; DR: US's self-governing media ratings actually lead to more censorship than the UK system. Is that really what you want to see?
TL;DR: This is bullshit. Financial decisions based on demographics with the ratings exist everywhere. That is nothing new.
And yet, if you actually bothered to study the problem in detail (which I have), there are dozens and dozens of cases of films cutting content for the US market, and very few for the UK.
The scale of the problem between the two countries is vastly different.
In practice, the BBFC actually bans things.
Virtually all BBFC bannings in the last decade have been the kind of extreme pornography that'd have a pretty hard time of it in America, too. Nothing resembling mainstream entertainment has been banned in this country for a long time (Manhunt 2 was overturned on appeal, which is part of the legal process involved in ratings). But hey, much easier to rage randomly at the situation than actually researching it, right?
Stupid not rated crap being released on DVD or alternate NC-17 versions as done with many older films. Any voluntary cutting in order to reach an age rating isn't much of a problem in even the short run as the person can still release alternate cuts with different ratings if they want. For example, the porno version of Alice in Wonderland.
The fact they have an option to release alternate cuts misses out the fact that a) they don't necessarily or always do so and b) the product has still, from the perspective of the majority experiencing it, been censored
Look at, say, Battle Royale, which recieved a cinema release in the Uk before a long and successful run on DVD, but was unavailable to the US for most of a decade due to the vagaries of the US ratings sytem. If you take the US approach, what you wind up with is interesting films like BR losing out commercially, which reduces the chance of such films being made again. That's actually a far more effective form of censorship than simply banning something, which inevitably gets overturned on appeal and serves as free publicity in the process.
Maybe you should try thinking about the issue rather than just jumping to a kneejerk defense, hmm?
Virtually all BBFC bannings in the last decade have been the kind of extreme pornography that'd have a pretty hard time of it in America, too.
Which is why they would just make it unrated and sell it on the internet and porno shops thanks to our glorious unrated pornos.
I was under the impression that the discussion was about mainstream entertainment and video games. I honestly am not bothered in the slightest by whether bestiality pornography is legal in my country. Why are you?
As an example of what this country does allow to be rated for mainstream cinema release, do look up 9 Songs before you come across as even sillier.
I understand it's easier to look at the UK and go "WAAAAHHHH THEY BAN THINGS", but the reality is that we actually have a much more liberal approach to mainstream media, and most controversial things are much more widely and easily available.
The fact they have an option to release alternate cuts misses out the fact that a) they don't necessarily or always do so and b) the product has still, from the perspective of the majority experiencing it, been censored
But the option is still there and is used. Meanwhile, the BBFC requires cuts to films, banning the original cut while not even allowing people the possibility of legally purchasing the original cut. I can buy the uncut version of Ichi the Killer.
Look at, say, Battle Royale, which recieved a cinema release in the Uk before a long and successful run on DVD, but was unavailable to the US for most of a decade due to the vagaries of the US ratings sytem.
There was never a distribution deal so there was never even a reason to rate it. The film isn't that violent compared to films of the time so I don't see why it would get an NC-17. That isn't even likely to be the reason as such a film would be mainly aimed at film buffs willing to buy unrated versions. Thanks to the rating system, you can view it unrated on Netflix.
Here's a fascinating Wired post on Frontierville, an offshoot of Farmville, in its entirety:
Zynga loves to try new things. Today, it is testing the theory that its fans are so hopelessly addicted that they will literally amass piles of virtual shit.
The fact they have an option to release alternate cuts misses out the fact that a) they don't necessarily or always do so and b) the product has still, from the perspective of the majority experiencing it, been censored
But the option is still there and is used. Meanwhile, the BBFC requires cuts to films, banning the original cut while not even allowing people the possibility of legally purchasing the original cut. I can buy the uncut version of Ichi the Killer.
So can I- there's nothing legally stopping people from importing from America, and multi-region DVDs are, unlike the US, freely available here. The only thing the law does is stop retailers in this country selling stuff that hasn't been rated, which is the practical effect of an NC-17 or unrated DVD in the US anyway.
Plus, the number of non-pornographic films that can't be obtained uncut in this country is tiny, Ichi the Killer and I Spit on Your Grave being the only obvious examples. Does the US even have uncut releases of Braindead or The Brood yet? It certainly didn't when they were released in cinemas.
The difference is that we show films like 9 Songs in the cinema, and sell them in mainstream DVD shops. Your country does not.
Just to reiterate: the only things that are illegal to own in the UK, media-wise, are child porn, bestiality porn and extreme simulated rape or violence in a pornographic context. You can blame Labour for the last one, if you care about it.
As an example of what this country does allow to be rated for mainstream cinema release, do look up 9 Songs before you come across as even sillier.
Look up Ichi the Killer for what they only allow to be rated after cuts. The BBFC has plenty of examples of required cuts before it could even be sold.
Your point about having to be porn pretty much applies to the US system too except there is still the option even with porn. Unrated shit is a dime a dozen in the USA so companies do in fact take advantage of it. I do not see why "sexually violent" imagery should be less protected as speech.
As an example of what this country does allow to be rated for mainstream cinema release, do look up 9 Songs before you come across as even sillier.
Look up Ichi the Killer for what they only allow to be rated after cuts. The BBFC has plenty of examples of required cuts before it could even be sold.
Do you have any examples other than that one film ( I actually do, the difference being that I don't even want to see I Spit on Your Grave)? At all? Because that's not a lot to build a case on.
The only thing the law does is stop retailers in this country selling stuff that hasn't been rated, which is the practical effect of an NC-17 or unrated DVD in the US anyway.
Unrated DVDs are not hard to find in the US.
Plus, the number of non-pornographic films that can't be obtained uncut in this country is tiny, Ichi the Killer and I Spit on Your Grave being the only obvious examples. Does the US even have uncut releases of Braindead or The Brood yet? It certainly didn't when they were released in cinemas.
Released as both rated and unrated. Also, good job with The Brood.
Cronenberg has condemned the censorship of the climactic scene, "trimmed" in the United Kingdom, in which Eggar's character gives birth to one of the monsters and starts tenderly licking it clean. "I had a long and loving close-up of Samantha licking the foetus... when the censors, those animals, cut it out, the result was that a lot of people thought she was eating her baby. That's much worse than I was suggesting."[4]
In 2005, the full uncut version was made available on UK DVD.
Hilarious.
How the fuck do you not see the difference between voluntary cutting based on financial reasons and government enforced cutting?
As an example of what this country does allow to be rated for mainstream cinema release, do look up 9 Songs before you come across as even sillier.
Look up Ichi the Killer for what they only allow to be rated after cuts. The BBFC has plenty of examples of required cuts before it could even be sold.
Do you have any examples other than that one film ( I actually do, the difference being that I don't even want to see I Spit on Your Grave)? At all? Because that's not a lot to build a case on.
The BBFC's current guidelines identify a number of specific areas of concern which are considered when awarding certificates or requiring cuts. These are discrimination, theme, language (i.e. profanity), nudity, sex, violence, sexual violence, criminal or harmful actions that can easily be imitated (certain combat moves, suicidal techniques, and stunts considered criminal acts or likely to end up in injury or death fall under this category), horror, and drugs. The BBFC also continues to demand cuts of any material which it considers may breach the provisions of the Obscene Publications Act or any other legislation (most notably the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 [which forbids the depiction of animals being abused or in distress] and the Protection of Children Act 1978 [which forbids the depiction of children being abused, in distress, or sexually exploited]). Between 2000 and 2006, about 2% of films have had material cut.[19]
Criminal acts that can be easily imitated, as well as scenes condoning, glamorising, or showing clear instruction of how to abuse drugs have also been the subject of UK editing. The issue of imitable techniques is one that does not seem to figure especially highly in the censorship systems of most other countries (though the U.S. has done this on occasion, often due to public backlash, as seen on MTV's Beavis and Butthead). In the UK, numerous minor cuts have been made, primarily to films whose distributors want a PG or 12A certificate, to scenes of imitable techniques. For example, in 2006 issues involving hanging became problematic; the Ren and Stimpy Series 1 DVD set (classified PG) was edited to remove the song "The Lord Loves a Hangin'" because the song implied that hanging is "comedic, fun, and risk-free".[20] Paranoia Agent Volume 3 DVD set (classified 18) was also cut to remove the depiction of a child nearly hanging himself for the same reason.[21]
Quoting outdated examples from the days when the BBFC did ban things doesn't have anything to do with what I've been talking about, which is the current state of censorship in the UK, which is that less films are released censored or cut in cinemas than in the US.
Try dropping your idealogy and actually looking at broad effects.
(though the U.S. has done this on occasion, often due to public backlash, as seen on MTV's Beavis and Butthead).
Nice dismantling of your own examples, there.
The worrying thing is that I, actually knowing something about the issue at hand beyond Wikipedia, could conduct your own argument better than you are. Try looking up Cockfighter or Cannibal Holocaust :P
Quoting outdated examples from the days when the BBFC did ban things doesn't have anything to do with what I've been talking about, which is the current state of censorship in the UK, which is that less films are released censored or cut in cinemas than in the US.
Try dropping your idealogy and actually looking at broad effects.
You brought up the Brood as an example of something where the uncut version wasn't available in the US but was available in the UK. I don't see why pointing out why your example was crap was wrong.
(though the U.S. has done this on occasion, often due to public backlash, as seen on MTV's Beavis and Butthead).
Nice dismantling of your own examples, there.
Not sure how it does. Occasion is not the same as stated principle and that was based on public backlash. MTV could easily just ignore it if they wanted to or are you going to say that responding to the public is the same thing as government censorship?
If poop won't distract you two, maybe sales figures will.
For the first time since its launch in 2002, Xbox Live has generated over $1 billion dollars for Microsoft during the company's latest fiscal year, according to a report from Bloomberg News.
The report states Microsoft currently sees about half of its 25 million Xbox Live members pay a $49.99 annual subscription fee to receive "Gold" status, which alone totals nearly $600 million in revenue. Additional sales of avatar items, movies, and other downloadable content pushed revenue to an estimated $1.2 billion for Microsoft's fiscal year ended June 30.
Microsoft won't report exact Xbox Live revenues in its upcoming earnings call later this month, but Goldman Sachs analyst Sarah Friar estimates Xbox Live had sales of $1.1 billion, up from $800 million the previous year.
Xbox COO Dennis Durkin noted that Xbox Live is allowing the company to generate extra revenue once a game leaves the store.
"The old playbook of 'launch and leave' is a relic of the past," he told Bloomberg. "Today with Xbox live, it's now about 'launch, sustain, retain' by continually adding new content that enhances the original experience."
The majority of gamers still prefer to purchase their games on physical discs, according to a new study done by UK media research firm Ipsos MORI.
The study conducted in May, which surveyed over 1000 people between the ages of 15 to 55 (of which 577 were owners of next gen consoles - Wii, PS3, Xbox 360), showed that 64% still prefer to purchase games on physical discs. 25% say they prefer digital downloads while 11% said they had no preference. Other forms of media, newspapers, films, and music, showed higher interest in digital preference.
Ian Bramley, Senior Director at Ipsos MORI, told IGN the used game market is likely the cause of gamers choosing discs over downloads.
"The preference for physical discs amongst next gen gamers, despite the high levels of interest for digital models, reflects the value gamers derive from the second-hand resale market which likely contributes to holding up the preference for physical - this is unlike the music and film markets," Bramley said.
"Also the physical disc has a long and well established history in the games market which is deep mindset to change, particularly when building a physical collection and in-store browsing are important to gamers, as are fears of losing digital versions."
Geez, not even newspaper readers are as attached to meatspace objects like gamers.
Rainbow Despair does it right, though. Downloadable games need to be, on the whole, cheaper than their physical counterparts because I'm getting less for my money. I can't trade that game in, I can't lend it to my friend, and I can't easily store it in another room when I'm done playing and want space but don't want to get rid of it.
Seriously, there's no reason for Crackdown to be $20 on Games on Demand $15 used from GameStop. If nothing else the prices should be the same because I have a feeling that Microsoft (or whoever published Crackdown) would rather they get $15 than GameStop get $15. Because either way they're not getting my $20.
I love DD services, but I think the only thing in my Steam list that I bought at full price was Plants Vs. Zombies and that was only $10. XBLA I'm more prone to buy at full price, but that's because full price is seldom more than $15.
Yeah, I saw that article as well. I can't say that I'm surprised - although digital has the potential to be much better than hard copies (faster load times, no need to switch disks, cheaper prices, more money goes to the developer instead of the middlemen, no worries about running out of stock, etc), the used game market is so entrenched and publishers are so afraid of offending retailers that it'll take some time before we get there.
But hey, I'm doing my part! Besides buying an obscene number of XBLA & PSN games (with a WiiWare/VC title here and there), our first RPG sells for $1 & and our second one will sell for $3. Viva la revolution!
(though the U.S. has done this on occasion, often due to public backlash, as seen on MTV's Beavis and Butthead).
Nice dismantling of your own examples, there.
Not sure how it does. Occasion is not the same as stated principle and that was based on public backlash. MTV could easily just ignore it if they wanted to or are you going to say that responding to the public is the same thing as government censorship?
Ok, just to clear this up:
- The BBFC is not a government body. Governmental censorship only extends to the types of pornography I posted above being declared illegal, and nothing else.
- The BBFC's ratings policies are, as of 2000, based almost entirely on public consultations.
So what I'm saying is that responding to the public is the same as... responding to the public.
You want to rant against government censorship, go look at Australia, who actually have it.
I can play 20+ year old NES games on my NES just fine. If my NES breaks, I can get a new NES and/or a clone and play those same games.
If my Wii breaks, I'm shit out of luck. How will I play those WiiWare titles 20 years down the line?
Of course, conversely, if you lose/break those NES games you're also shit out of luck, but WiiWare games cannot be lost or broken. You just redownload them. You might even be able to work something out with Nintendo to get a new Wii with the same software on it, depending on the circumstances of Wii failure.
I don't want all my eggs in one basket. If my Wii breaks then I lose my Wiiware, and if my discs crack then I lose those games, but both at once are unlikely to happen.
Posts
Fear you're wrong there.
Video Recordings Act 1984 makes BBFC age ratings legally binding for videos.
Cinemas are also age-controlled by law, but it gets more complex, as the law in question is technically the province of the local council.
The film industry is only self-policing in the US, not Britain.
Just to be pedantic: knives, solvents, heavy good vehicles, membership of the house of lords and being allowed to claim benefits for more than a single bedroom are also age-controlled.
And considering the law being proposed that we're talking about is in the US, it would make sense that I'm talking about the US, right?
America, fuck yeah! Also, you will note that the BBFC applies equally to video games and movies and is national.
And by continually charging for it.
Oh, I guess making 5 out of my 7 Dashboard tabs entirely devoted to advertisements really is something new! There really are new ads each week!
What? Japanese people, if anime is any indication, just plain love robots. Sure you've got your Astro Boy types that are humanoid fly around robots, but you've also got, off the top of my head, Big O; the various Gundams; Voltron; and Robotech. And then when you look at games you've got Front Mission and the Armored Core series.
The Japanese like big, stompy mechs just as much as anybody else. Because big, stompy mechs are awesome.
Worth nothing, though:
a) Having age ratings be legal has hardly led to vast problems in the UK. In fact, it meant we didn't get as much fuss about, say, the Hot Coffee scandal, becuase there were already measures in place to prevent small children buying GTA. Mainstream shops simply carried on selling it.
b) If you do any kind of detailed study of US ratings law, it quickly becomes apparent that it isn;t really working at all.The MPAA being governed by the film industry rather than independent (like the BBFC) means that it displays some very disturbing biases, giving lenient ratings to big-budget studio ones by comparison with smaller indepdent pictures.
While its ratings have no legal weight in principle, they do have one in practice, since refusing an R rating will prevent the work from achieving commercial success. Since the content standards for the R rating are stricter than the British 18, this in practice leads to far more censorship in Amercian media in order to avoid being blacklisted by cinemas.
c) the MPAA and the other US censorship bodies have other charming habits, like censoring nudity far more strictly than violence (which is odd) or being more leninet on male sexuality than female (which is odder). Again, this is partly because it lacks independence due to being beholden to the film industry.
TL; DR: US's self-governing media ratings actually lead to more censorship than the UK system. Is that really what you want to see?
Also, the BBFC and similar are just regularly inconsistent instead of biased!
Or because they aren't as stupid about sex as the USA.
http://wii.ign.com/articles/110/1104230p1.html
Geez, not even newspaper readers are as attached to meatspace objects like gamers.
Statistics... FROM THE FUTURE!
Rainbow Despair does it right, though. Downloadable games need to be, on the whole, cheaper than their physical counterparts because I'm getting less for my money. I can't trade that game in, I can't lend it to my friend, and I can't easily store it in another room when I'm done playing and want space but don't want to get rid of it.
Seriously, there's no reason for Crackdown to be $20 on Games on Demand $15 used from GameStop. If nothing else the prices should be the same because I have a feeling that Microsoft (or whoever published Crackdown) would rather they get $15 than GameStop get $15. Because either way they're not getting my $20.
I love DD services, but I think the only thing in my Steam list that I bought at full price was Plants Vs. Zombies and that was only $10. XBLA I'm more prone to buy at full price, but that's because full price is seldom more than $15.
The source is actually something called Next Gen Gamers, as seen in the graph.
People will one day stop using that goddamn phrase. I refuse to call the next generation the "next gen."
I mean unless people are still buying PS2s in droves I would say we've arrived by now.
The scale of the problem between the two countries is vastly different.
Virtually all BBFC bannings in the last decade have been the kind of extreme pornography that'd have a pretty hard time of it in America, too. Nothing resembling mainstream entertainment has been banned in this country for a long time (Manhunt 2 was overturned on appeal, which is part of the legal process involved in ratings). But hey, much easier to rage randomly at the situation than actually researching it, right?
The fact they have an option to release alternate cuts misses out the fact that a) they don't necessarily or always do so and b) the product has still, from the perspective of the majority experiencing it, been censored
Look at, say, Battle Royale, which recieved a cinema release in the Uk before a long and successful run on DVD, but was unavailable to the US for most of a decade due to the vagaries of the US ratings sytem. If you take the US approach, what you wind up with is interesting films like BR losing out commercially, which reduces the chance of such films being made again. That's actually a far more effective form of censorship than simply banning something, which inevitably gets overturned on appeal and serves as free publicity in the process.
Maybe you should try thinking about the issue rather than just jumping to a kneejerk defense, hmm?
I was under the impression that the discussion was about mainstream entertainment and video games. I honestly am not bothered in the slightest by whether bestiality pornography is legal in my country. Why are you?
As an example of what this country does allow to be rated for mainstream cinema release, do look up 9 Songs before you come across as even sillier.
I understand it's easier to look at the UK and go "WAAAAHHHH THEY BAN THINGS", but the reality is that we actually have a much more liberal approach to mainstream media, and most controversial things are much more widely and easily available.
There was never a distribution deal so there was never even a reason to rate it. The film isn't that violent compared to films of the time so I don't see why it would get an NC-17. That isn't even likely to be the reason as such a film would be mainly aimed at film buffs willing to buy unrated versions. Thanks to the rating system, you can view it unrated on Netflix.
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/07/frontierville/#ixzz0t0iYp1LB
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
Plus, the number of non-pornographic films that can't be obtained uncut in this country is tiny, Ichi the Killer and I Spit on Your Grave being the only obvious examples. Does the US even have uncut releases of Braindead or The Brood yet? It certainly didn't when they were released in cinemas.
The difference is that we show films like 9 Songs in the cinema, and sell them in mainstream DVD shops. Your country does not.
Just to reiterate: the only things that are illegal to own in the UK, media-wise, are child porn, bestiality porn and extreme simulated rape or violence in a pornographic context. You can blame Labour for the last one, if you care about it.
Look up Ichi the Killer for what they only allow to be rated after cuts. The BBFC has plenty of examples of required cuts before it could even be sold.
Your point about having to be porn pretty much applies to the US system too except there is still the option even with porn. Unrated shit is a dime a dozen in the USA so companies do in fact take advantage of it. I do not see why "sexually violent" imagery should be less protected as speech.
Released as both rated and unrated. Also, good job with The Brood. Hilarious.
How the fuck do you not see the difference between voluntary cutting based on financial reasons and government enforced cutting?
Try dropping your idealogy and actually looking at broad effects.
The worrying thing is that I, actually knowing something about the issue at hand beyond Wikipedia, could conduct your own argument better than you are. Try looking up Cockfighter or Cannibal Holocaust :P
You brought up the Brood as an example of something where the uncut version wasn't available in the US but was available in the UK. I don't see why pointing out why your example was crap was wrong.
Not sure how it does. Occasion is not the same as stated principle and that was based on public backlash. MTV could easily just ignore it if they wanted to or are you going to say that responding to the public is the same thing as government censorship?
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/110/1104402p1.html
Live makes up half of Microsoft's online revenue? Goddamn.
Yeah, I saw that article as well. I can't say that I'm surprised - although digital has the potential to be much better than hard copies (faster load times, no need to switch disks, cheaper prices, more money goes to the developer instead of the middlemen, no worries about running out of stock, etc), the used game market is so entrenched and publishers are so afraid of offending retailers that it'll take some time before we get there.
But hey, I'm doing my part! Besides buying an obscene number of XBLA & PSN games (with a WiiWare/VC title here and there), our first RPG sells for $1 & and our second one will sell for $3. Viva la revolution!
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
Ok, just to clear this up:
- The BBFC is not a government body. Governmental censorship only extends to the types of pornography I posted above being declared illegal, and nothing else.
- The BBFC's ratings policies are, as of 2000, based almost entirely on public consultations.
So what I'm saying is that responding to the public is the same as... responding to the public.
You want to rant against government censorship, go look at Australia, who actually have it.
I can play 20+ year old NES games on my NES just fine. If my NES breaks, I can get a new NES and/or a clone and play those same games.
If my Wii breaks, I'm shit out of luck. How will I play those WiiWare titles 20 years down the line?
3DS Friend Code: 0404-6826-4588 PM if you add.
Me too. They both have advantages and disadvantages and I don't see why they shouldn't coexist.
Of course, conversely, if you lose/break those NES games you're also shit out of luck, but WiiWare games cannot be lost or broken. You just redownload them. You might even be able to work something out with Nintendo to get a new Wii with the same software on it, depending on the circumstances of Wii failure.
I don't want all my eggs in one basket. If my Wii breaks then I lose my Wiiware, and if my discs crack then I lose those games, but both at once are unlikely to happen.
NES break? Does not compute.
This so very much.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
Like ebony and irony except without the race riots.