UK Government choose PEGI over BBFC
LewieP
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Looks like the government have decided to have PEGI as the sole ratings board for videogames in the UK, instead of the BBFC.
This means that games will no longer be rated by the BBFC, but by PEGI. I assume that this will also make PEGI age ratings legally enforceable (?).
Industry responses here:
This means that games will no longer be rated by the BBFC, but by PEGI. I assume that this will also make PEGI age ratings legally enforceable (?).
Industry responses here:
The Government has made absolutely the right decision for child safety. By choosing PEGI as the single classification system in the UK, British children will now get the best possible protection when playing videogames either on a console or on the internet. Parents can be assured that they will have access to clear, uniform ratings on games and an accurate understanding of game content.
Today’s decision will ensure that games ratings stay relevant and adapt to the changing nature of videogames for many years to come. Retailers will now have clear, legal backing to help them prevent access to unsuitable content by children.
We will work closely with the Government, the Video Standards Council and the BBFC to ensure a smooth and rapid transition to this new ratings system.
Simon Little, MD, ISFE wrote:This decision by the British government to adopt PEGI as the single ratings system for videogames in the UK will give British children the same protection whether they are playing at home or online, as children in 28 countries across Europe.
PEGI meets the criteria set out by Professor Byron in her review and has also been further updated to take into account developments in new technology as game playing moves increasingly online and becomes increasingly interactive. It is a robust system which protects children online and offline. We will continue to ensure that PEGI remains the most relevant and effective system for helping parents, guardians, teachers and retailers to protect children both now and in the future.
The Government has made the right decision. The PEGI age rating system is right for the protection of children as it is designed specifically for games and interactive content.
As a global company we welcome the decision as mature and intelligent as it works across some 30 international territories.
The adoption of PEGI as the rating system for games is a good decision. The PEGI system is future-proof, delivering effective child protection now and in the future. PEGI Online is a key component of the system, ensuring that the government does not have to re-assess the entire system once again in 12 months time.
This is an important decision for the UK public. PEGI is the only system that has the power to prevent games publishers distributing unsuitable content to children.
We welcome the government's decision. PEGI is the right choice to protect children from inappropriate gaming content, and best suited to continue to do so in the future as interactive entertainment moves increasingly online.
We applaud this collaboration between government and industry to find the best solution for consumers and for the UK marketplace.
This is the right decision for the UK consumer. The PEGI system is specifically built for interactive content both on and offline and is recognised throughout Europe. In a connected digital world, implementing age rating standards that are understood across traditional frontiers will protect children from unsuitable content and help to educate parents at the same time.
Neil Thompson, Senior Regional Director UK & Ireland Entertainment & Devices Division, Microsoft wrote:This is the right decision, the most important issue to be considered is that of child safety. A single PEGI system is by far the best means of promoting child safety; given the fact that PEGI is used for offline and online games in 29 countries across Europe. In a globalised market where children can play video games online across borders, this decision will provide clarity and consistency in deciding what games are appropriate for children and in enforcing those decisions – now and in the future.
LewieP on
0
Posts
Hey Mike, did you forget about the fucking parents? o_O
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
*agrees with Ziggymon on the same subject but in a different thread this time* :whistle:
Grats videogame publishers, you've saved a bob or two on not having to submit games to the BBFC and on packaging design. Stop pretending to give a crap about child protection you disingenuous bastards.
Sooooooo so sosososo true. Truth that is sadly inadequate as parents just ain't cutting it on the whole.
The BBFC is made up of experts from the Film Industry who understand very little about games. With government backing, PEGI can become the equivalent in the games industry, taking comments from game Publishers and developers.
The new PEGI ratings will also be enforced by law, meaning like with the BBFC ratings if a store sells a rated game to someone underage they can be fined and if an adult buys a game for a child that they're not related to they can face a fine also.
All we need now is clearer ratings. None of this 3+, 7+ shit - we need clear, obvious ratings that make it clear to everyone involved what it means and who it's suitable for. Numbers often correspond to difficulty levels for people, so we need better symbols. Then correspond the new ratings to the old equivalent so old games can be reprinted with the new logos and we're good to go.
XBL/PSN/Steam: APZonerunner
Edit: Excluding scenarios where something about the game itself is illegal, like say it contains stolen or damaging code.
did they suggest that this would be possible
because, wow
I know there's a different school of thought over there on the British side of the pond, but why is this a good thing in like, any way?
No I was just thinking out loud.
But yes, the Video Standards Council have power to ban games.
That's not even close to being applicable to what he said but nice tangent anyways.
I don't think games should be banned either (not sure where this came up from), but I do firmly believe that they should be prevented from getting to people who aren't old enough to play them. Yes there's flexibility in this and everyone matures at a different rate, but anything that works to let parents know that this game their 10-year-old is demanding features blood, boobs, and blood-covered boobs, is a good thing.
And fuck the children. Thats what their fucking parents are for.
What does 15 mean? I don't understand? Does he have to be 15 stone to play? Noes? I DON'T COMPREHEND!
This is one of the few places I'd love for us to adopt the American view. Because to hell with the government telling adults what media they can consume.
Otherwise I’m ambivalent to this. I think the entire system of censorship is broken but it’s not going to undergo a fundamental overhaul so c’est la vie.
PEGI is the right choice on paper, but applied right now to the Uk specifically its still far too confusing and will have a backlash from retailers once these ratings become enforced, As it stands anyone can purchase a PEGI rated game and that has lead parents to think that the ratings represent skill level instead of age classification. Many parents don't even understand what the symbols even mean on the back of each box, while any sort of advertisements from PEGI themselves to make parents and retailers more aware have been frankly pathetic.
Also being europe wide ratings system how is each game classified when there are different age standards for what is suitable in one country to another to begin with? One country might see a game like Persona 3's content to be unsuitable for 12 year olds and another might yet the PEGI rating is 12+. Some BBFC 15 games in the UK have 18 + PEGI ratings in europe, so there's already a shift that most games over here will have an even higher enforced rating, when the content is no different.
Other facts that some developers will still cut content from games to ensure they get a better PEGI rating have been taking place in the past already, Ninja Gaiden on the XBOX for example.
What Leitner said is my point. Yes children should be protected from inappropriate material by the government (and ideally their parents too), but the government should not tell me what I can and can't play.
It is not the governments duty to babysit children nor control what they can and can't consume in media.
Again I know it's different in Britain, but in no way should the government control distribution in any way of artistic material whatsoever.
Yes, the government should restrict distribution to children of things like Pornography and Cigarettes, because they're clearly damaging to children and hold no merit.
But man restricting free expression of ideas and art is way bunk.
Like I said though, Government backing should stop this from happening. The new PEGI system is going to have new, clearer logos and government backing that should hopefully manifest itself in the form of advertising and awareness campaigns that ensure people know what these new, clearer ratings symbols mean.
As for companies cutting content, that's just a sad byproduct of the ratings system. It happens in the US, too, just to a lesser extent because the ratings aren't law there, and so it technically doesn't restict their sales.
I hate to agree with Jack Thompson, but I'm of the opinion that a 10 year old shouldn't be able to go into a store and buy GTA with his pocket money. With systems that aren't enforced by law all the ratings company or government can do is ask stores nicely to comply, which isn't good enough as there are always going to be stores, managers and clerks who simply ignore that request. It doesn't matter what that 10 year old is going to see in the game - it's all money in the till to some of them.
The government enforced ratings don't mean children can't play these games, and they don't mean that if you let your kid play them child protection services are going to be on your ass - you're perfectly welcome to go and buy the game for your kid and let them play it if you want. The key here is the parent has to do it for them, and in order for the parent to do that they have to go to the store themselves where hopefully a well-trained cashier will ensure they understand what the content of the game is and what you do in it and then they can then make an informed decision.
When I covered the GTA4 launch event at a HMV store for a website I write for I was very pleasantly surprised to see them warning every person with a young kid in tow what the game was and what the rating meant - and many walked away without the game as a result. This is what needs to happen. It's a good thing for the industry, as it means less "this game poisoned my child" horror stories which are incredibly damaging.
Enforced by law means a few things - if a store sells a game to an underaged person they can be fined and even if a cashier does it deliberately and repeatedly they can individually be fined for it. It also means if kids hang out outside a store asking passing people to buy the game for them the person can be refused the sale and it's more than just manager's decision, it's the law.
I don't really think it's stopping anybody from doing anything or preventing free-speech, as like I said parents can come in and buy the game for their kids. It just helps put a stop to the "I didn't know what they were playing!!" excuse, as they have to go and buy it for them and see the box and see the rating and hopefully see a cashier who warns them.
PEGI's a better decision for games too I think, as while the BBFC do believe banning stuff is a solution (see Manhunt), PEGI aren't in the habit of suggesting anything should be banned or refusing anything classification. I don't think anything should ever be banned, obviously.
XBL/PSN/Steam: APZonerunner
The government should not be involved in the censoring art. There's no law against children of any age going into a museum of sculpture and paintings that contain graphic portrayals of large groups of naked people all hanging around. There's no law(in the US at least) against children of any age going into a movie theater and seeing films with any level of sex and violence(barring when it's just porn). There's no law against children of any age buying books with in depth depictions of sex or violence. There's no law against children of any age going to operas in which the actors simulate or even have sex onstage(yes, they exist).
Setting aside videogames first of all is bad because it restricts distribution of art, something the government should never do, and secondly because it sets videogames as something different and less than any other forms of art.
Whilst it's true PEGI haven't done a good job of advertising themselves, the labelling on the box is about as crystal clear as I could see them making it (all the symbols are clearly labelled), and if there's a parent that can't understand it after 10 seconds looking at the box then I think they've got FAR bigger issues as a parent than choosing a game for Timmy Ten year old.
I don't see what else they can do for the packaging outside of shoving cigarette packet style "THIS IS WHAT AN 18 RATED GAME WILL DO TO YOUR CHILD" picture onto the carton, showing a nerdy 7 year old with huge coke bottle glasses being picked on the in the playground.
I don't know, maybe it's just that I'm used to these rating systems, but I can't see what's so vague about them.
Parents are perfectly welcome to buy Pulp Fiction on DVD and show it to their kids, too. But again, the kids can't go into a store and buy the DVD themselves. These are the same rules that apply to games.
It's not stopping the art, it's just ensuring that art which has questional content is kept out of reach of children until their parents deem it necessary or until they legally come of age. Not to compare it to games or movies but it's the same with everything like that - my mom was happy with my drinking (in moderation) at 16, but until I turned 18 she had to buy it all for me.
As far as art galleries, novels or opera goes, we both know that's not a fair comparison, I think. Your average kid buys GTA or Gears of War because they like the violence, not because they want to experience the art design. I speak from experience; I fully remember my obsessions with GTA, Doom and Duke Nukem as a young'un being almost entirely fuelled by amazement at how lewd it all was. "They said a naughty word! If you press attack with no weapon you swear!" My 10 year old cousin is the same way - his mother doesn't moderate what he plays at all, despite my pleas, and all he's interested in is GTA, Call of Duty, Saints Row, Gears of War, Halo, etc and all he's interested in is the blood and swearing. You can hand him a beautiful game like Oblivion or LittleBigPlanet and he'll just laugh and call it boring. Killzone, however? Awesome.
The ratings are designed to put the decision in the hands of the parents. It's not restricting anything, it's just ensuring the parents get to make that decision, rather than the children making it themselves when they're either not ready to or when their parents don't want them to.
XBL/PSN/Steam: APZonerunner
Are you sure about this? I'm not sure this is true.
I can't say I'm particularly pleased about this. My parents always used to think the PEGI ratings were about how hard the game was. They understood the BBFC symbolism perfectly. I don't believe the BBFC did a bad job rating games, and the rating system itself works fine. They certainly worked a lot better than the US system where an M rated game can mean just about anything. I think they understood games pretty well, especially from the comments that used to come out from them in the media. PEGI is an unnecessary secondary layer.
What should have happened is what the Byron Report recommended: the BBFC continued to rate things for over 12. I'd add that The Video Nasties Act (I forget what it's called) should have been amended to make it more applicable to video games.
Uh no it shouldn't. In fact the video nasties act should not exist at all. It's in concept abhorrent, I don’t give a toss how tasteless something is, if you propose censorship you instantly lower yourself to a level below whatever degenerate mind created them.
Fairly certain, as I was amazed when I went to see something 18 rated to see a kid that couldn't have been older than 12 in there with his parents. I asked my manager at work at the time about it (at the time I was working in a DVD shop, so he'd obviously been through all the BBFC training) and that was what he said - he said it was the same rules as selling, where if there's a parent or guardian with you, you can technically go to see anything.
EDIT: They're proposing right now keeping the ratings as they are but putting in the BBFC colors:
Which is better, I think, but I'd rather have new logos entirely. This is a very early draft idea, mind.
XBL/PSN/Steam: APZonerunner
You seriously need to get your head in the game. It's an Act not about censorship, but classification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Recordings_Act_1984 It forces certain types of media to be classified by the BBFC. The BBFC does not routinely ban anything.
I'm not for censorship, but I am for making sure that the right material is only purchasable by the right ages.
Those aren;t the BBFC colours. And 16 is absolutely worthless. Whats the need in that over the 15 rating? Means people who are buying 15 games now won't be able to whenever this is enforced and the 2 years between 16 and 18 isn't as drastic as the change between 12 and 15.
And how can a game contain FEAR? What idiot came up with that as a description?
They only banned Manhunt 2 because some dick MP thought he could make his name by propagating false information about the original.
They do look better, I don't know why they didn't do it before. I wonder if what should happen is the government takes away the BBFC iconography entirely and replaces it with a standardized version that is used for all the separate ratings boards.
As in horror games? I suppose they could put horror instead, but it made sense to me. :?
That's part of the problem with PEGI, most of the descriptions don't mean anything to people in the UK anyway. Does the 'Sex' descriptor mean kissing? Nudity? Full on balls out penetration? You don't know.
The reason for 16 instead of 15 I think is to match other things - it's 16 to drive, 16 to drink in a restaurant (with guardian) and such, whereas 15 doesn't 'unlock' anything else.
XBL/PSN/Steam: APZonerunner
And look on any fan fiction board to see exactly what the 14 year old girls are reading novels for.
If the parent isn't going to moderate what they play anyways, why does it even matter if the government starts censoring? The parents that don't care will continue to buy their kids the games. Those that do aren't overwhelmed by the fact that their children can buy games they aren't supposed to be playing.
My parents didn't like me playing violent games while growing up. They didn't monitor too much because they simply didn't know what was out there, but they did monitor, and they did restrict certain games. The government didn't need to censor for that to happen.
This only puts power in the hands of the parents on the most superficial level, and it is still the government restricting sales. There's no way to paint the government stepping in and making it illegal to sell games to a specific group of people that isn't acknowledging that it is a restriction of sales. It's not putting power of decision into the hands of parents, it's forcing parents into a decision.
In the US, any kid can buy a ticket to any movie regardless of ratings, legally. Most theaters will refuse to let kids under 17 see R rated movies without a parent. There is no need for government censor because the system works 99% of the time, and the other 1% of the time is a fine price to pay for preserving freedom of expression.
This could go back and forth forever, but all I'll say is that sometimes forcing people to make a decision is better than no decision at all.
XBL/PSN/Steam: APZonerunner
Yeah, which doesn't happen anymore. You're trying to claim the law is flawed because it was applied more strictly during a different societal context. That's a wrong-headed claim. The law works perfectly well, and works in the interests of the majority at the time. It goes on to say Hostel and Saw were released uncut with 18 certificates. If those movies are getting through unscathed, I really don't think you have a leg to stand on with the "OMG CENSORSHIP" argument.
If Shakespeare wanted to make sure he fit a specific age ranking lest his work have possible stunted sales, would he still have written a play in which all the characters take drugs and switch partners for a night?
Yeah, you and I understand what it means but its a silly descriptor. Contains Gambling? Ok. Contains Violence? Sure. Contains Fear? The fuck?
You're making the typical American mistake where you're confusing censorship with legally-enforced classification. It's part of the reason why the on-going dialogue about this issue in the US is so poisonous, radicals on each side are making it out to be something it's not.
Most movies are not censored in any way by the BBFC, but some directors choose to make different cuts in order to hit a different classification. This happens in the US too.
Hahah, I see what you mean. Box contains 2% anxiety and is made with 33% more love.