Guardian: UK plans legally enforceable game ratings
The Guardian does not state who would be responsible for administering the new ratings, although a likely candidate would be the British Board of Film Classification, who spearheaded the Manhunt 2 ban. Although we're hesitant whenever the government tries to step in and tell us what to play (that whole censorship thing), perhaps with a new system they can implement a rating that would allow games like Manhunt 2 to be carried. (Hey, we can dream.)
The proposal also goes into ways the government can restrict children from seeing unsuitable games (don't forget all new consoles have family settings) and internet content. A commissioned review of violence and video games is due next month.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Tiptup300 @ Feb 11th 2008 7:01PM
Great, now which country can I flock to once the US creates this retarded legislation.
Gregory @ Feb 11th 2008 7:07PM
Its been beaten down time and time again in the states. Its against the constitution, just like there can't be a law discriminating against age for buying book, movies etc. (except pr0n)
Nick the Hero of Canton @ Feb 11th 2008 7:07PM
Ohhh Canandaa!
What, I plan on immigrating up there some day.
Abuzar @ Feb 11th 2008 11:50PM
No, you plan on EMIGRATING there.
t_m @ Feb 12th 2008 10:27AM
Why "except porn"? Its either the constitution or it isn't... if its legal to limit porn based on age, then its legal to limit games.. can'thave it both ways.
Samo @ Feb 11th 2008 7:05PM
Eh? Isn't the BBFC's system ALREADY legally binding? It's the same logo as their Film ones (U, PG, 15, 18), and anyone caught selling to minors is in deep dodo...
I assume (I haven't read The Guardian, likely never will) that this just means Westminster will appoint some new Co / board / detached-from-reality group to review and age-rate games, rather than the BBFC, which would be good news, seeing that They let SAW through with 18, and not ManHunt 2...
...Please let the newie group do a decent job! Still would like to play MH2!
Shadowcast @ Feb 11th 2008 7:47PM
Yeah, BBFC ratings are already legally binding, the way I understand this new system is that it simply requires all games be rated by the BBFC, as it stands they have the option to not rate games and have them just carry the non legally binding PEGI rating.
I don;t really see this system changing much as the BBFC always seem to be fair in their ratings. (I'm purposefully ignoring Manhunt 2 becuase I have zero interest in ever playing it)
Cal @ Feb 11th 2008 7:46PM
Yeah BBFC is legally binding, and no one in their right mind reads the Guardian... They're probably (if this is true) going to kick PEGI out and bring in a new specialised branch of the BBFC for games...
jamma @ Feb 11th 2008 7:51PM
I couldn't care less for MH2, but i still hate the fact that the BBFC think they have the right to BAN a game completely.
If they are human beings, that understand that the violence of the game is wrong, then what makes them think that other human beings are not the same? Do they think they're superior to us just because they work for the government?
Sure, you get idiots and people that take violent games to seriously, but that goes for absolutely anything.
An 18 rated game would allow adults to play the game, but not children. Of course parents will buy the game for their kids, but that's their prerogative, and the parents are adults too.
Rate games 18 if you want BBFC, but don't ban them. They're not harming anybody, and we all have a right to judge how violent the game is for ourselves
paulypies @ Feb 11th 2008 8:43PM
The BBFC does a decent enough job rating games when it does. it doesnt tend to over estimate the supposed effect of being able to control the action. It wouldn't surprise me if it just makes PEGI ratings legally enforcable. and to be fair. most games stores and supermarkets etc treat them as though they are anyway. just as with everything else its just a case of ID'ing people. just as you wouldn't expect a shop to sell the likes of saw or hostal to an 8 year old, it makes perfect sense to do the same with all games. its already in effect with pretty much every '18' game as they are rated by the BBFC.
on another note regarding all the mass effect 'controversy' those outside of the UK may be unaware that the BBFC rated it a '12' legally enforcable, yes. but also realistic. M rating is madness!
Farseer (GDI) @ Feb 12th 2008 12:38AM
"...Please let the newie group do a decent job! Still would like to play MH2!"
No, you really don't want to. Trust me. Controversy aside, the game is pretty terrible.
mattclarkie @ Feb 12th 2008 9:37AM
At the moment some games just have the PEGI rating, although generally only games rated 12 or below. Although retailers have a policy that this is the same as if it was a BBFC, apparantly a retailer can't be legally held accountable if they do sell it to someone younger than the rating.
It makes no difference to me now, but I used to buy games online when I was too young, with the permission of my parents, so that loop-hole will always exist.
Zarim @ Feb 11th 2008 7:06PM
States try this in the US all the time; it always gets declared unconstitutional, however. Lawmakers just do it so they can say "look parents, I care about your kids so you don't have to, vote for me!"
Neil @ Feb 11th 2008 8:41PM
Good thing the UK doesn't have a stupid constitution to get in the way of good ideas.
The BBFC ratings in the UK are already legally binding and it works wonders as a defence mechanism for the games industry. In the USA at the moment it's perfectly legal for a child to buy Manhunt 2 and clearly this is wrong.
I'd hate to live in a country where new laws cannot be passed because one old piece of paper says so.
Vidikron (FU) @ Feb 11th 2008 10:21PM
I'd rather handle my duties as a parent myself without the need for the gov't telling me how to do the job... thanks.
Synner @ Feb 12th 2008 4:27AM
We're glad you don't live here too. If your willingness to turn over freedoms to the government is indicative of the rest of your country's opinions, it will only be a matter of time before us Ignorant Americans and all our freedoms are parachuting and storming your beaches to free you from some fascist government.
A person willing to give up a small measure of freedom for a measure of security, deserves neither freedom, nor security. - Ben Franklin
A Pissed-off English Gamer @ Feb 12th 2008 8:16AM
Please, don't imply that our political system gives rise to the possibility of a fascist government. Our country is one of the only in Europe which plainly didn't even need a revolution, and for politics is a damn-sight cleaner than the likes of Italy (and even America, to be honest)
The lack of a constitution has made us able to introduce laws that make Party finance as clean as possible, where as American politics uses an obscene sum of money because the constitution protects politicians from having their campaigns limited in spending. The Mcain-Feigngold party finance law is a good start, but they would have made it more far-reaching if they didn't face the opposition they did.
Besides, Britain has a constitution. We simply get to benefit from the fact that it isn't written down on any one piece of paper. Our law lords can declare laws passed by parliament to be illegal, just like your supreme court judges.
Also, i don't like Rockstar in this whole endaevor. They love that it's caused this stir, because it's making people want MH2, no matter how bad a game it probably is. If the BBFC banned a terrible EA game for being terrible, not just gory, i'd say the same thing i'm saying now: way to protect the public!
mattclarkie @ Feb 12th 2008 9:48AM
To be fair we did have a revolution of sorts, called the Civil War, in which a religious nutter over-threw and executed the monarchy, and within 20years was over-thrown because he banned music and fun.
As a result the monarchy was basically stripped of all power, and this was then handed to a newly revised form of parliamentary government, laying down basically the modern system of the UK today.
Fernando Rocker @ Feb 11th 2008 7:18PM
Question off topic:
It is normal that I'm listening Bing Bang from Lazy Town in youtube?
Undead Priest @ Feb 11th 2008 7:25PM
If you're not watching the video, I'll let it slide.
If you are, you're a pedo. :|
:p
Evan @ Feb 11th 2008 7:35PM
No dude, it isn't. My little sister watches that show all the time and for better or worse it does have some catchy tunes.
CNash @ Feb 11th 2008 8:07PM
Yarr har fiddle de dee
Being a pirate is alright with me
Do what you want 'cos a pirate is free
You are a pirate!
ThornedVenom @ Feb 11th 2008 10:40PM
Fernando, I don't know you anymore. XD
.... although that song got stuck in my head a long while back.
Mr Khan @ Feb 11th 2008 7:24PM
I don't really see what difference the law would make, aside from the very significant aspect of establishing precedent of state censorship, I mean the kids who really want it will still get their parents to buy it for them, the only thing is that this now forces the parents to be a part of the decision process
The other problem is whether or not they appoint a competent authority. I like Parliament (much more exciting than Congress) but i'm not aware of how in-touch they are
please @ Feb 11th 2008 7:24PM
HOw bout legislation where all video game profits over 1 million dollars go to the poor and health care.
Catprog @ Feb 11th 2008 8:44PM
Why restrict it to video games. Throw in moves,software,tv shows,music and books.
ThornedVenom @ Feb 11th 2008 10:50PM
Lemme get this straight: knowing that videogames cost several millions of dollars to develop, and that there's always a high risk of failure and of losing a lot of money, you think that videogame companies would accept a legislation like that?
You could be expecting them to be moving to Mexico.
ALH @ Feb 12th 2008 7:04AM
'HOw bout legislation where all video game profits over 1 million dollars go to the poor and health care.'
how about all video game profits over 1 million dollars go into the pockets of the people who made the game in the first place. Why should they have to go poor and without healthcare?
James @ Feb 11th 2008 7:26PM
This kind of thing needs to be done. I'm 22 so I don't care about kids anymore but I think age ratings should be enforced a little better.
And I grew up on Mortal Kombat and Duke 3D and it didn't make me into one of the angry gamers you see around here.
Farseer (GDI) @ Feb 12th 2008 12:45AM
So are the gamers angry gamers because the games made them so, or are the gamers angry to begin with? Being that you (and countless others) grew up on video games, and they did not make you an angry person, let's assume the latter.
If the gamers are angry gamers to begin with, they would be angry if they had video games, and they would also be angry if they had pointed sticks. I myself would rather an angry gamer have a video game then a pointed stick, but that's just me.
How about we figure out the cause of the anger first, and then examine whether or not games actually have anything to do with it. My bet is that the source of their anger is a rabbit hole most don't want to fall into.
It's easier to blame video games.
netgem21 @ Feb 11th 2008 7:30PM
For goodness sake, we don't need a legally binding rating system. We need a parental advice system. Once again our government has screwed us over.
Corbo @ Feb 11th 2008 7:31PM
To be honest, I doubt this'll make much of a difference to most people. Just as a policy, retailers don't usually go against the recommended ratings anyway, so unless they completely change the rating system, it won't matter much.
My only worry is that it sets a disturbing precedent, assuming it's true. Oh, and it'll probably add a whole new layer of unnecessary quangos to the certification process.
Evan @ Feb 11th 2008 7:33PM
Legal implications aside, it is not a terrible idea to sell by following a ratings system. The problem is implementation, enforcement, the rating agency etc.
I for one, would be quite ok if in the US you had to meet the ESRB rating to buy the game. The only caveat being it would have to be industry enforced, not government enforced. In a larger sense we are moving this way anyways.
Mr Khan @ Feb 11th 2008 9:21PM
There is one problem with industry enforcement, the fact that businesses cannot, by their nature, be trusted to enforce a system which forces certain individuals to not buy their product
Granted, i don't know the statistics on wrongful M-rated sales, but its money that the industry could be having
I know its not right to suspect them of that, but there needs to be a trust that implementation will occur, otherwise it is meaningless
LaughingTarget @ Feb 12th 2008 4:08AM
Worked for the MPAA for decades. Industry self regulation has a better record than government regulation. It's actually harder finding theaters that violate the MPAA rating than it is to find someone violating just about any legislated restriction you can think of.
bigd7387 @ Feb 11th 2008 7:34PM
I am so glad that George Washington kicked Englands ASS. I'll be the one to decide what my now 17 year old Son can play and not the God Damned Government. God Bless the U.S.A..
Markusdragon @ Feb 11th 2008 7:46PM
Of course, in the USA, what your 17 year old son can play is decided by the corporations instead. At least a government is a democratic body serving it's people, the corporations serve no-one but themselves.
See also: This film is not yet rated.
Vidikron (FU) @ Feb 11th 2008 10:23PM
@Markusdragon
No, that stuff should be decided by parents.
ThornedVenom @ Feb 11th 2008 10:53PM
Dude, if you're in charge, then go buy the game for him.
I think the law is about selling games to who, not if it's illegal if a game was played by who.
INotI @ Feb 11th 2008 11:13PM
The big advantage of a government rating system is that it is a decision of an administrative body, which can be appealed to the court system, and has to follow certain legal requirements in rating the games. As opposed to when the MPAA or ESRB rate your movie/game, and there's nothing you can do about it legally if you don't like the rating they give.
I have absolutely no problem with government supervision/rating of any cultural product here in Canada or in the UK. I'd be very wary of it if I was an American, given how much more conservative and religious the culture in that country is, and how much more politically active such groups are.
LaughingTarget @ Feb 12th 2008 4:22AM
Um, the only reason AO games, the only ones having trouble selling, have any problems is due to voluntary retailer sales. With services like Steam and Direct2Drive becoming more popular, AO won't be an issue much longer. Yes, the courts can overturn decisions, but it is infinitely more likely the courts will strip the entire system from the Government. Besides, all a rating system will do, using past legislative effects of just about anything, is add an unreasonably expensive bureaucracy that is less effective than the private or unregulated alternative. There's a reason why alcohol consumption increases in dry counties and during the prohibition.
This could work in the UK. Different culture. For lack of a kinder way to say this, Brits are sheep. They do what they're told to do. Americans are more rebellious, tell us we can't do something and we just keep on doing it, with people who otherwise never did it before doing it now. A legislated rating system would be a disaster in the US. Congress has infinitely more important things to worry about, like a failing dollar and ways to shave $1.8 trillion off the annual budget and get debt under control, not adding to the expense.
Razorlution @ Feb 11th 2008 7:38PM
I dont understand why this is not a law everywhere. The ratings are there for a reason. Working in a place that sells video games, I always deny M rated games to anyone under 17.
What happens next, the kid leaves, and brings his/her parent to argue with me. This is what is wrong in the world.
Parents get mad when their kid brings home a violent game, and want to return it, and if their kid doesnt get what they want, they argue the exact thing they would contradict.
Here in Canada, retailers are fined large amounts for being caught selling to minors.
I noticed someone said its unconstitutional in the US, yet if you are under 18, can you just walk into an R Rated movie?? No, you cant get a ticket, its the same thing.
paulypies @ Feb 11th 2008 8:43PM
exactly! it's the same in the UK, and has been semi in effect for years. you wouldn't sell porn or horror dvds to kids. games are still a medium that can display the same things.
License to ill @ Feb 12th 2008 8:12AM
"I noticed someone said its unconstitutional in the US, yet if you are under 18, can you just walk into an R Rated movie?? No, you cant get a ticket, its the same thing".
Its a volunteer ratings system enforced by the movie industry not Govt...
CNash @ Feb 11th 2008 8:12PM
It's a good idea to have all games rated under a legally binding system (although, as has been said, the BBFC ratings are already legally binding), but kids will still be playing games rated at the highest levels - and it will be because their parents don't care enough about what they're buying.
I work in a video games store, and so many times I've seen parents who'll think nothing of letting their ten-year-old get GTA et al, but quite vocally stop them from picking up a DVD movie that's out of their age range. I make a point of asking (and in fact I think I'm legally required to) "Are you sure you want your son to play this 18-rated game?", and they just absently nod their heads.
Ethan @ Feb 11th 2008 8:13PM
I think this is fine. It'll probably mean no games are banned in the future, as BBFC said they were sure Manhunt 2 would get into the hands of kiddies.
Oh and I'm 18 now, so this doesn't affect me. For 12 games I think it should be like the movies - you can get it if your parent or guardian's (heh, guardian) there.
Batzarro @ Feb 11th 2008 8:27PM
Waste of everyones time. I played violent games, and I turned out allright(mid/high school nerd trauma aside). It's all about parents telling their kids the difference between fantasy and reality(although why mama kept saying those breasts were fake, I'll never know...)
Neil @ Feb 11th 2008 8:45PM
People are missing part of the point here. Those of us who are adults who grew up "playing violent games" played things like Mortal Kombat where 2D sprites attacked each other with weapons which were maybe 20 pixels wide. There was no aiming in many games and no conscious decision "I'll shoot this guy" like you have now.
The realism in games today means that they are much more influential, especially on children.
Synner @ Feb 12th 2008 7:29AM
Neil,
you are a fucking idiot.
Deck @ Feb 11th 2008 8:53PM
They'll still get their hands on it (kids) but in theory it could be good. Its just all how they actually view their own ratings and then apply the ratings. If they are realistic and smart, it may be alright. But if they are overly conservative regarding the measure, it may be bad.