According to British newspaper The Guardian, a new classification system is set to be introduced for video games sold in the United Kingdom. The proposal would deem the rating system legally binding, making it against the law for retailers to sell games to persons below the recommended age rating.
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 (62)
Posted: Feb 11th 2008 10:57PM ThornedVenom said
I don't think it's Hell on Earth yet. It's about legally restricting the sale to children who don't qualify for the age restrictions: I think it's normal that these regulations should be taken more seriously.
They're not telling you what you should or shouldn't play. They're enforcing parental responsibility by making the kids ask their parents if they'd accept that they buy this or that M-rated game.
And we all want parents to be more responsible for their children.
They're not telling you what you should or shouldn't play. They're enforcing parental responsibility by making the kids ask their parents if they'd accept that they buy this or that M-rated game.
And we all want parents to be more responsible for their children.
Posted: Feb 11th 2008 11:33PM Lone Starr said
"They're not telling you what you should or shouldn't play."
Of course they are, otherwise these laws would be completely redundant and useless.
"They're enforcing parental responsibility by making the kids ask their parents if they'd accept that they buy this or that M-rated game."
How are they enforcing parental responsibility if they are doing the work for the parents? Will these "enforceable ratings" seriously legislate away the problem of little kids buying mature games? Of course not -- if that were true, we could legislate away all of the world's problems.
So what's my point? The government is doing something that parents should do. It is, in fact, enabling parents to be less vigilant because they will assume the government is handling it. This is a parent and market issue and should be left as such. It is unfortunate that legislation that restricts freedom will interfere.
Reply
Of course they are, otherwise these laws would be completely redundant and useless.
"They're enforcing parental responsibility by making the kids ask their parents if they'd accept that they buy this or that M-rated game."
How are they enforcing parental responsibility if they are doing the work for the parents? Will these "enforceable ratings" seriously legislate away the problem of little kids buying mature games? Of course not -- if that were true, we could legislate away all of the world's problems.
So what's my point? The government is doing something that parents should do. It is, in fact, enabling parents to be less vigilant because they will assume the government is handling it. This is a parent and market issue and should be left as such. It is unfortunate that legislation that restricts freedom will interfere.
Posted: Feb 11th 2008 11:43PM ThornedVenom said
I get your point, except that you're not seeing this as a tool for parents to help raise their children: without such legislation, a kid can technically buy any game he wants without parental control. Another point is that even if parents SHOULD be doing that job, how many are actually doing it?
If things were different, then I'd completely agree with your stance. Unfortunately I don't view our civilisation as a utopia where everyone is as capable as they claim to be in raising children.
PS: "Not selling games to kids" isn't telling kids what they should or shouldn't play. "Making age-restricted games illegal for minors" is.
Reply
If things were different, then I'd completely agree with your stance. Unfortunately I don't view our civilisation as a utopia where everyone is as capable as they claim to be in raising children.
PS: "Not selling games to kids" isn't telling kids what they should or shouldn't play. "Making age-restricted games illegal for minors" is.
Posted: Feb 12th 2008 12:47AM Lone Starr said
"I get your point, except that you're not seeing this as a tool for parents to help raise their children: without such legislation, a kid can technically buy any game he wants without parental control. Another point is that even if parents SHOULD be doing that job, how many are actually doing it?"
I totally agree with you here and realize what you are saying. Regardless of what parents should be doing, I still think it's the parents' (not the government's) job. All the legislation in the world cannot stop these sales of games. The effort has to be from the parents (and the sellers). To this end, private groups (parental, industry watchdogs) could police far more effectively. They wield enormous power, as can be seen in the genesis of a lot of video game legislation.
"If things were different, then I'd completely agree with your stance. Unfortunately I don't view our civilisation as a utopia where everyone is as capable as they claim to be in raising children."
I believe in the policy solutions I outlined precisely because I believe we do not live in some utopia. Regardles, I know we agree what should be done, but differ on how that would be best be accomplished. I don't think we'll resolve the particulars here. :)
"PS: 'Not selling games to kids' isn't telling kids what they should or shouldn't play. 'Making age-restricted games illegal for minors' is."
I think we're pretty much in agremeent here as well.
Reply
I totally agree with you here and realize what you are saying. Regardless of what parents should be doing, I still think it's the parents' (not the government's) job. All the legislation in the world cannot stop these sales of games. The effort has to be from the parents (and the sellers). To this end, private groups (parental, industry watchdogs) could police far more effectively. They wield enormous power, as can be seen in the genesis of a lot of video game legislation.
"If things were different, then I'd completely agree with your stance. Unfortunately I don't view our civilisation as a utopia where everyone is as capable as they claim to be in raising children."
I believe in the policy solutions I outlined precisely because I believe we do not live in some utopia. Regardles, I know we agree what should be done, but differ on how that would be best be accomplished. I don't think we'll resolve the particulars here. :)
"PS: 'Not selling games to kids' isn't telling kids what they should or shouldn't play. 'Making age-restricted games illegal for minors' is."
I think we're pretty much in agremeent here as well.
Posted: Feb 11th 2008 11:43PM (Unverified) said
No one has explained to be what is wrong with a legally bounded system for ratings games?
If I make a game that is 100% porn, I can sell it in stores to little children but I can't do the same for movie porn?
This isn't against the law, or against the Constitution, the judges rules the insane laws certain states wanted to pass were. That is a HUGE difference between the two.
If I make a game that is 100% porn, I can sell it in stores to little children but I can't do the same for movie porn?
This isn't against the law, or against the Constitution, the judges rules the insane laws certain states wanted to pass were. That is a HUGE difference between the two.
Posted: Feb 12th 2008 12:28AM (Unverified) said
The main problem with this is that this is a band aid for a cracked damn. This will not fix anything, in the same way age restrictions for tobacco, alcohol, violent movies, bad language CD's, guns and other adult things get into children's hands...the nag factor.
Its simple really. Kid wants something. Kid cannot get it because he is not an adult. Kid nags adult. Careless adult buys thing kid wants. Then adult gives thing to kid. Kid causes destruction. Careless adult then blames the store.
See the problem?
All the stores in the US that I have ever been to do the same age restrictions stuff and that is not even a federal enforced thing but they treat it like it. Yet M-Rated games still get sold because careless parents buy the thing them self and then gives it to the kids, just like how older brothers and sisters get the youngers alcohol for parties. They see the goodies as trivial and do not take it seriously.
I believe that in order to rectify the problem you need to go after the parents. Teach them that video games are serious things and hang any of them that win the Darwin Awards for stupidity.
I say this to people all the time: Buying your kid an M Rated game is like buying your kid a loaded hand gun. In short: DON'T DO IT!
Its simple really. Kid wants something. Kid cannot get it because he is not an adult. Kid nags adult. Careless adult buys thing kid wants. Then adult gives thing to kid. Kid causes destruction. Careless adult then blames the store.
See the problem?
All the stores in the US that I have ever been to do the same age restrictions stuff and that is not even a federal enforced thing but they treat it like it. Yet M-Rated games still get sold because careless parents buy the thing them self and then gives it to the kids, just like how older brothers and sisters get the youngers alcohol for parties. They see the goodies as trivial and do not take it seriously.
I believe that in order to rectify the problem you need to go after the parents. Teach them that video games are serious things and hang any of them that win the Darwin Awards for stupidity.
I say this to people all the time: Buying your kid an M Rated game is like buying your kid a loaded hand gun. In short: DON'T DO IT!
Posted: Feb 12th 2008 1:44AM Maverick Saturn 06 said
These stupid legislations are already implemented ¬_¬
People just get their parents or older siblings to buy for them, or someone else older they know. Alternatively they just download the game.
Whats the point? As far as I'm concerned, they're wasting their time.
People just get their parents or older siblings to buy for them, or someone else older they know. Alternatively they just download the game.
Whats the point? As far as I'm concerned, they're wasting their time.
Posted: Feb 12th 2008 2:15AM (Unverified) said
I think the UK needs another terror attack (at least a real one this time). All ratings on games should be removed and just let us gamers play our games.
Posted: Feb 12th 2008 10:25AM (Unverified) said
This is actually good news. The retailers must be held responsible for selling mature video games to underage kids/teens so that opponents of gaming don't have any fodder to burn against us.
Posted: Feb 12th 2008 10:37AM (Unverified) said
Note to those in the US: no one gets why you have a problem with restricting violent games for minors.
All this stuff about the constitution makes no sense and is inconsistently applied.
If there are ratings, why not enforce them? If they aren't enforced, why bother?
All this stuff about the constitution makes no sense and is inconsistently applied.
If there are ratings, why not enforce them? If they aren't enforced, why bother?
Posted: Feb 12th 2008 11:14AM (Unverified) said
I like the French system, advisory PEGI ratings only. I think I'm going to be going there a lot after this lovely peice of legislation goes through.
Featured Stories
Super Joystiq Podcast 004: 38 Studios meltdown, Gravity Rush, Civilization 5: Gods & Kings, Dragon's Dogma
Posted on May 25th 2012 3:30PM



