UK's Byron Review recommends expanded game ratings system
Though Byron hopes that more film-like ratings will ease confusion among befuddled parents, the report also suggests the incorporation of Europe's PEGI rating system, with its notice appearing on the back of a game's box and the BBFC's on the front. Any retailer ignoring these ratings and selling games to a child under the printed age limit will also find itself on the wrong side of the law, as the report would deem such an act illegal.
You can read a thorough layout of the report over at Game Politics.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
ApolloIV @ Mar 27th 2008 10:33AM
Speed limit enforced by aircraft
THE WICKER MAN (BWF) (GT: Dalek Prime) @ Mar 27th 2008 12:04PM
Is this a screen shot from this years Doctor Who Christmas Special? If so I cant wait for this crossover! ;)
Maverick Saturn @ Mar 27th 2008 10:34AM
Games will be treated like illegal immigrants in the future, they will all have to sing our nation's song, sign a contract to get a legal visa, and find work. lol
Intya @ Mar 27th 2008 10:47AM
So they'll be nothing like the immigrants in my town then.
Maverick Saturn @ Mar 27th 2008 10:57AM
Lol, same with mine, these you can use.
Ted @ Mar 27th 2008 10:52AM
Pff... I'm 19 and I get asked for id more often for buying games than I do for going to the pub. So I think the British games rating system is plenty harsh already.
Although perhaps that's because the presumed age is lower when you're buying a game than when you're buying a pint.
Ted @ Mar 27th 2008 10:54AM
*PS
I meant that for when I'm buying '18' rated games like Gears of War and Unreal Tournament 3.
Ted @ Mar 27th 2008 10:55AM
Oh, and for Americans, the drinking age is 18 in the UK.
voodoo_craig @ Mar 27th 2008 11:37AM
Harsh? Not quite the sentiment I'd use.
Aside form the Manhunt 2 debaucle, here in the UK we really have an advantage with our rating system. It's clear, concise, everybody understands it and it is legally binding so there is no middle ground.
We don't have stores refusing to stock titles (because if it's not recommended for kids they can't buy them)and the only thing confusing matters at the moment is PEGI. Whilst I understand it's reasoning, all these symbols, ratings and age recommendations only confuse parents overwhelmed in an industry that is still totally foreign to many.
If they manage to make PEGI simpler and more uniform golbally it will be a brilliant standard but it's just to bloated at present.
A Pissed-off English Gamer @ Mar 27th 2008 11:44AM
Agh, me too! I'm also 19 and have probably been asked for i.d. more by a game worker than in any pub. Thing is, i haven't gotten my provisional liscence yet. I'll bet you can bet how much more of a fuss i'll kick up in a game shop than in a pub :-)
CNash @ Mar 27th 2008 11:08AM
"-Making it illegal for retailers to sell any video game to a child younger than the age rating on the game box. At present, only the most violent and sexually explicit games are regulated."
IT'S. ALREADY. ILLEGAL.
BBFC ratings ARE LEGALLY BINDING.
Ms. Byron fails at proper research.
Sir Fidlious Wong (Zeon Defense Force) @ Mar 27th 2008 11:15AM
Wow, you take a quote, misread it, and rant on a researcher which has, by far, been the biggest governmental asset to the games industry.
""-Making it illegal for retailers to sell any video game to a child younger than the age rating on the game box. At present, only the most violent and sexually explicit games are regulated.""
No, it's not already illegal. It's currently only limiting the highest rating. The lower ratings are NOT enforced. You phail.
CNash @ Mar 27th 2008 11:20AM
Um, what? BBFC ratings are legally binding. All of them. If a retailer sells a game rated 12 to an 11-year-old, they can be legally prosecuted.
Now, she probably meant PEGI ratings should be made legally binding, which I accept, but the quote is misleading.
A Pissed-off English Gamer @ Mar 27th 2008 11:46AM
I think the legality of the bbfc is something indisputable, as parliament has already declared going against its ratings illegal. If more games were rated under it, that would present much more possibilities of infringement in a gaming context. That's probably what she meant.
Benny @ Mar 27th 2008 1:57PM
I think the point is that not all games actually GET a BBFC rating. Most just get the voluntary PEGI guideline rating, which isn't legally binding.
t_m @ Mar 27th 2008 10:29PM
bbfc doesn't currently rate 12 games. Only 15/18 ones.
But i think you are right that they are legally binding. Maybe. Its all very confused.
That said, i still think the BBFC does a pretty good job.
Nigeria: Cody ChesnuTT Defense Force @ Mar 27th 2008 11:47AM
I remember when I got my Dad to buy me Duke Nukem 3D on my Saturn. I told him it was educational. He didn't believe me, but he brought anyways.
When I got home, I was stuffing virtual dollars down the cleavage of alien strippers. A dollar would get you a glimpse of alien breasts in all their pixilated glory. Then you shot her in the head. Because she was an alien. Good times, good times, indeed.
Duke Nukem was awesome.
Kujel @ Mar 27th 2008 12:10PM
All the rating systems should be abolished and damn parents do their job and actually look at the games cover. You can always tell a kids game from a more mature title: kids games have a kiddy look or are based off a kid's movie/show/toy, more mature games normally have a darker/grittier cover and often times a weapon or two on the front. It isn't fucking rocket science people, almost never does this system fail to find kid appropriate games.
Cutty @ Mar 27th 2008 12:14PM
Ever heard the phrase 'never judge a book by its cover'? I'm sure an age rating is far more effective at revealing how appropriate a game is for children than it's cover.
Kujel @ Mar 27th 2008 12:19PM
In the case of books yes, for games no. You can look at its cover and know right away if it's OK for Little Johny. Now that doesn't tell you if it is actually a good game but it's pretty clear if it's OK for an 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, etc year old.
RobLink (McElroy Defence Force) @ Mar 28th 2008 4:20PM
Not really. Just looking at my game collection, Orange Box has a geeky looking dude, a roadsign-alike with a stickman falling into a hole, and a big beefy guy with a cheesy grin. Nothing to suggest shooting and killing, but there's plenty of that in HL2 and TF2. Prey has an Eagle logo. Resi Evil 4 has a silhouette. None of whicj indicate violence.
I do agree with the fact that parents should take more responsibility with the games they buy. That will come with time, as more gamers become parents (like myself). For the time being, though, there should definitely be some kind of assistance in place from a government-run agency. This isn't a bad thing, it's allowing parents more involvement in the effective decisions they make about whether or not little Johnny is allowed to play Bioshock.
And I'm not kidding there. On GMTV the other day there were some 'concerned parents' that were worried about the violent video games that their 11 and 12 year olds play. And they were showing Resi Evil 4 and Bioshock. Those are the kind of parents that this really needs to be enforced for. They need ejumacashun.
Kujel @ Mar 28th 2008 4:46PM
RoboLink a book has two sides to it's cover and just looking at one side doesn't tell one jack, if I'm going to consider reading a I look at the front and the back, just as parents should with games.
RobLink (McElroy Defence Force) @ Mar 28th 2008 11:26PM
But don't you think uninformed and apparantly uninterested psarents should have the information there? Something that they understand that clearly and concisely labels what kind of content is in the game, and what age group it's recommended for?
Cal @ Mar 27th 2008 12:22PM
I think a 'Jack Thompson Seal of Approval' system is what we need =)
Korova @ Mar 27th 2008 1:09PM
One government bureaucrat suggesting that another government bureaucrat get more work - at make it all better. Now, now!
Oscar Wilde was right:
"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy!"
Synner @ Mar 27th 2008 1:14PM
Coming soon:
All British subjects will be fitted with a helmet and collar system, which will monitor their thoughts.
Some Wank is quoted:
This incredible breakthrough will make society safer because we can now insure society's safety by humanely choking persons out whenever violent or inappropriate thoughts are detected.
This will give the intended victim time to escape, but in order to protect civil rights of the potential assailants, any move other than away from the incapacitated attacker will activate the collar on the intended victim.
Thus far the system has been tested using thoughts of violence, littering, jaywalking and playing inappropriate games. Britons breathed a collective sigh of relief when the oral hygiene module was stricken from the list of features.
RobLink (McElroy Defence Force) @ Mar 28th 2008 4:05PM
-1 to you, sir. My teeth are fine, thank you very much.
Benny @ Mar 27th 2008 2:02PM
I think it's a very good idea. Games, just as movies, need to be regulated to stop them getting into the wrong hands.
But hey, bitching about it shows maturity... right?
Purityzero @ Mar 27th 2008 2:45PM
I am slightly confused by this comment:
"which would see the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) assuming a more prominent role in game releases, rating more titles and establishing a new 12+ classification."
There is already a (12) BBFC rating.. Mass Effect was rated 12 over here, right? and PEGI has an 11+ rating..
Markusdragon @ Mar 27th 2008 3:22PM
But you don't have to submit all games to the BBFC at the moment, it's just that Take 2 interactive submit all their games to the BBFC regardless of content (Pirates! for example is a PG).
Plenty of 12-equivalent games are rated on PEGI and therefore not under any legal age limitation.
Darkbhudda @ Mar 27th 2008 6:59PM
Well, since not many 12 year olds carry driver's licenses I guess they'll have to introduce some kind of ID system for everyone. Of course it won't be mandatory, except if you want to buy games.
Get them indoctrinated young.
/sarcasm