More Weight Behind Games Ratings Speculation
Guardian weighs in on rumours of tougher games ratings system in UK
More weight has been thrown behind the rumour that the government will introduce a tougher ratings system for games – as well as provide new guidance on where games are played – by The Guardian. This comes prior to the publication of the Byron Report - which is due next month.
An article published over the weekend claims, “A legally enforceable cinema-style classification system is to be introduced for video games in an effort to keep children from playing damaging games unsuitable for their age, The Guardian has learned.”
The article states that all games will have to be rated. The current system only makes it mandatory for games depicting sex or extreme violence to be rated.
SPOnG contacted a representative from the Department for Children, Schools & Families, who told us, “Dr Byron's report is expected towards the end of March. It will be considered very carefully at that time, but we can't pre-empt the outcome of the review. Nothing has been ruled out, but Government has not decided on a particular course of action at this stage. We're waiting to see what Dr Byron's report says.”
Although the news report echoes that reported by Scotland on Sunday, the latter was merely a digest of existing information. Therefore the phrase “the Guardian has learned” looms large, suggesting a leak a month before the publication of the Byron Report. SPOnG has contacted The Guardian to query the paper's source but as yet has received no response.
The Guardian's article also provided new details, reporting, “Ministers are also expected to advise parents to keep computers and games consoles away from children's bedrooms as much as possible, and ask them to play games in living rooms or kitchens facing outward so carers can see what is being played.”
On the online adult content front (which is also dealt with in the Byron review) The Guardian goes on to tell us, “Ministers are also expected to recommend blocking mechanisms to protect children from seeing unsuitable games, emails or internet sites. Discussions have already been held with internet service providers to see if an agreement on a standardised filter can be reached.” It is reported that a “child safety online kitemark” - earned by complying with a new British Standards Institution specification proposed by Ofcom – will be introduced for makers of content filters.
Tory concern over games ratings has recently been highlighted with a private member's bill being brought forward by Julian Brazier (Conservative MP for Canterbury and Whitstable). The Member, who has been embroiled in allegations over a parliamentary salary paid to his wife, has asked for a new body to challenge BBFC ratings, introducing a third tier of censorship.
The Tories have also just launched a report titled 'More Ball Games' which condemns children's appetites for violent games.
SPOnG also contacted Keith Vaz, whose question prompted the Scotland on Sunday article, for comment and is awaiting a response.
It is fairly standard government practice to leak details of a report prior to publication to gauge the public's reaction. If the details are met with a positive response, the report will be released with a big splash. If they are met with indifference or mild displeasure, it will be slid out quietly. If there's a public outcry, the report will be held back and a lengthier review held. In other words, we are more than likely just seeing another Government PR tactic at work.
Source: The Guardian
An article published over the weekend claims, “A legally enforceable cinema-style classification system is to be introduced for video games in an effort to keep children from playing damaging games unsuitable for their age, The Guardian has learned.”
The article states that all games will have to be rated. The current system only makes it mandatory for games depicting sex or extreme violence to be rated.
SPOnG contacted a representative from the Department for Children, Schools & Families, who told us, “Dr Byron's report is expected towards the end of March. It will be considered very carefully at that time, but we can't pre-empt the outcome of the review. Nothing has been ruled out, but Government has not decided on a particular course of action at this stage. We're waiting to see what Dr Byron's report says.”
Although the news report echoes that reported by Scotland on Sunday, the latter was merely a digest of existing information. Therefore the phrase “the Guardian has learned” looms large, suggesting a leak a month before the publication of the Byron Report. SPOnG has contacted The Guardian to query the paper's source but as yet has received no response.
The Guardian's article also provided new details, reporting, “Ministers are also expected to advise parents to keep computers and games consoles away from children's bedrooms as much as possible, and ask them to play games in living rooms or kitchens facing outward so carers can see what is being played.”
On the online adult content front (which is also dealt with in the Byron review) The Guardian goes on to tell us, “Ministers are also expected to recommend blocking mechanisms to protect children from seeing unsuitable games, emails or internet sites. Discussions have already been held with internet service providers to see if an agreement on a standardised filter can be reached.” It is reported that a “child safety online kitemark” - earned by complying with a new British Standards Institution specification proposed by Ofcom – will be introduced for makers of content filters.
Tory concern over games ratings has recently been highlighted with a private member's bill being brought forward by Julian Brazier (Conservative MP for Canterbury and Whitstable). The Member, who has been embroiled in allegations over a parliamentary salary paid to his wife, has asked for a new body to challenge BBFC ratings, introducing a third tier of censorship.
The Tories have also just launched a report titled 'More Ball Games' which condemns children's appetites for violent games.
SPOnG also contacted Keith Vaz, whose question prompted the Scotland on Sunday article, for comment and is awaiting a response.
It is fairly standard government practice to leak details of a report prior to publication to gauge the public's reaction. If the details are met with a positive response, the report will be released with a big splash. If they are met with indifference or mild displeasure, it will be slid out quietly. If there's a public outcry, the report will be held back and a lengthier review held. In other words, we are more than likely just seeing another Government PR tactic at work.
Source: The Guardian
Comments
deleted 11 Feb 2008 20:44
1/7
im all for toughing rating systems on games, if it keeps the game sout of the hands of kids and allows uneducated partents to make a better decision then great, what i dont want is an excuse for certifcation boards to ban or edit games to fit there ratings system, if manhunt 2 was banned under the new system it shoudl have a higher rating of 18+ and maybe something else to show that it is an extremity in voilence for a game.
we still live in a country where porn must edited and given an 18+ to the point that channel 4 shows harder stuff.. dont they think a consenting adult who can actually take part in sexual intercourse and can see whatever they feel like seeing while comitting the act, can not watch it on video and somehow become corrupted, that is unless it sexucational?
we still live in a country where porn must edited and given an 18+ to the point that channel 4 shows harder stuff.. dont they think a consenting adult who can actually take part in sexual intercourse and can see whatever they feel like seeing while comitting the act, can not watch it on video and somehow become corrupted, that is unless it sexucational?
James 11 Feb 2008 20:59
2/7
A third tier classification board, so basicaly a Daily Mail childrens panel of do-gooder judges who can reverse decisions by the BBFC and ban games or request they be censored?
a waste of taxpayers money and the start of a whole new era of censorship for grown adults who play videogames,I also see this as a blow to fixing Britains feral youth rather than facing the real issues, of bullying, drug abuse, gangs, home life, poverty, failed education and opportunities; they ban violent videogames and everything is a utipia.
a waste of taxpayers money and the start of a whole new era of censorship for grown adults who play videogames,I also see this as a blow to fixing Britains feral youth rather than facing the real issues, of bullying, drug abuse, gangs, home life, poverty, failed education and opportunities; they ban violent videogames and everything is a utipia.
more comments below our sponsor's message
edward 11 Feb 2008 22:55
3/7
i support james's ideas this rubbish has got nanny state written all over it
(in big flashing purple neon letters)
(in big flashing purple neon letters)
DoctorDee 12 Feb 2008 09:45
4/7
edward wrote:
i support james's ideas this rubbish has got nanny state written all over it
(in big flashing purple neon letters)
(in big flashing purple neon letters)
I tend to agree. But it is a thorny subject. As responsible gamers, we know that shooting people in the head in a game will not make us want to do it in real life. But it is still inevitable that the glorification of violence and the relentless depiction if it as an inevitable and effective resolution to conflict will inure young people to it. The media represents violence as an admirable course of action - rarely is mediation and dialogue represented in the same way. The results of violence (grieving relatives, dismembered bodies, intolerable pain, broken lives) are rarely shown, nor are the consequences (spending years as someone's bitchboy in high security prison).
As a liberal, I oppose censorship. As someone who walks the streets at night, I oppose the devil-may-care knife culture. But making video games a scapegoat is not the answer. The issues are far more deep and involved than that. Corporate greed has lead to a culture where the family suffers as both parent are forced to work to make ends meet. Aspirational marketing, and 80s style greed-is-good culture has created a world where everyone believes it is their RIGHT to have what they want, and have it now... but the same designer-corporate world is creating a poverty gap that means in order to get it, people have to just take it. And since no-one wants to give it, violence often ensues.
Rating games is a waste of time! Regardless of the ratings parents will buy them to keep their kids quiet. And the government know this, so their will be an increase in the banning and censoring of games. Films, however, will continue to be judged by a different set of standards.
Earl 12 Feb 2008 18:32
5/7
I cant see what is wrong with the current system.
On the other hand i can see what is wrong with millions of parents that let there children view/play material which is not sutible for them.
Unfortunalty nothing can be done for the above as millions of parents couldnt give a "insert any random expletive" about there kids.
On the other hand i can see what is wrong with millions of parents that let there children view/play material which is not sutible for them.
Unfortunalty nothing can be done for the above as millions of parents couldnt give a "insert any random expletive" about there kids.
deleted 12 Feb 2008 18:49
6/7
Earl wrote:
I can’t see what is wrong with the current system.
On the other hand I can see what is wrong with millions of parents that let there children view/play material which is not suitable for them.
Unfortunately nothing can be done for the above as millions of parents couldn’t give a "insert any random expletive" about their kids.
On the other hand I can see what is wrong with millions of parents that let there children view/play material which is not suitable for them.
Unfortunately nothing can be done for the above as millions of parents couldn’t give a "insert any random expletive" about their kids.
I agree there are some parents who couldn’t care less what their children do, or play, or act, but i doubt its millions, the vast majority of parents attempt in some way or another to take a part in there Childs upbringing, but because a lot of parents are unaware of content of games or don’t wish to take an interest in there child’s gaming doesn’t mean they couldn’t give a “insert any random expletive" about their kids.
Look at like this, my daughter goes dancing and competes in competitions around the UK, I take very little interest in it, my jobs the gamer dad I supply and play the games with my kids, but I am very proud of her dancing, but for all I know she could be sacrificing goats on the stage and dancing in the blood and because I don’t take much interest in her dancing (that mums bit) does that mean I couldn’t care less for my child,
As that points out Mum doesn’t take any interest in the kids gaming and if they ask for a game she probably would go and buy it and unless I advise her otherwise, and once or twice she has bought them something that I think is inappropriate and had to explain, but it doesn’t make her a bad mother she just doesn’t get it, she loves the kids completely but parents don’t understand everything, and to say they don’t care because of that, is a little ignorant, education is what’s needed and a classification system that advises rather than condemns, ELSPA is such a system but ask a mum or dad whose not a gamer and they would not have a clue who ELSPA is.
If a Parent can See, U, PG, 12A, 12, 15 & 18 that has been fairly set up to show the ages just like a movie would it may help us gamers, we need to step back and not think of this as an attack but a way to allow games like Manhunt 2 to be released. It’s not always about enjoyment, sometimes things that seem bad can be a good thing.
tyrion 13 Feb 2008 08:58
7/7
haritori wrote:
If a Parent can See, U, PG, 12A, 12, 15 & 18 that has been fairly set up to show the ages just like a movie would it may help us gamers, we need to step back and not think of this as an attack but a way to allow games like Manhunt 2 to be released. It’s not always about enjoyment, sometimes things that seem bad can be a good thing.
Given that Manhunt 2 was submitted for a BBFC rating and was denied one, what makes you think it would get one if all games had to be submitted?
Even if we think that all games having a BBFC rating will make more parents more aware of the content of games these days, there is going to have to be a large education process to get to that point. Which is the point that I and many others have been trying to stress with the current system.
If Manhunt 2 was released with a BBFC 18 rating this Friday, it would have the same logo at the same size to represent that rating as it would if Barbie Horse Adventures were sporting a BBFC U rating. We've had about 22 years of games being rated by the BBFC and apparently parents still, in general, haven't realised that these are the same ratings as on movies, VHS and DVD or that they have (apparently) similar review procedures and therefore content.
In either case we are going to have to have some education in place. Why cause further delays with UK games by having an already over-worked board of "classification" review every game, even the ones that should just be rubber stamped with a BBFC U or PEGI 3+?
And who is going to fund the inevitable expansion of the BBFC and the cost of having more games rated?
Why it'll be sold by the Government as the games publishers, but you and I know that the cost will be passed on to us, the consumers, either in the form of higher initial purchase prices or in delayed reductions in prices. Both of which will lead to more aggressive action by publishers against the second-hand games market.
There is nothing wrong with the current system that can't be solved by educating parents and enforcing the existing rules.
And all of this will put more power in the hands of people who think they have the right to tell you and I what entertainment we are permitted to view because they are "protecting the children".
Spending my tax money to conduct a report into why I need to spend more money putting more of my entertainment choices into the hands of a backward-looking organisation doesn't strike me as a particularly good thing.
</soapbox> Thank you for listening/reading.