BBFC to Games Industry: British is Best
Director of British Board of Film Classification questions PEGI's ability to decide for UK residents
David Cooke
David Cooke, director of the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), has said that his organisation is key to the games ratings system in the UK because it's British.
He sums up his position in a piece of editorial for Edge in which he writes, "The key difference between us and PEGI is that we classify in accordance with guidelines that the British public has been consulted about. PEGI doesn't do that and can't really because it involves 27 different countries.
"In our view it is extremely important to be able to take context into account if you're going to achieve a solid and a fair classification. And to provide full, context-based information to the public about the reasons for the classification. And to have the websites, the education resources and the monitoring capability to back that up!"
Elsewhere in the piece, Cooke writes, "There's nothing wrong with a multi-national approach like PEGI, but you can see the problems involved in trying to regulate and enforce across dozens of countries."
He also feels the need to tell us, "It's often forgotten that some of the biggest games countries in the world are not in PEGI but do their own games classification: for instance, the USA, Japan, Australia, and, within Europe, Germany." Why that has any bearing on the issue is puzzling, especially when the BBFC has no more input in those countries than PEGI.
Cooke also addresses another issue that has been raised - can the BBFC handle the extra workload? "I really reject the notion that the BBFC can't handle issues of scaleability", he said. "Look at the DVD market. In 1997 we had just over 3,000 DVDs to classify. By 2006 that had risen to to over 15,000, an increase of 460%."
He states that the BBFC currently has 12 dedicated games examiners who typically spend around five hours with a title, adding, "It can end up being more. With Manhunt 2 we spent many, many hours on that game, for obvious reasons."
The Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association (ELSPA) has been very clear in its preference for PEGI following the Byron Review, which looked into the UK's ratings system for the government, calling into question the BBFC's attitude toward content. For an in-depth account of ELSPA's arguments, see SPOnG's recent interview with ELSPA's director general, Mike Rawlinson.
You can see David Cooke's full piece here.
He sums up his position in a piece of editorial for Edge in which he writes, "The key difference between us and PEGI is that we classify in accordance with guidelines that the British public has been consulted about. PEGI doesn't do that and can't really because it involves 27 different countries.
"In our view it is extremely important to be able to take context into account if you're going to achieve a solid and a fair classification. And to provide full, context-based information to the public about the reasons for the classification. And to have the websites, the education resources and the monitoring capability to back that up!"
Elsewhere in the piece, Cooke writes, "There's nothing wrong with a multi-national approach like PEGI, but you can see the problems involved in trying to regulate and enforce across dozens of countries."
He also feels the need to tell us, "It's often forgotten that some of the biggest games countries in the world are not in PEGI but do their own games classification: for instance, the USA, Japan, Australia, and, within Europe, Germany." Why that has any bearing on the issue is puzzling, especially when the BBFC has no more input in those countries than PEGI.
Cooke also addresses another issue that has been raised - can the BBFC handle the extra workload? "I really reject the notion that the BBFC can't handle issues of scaleability", he said. "Look at the DVD market. In 1997 we had just over 3,000 DVDs to classify. By 2006 that had risen to to over 15,000, an increase of 460%."
He states that the BBFC currently has 12 dedicated games examiners who typically spend around five hours with a title, adding, "It can end up being more. With Manhunt 2 we spent many, many hours on that game, for obvious reasons."
The Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association (ELSPA) has been very clear in its preference for PEGI following the Byron Review, which looked into the UK's ratings system for the government, calling into question the BBFC's attitude toward content. For an in-depth account of ELSPA's arguments, see SPOnG's recent interview with ELSPA's director general, Mike Rawlinson.
You can see David Cooke's full piece here.
Read More Like This
Comments
carlisle 8 Oct 2008 14:28
1/6
"There's nothing wrong with a multi-national approach like PEGI, but you can see the problems involved in trying to regulate and enforce across dozens of countries."
orly? isn't down to each country to manage? some countries have difference Pegi age ratings so what this stuffy smug faced bureaucrat jabbering on about? maybe he should get back to hunting or having cucumber sandwiches on the lawn and leave games to the ppl that understand them
orly? isn't down to each country to manage? some countries have difference Pegi age ratings so what this stuffy smug faced bureaucrat jabbering on about? maybe he should get back to hunting or having cucumber sandwiches on the lawn and leave games to the ppl that understand them
Andronix 8 Oct 2008 23:42
2/6
Germany has banned Gears of War. If PEGI had a truly universal system it would be banned in the UK as well. But each country does have some difference which eliminates the need for PEGI, and actually proves that the BBFC represents the UK best.
more comments below our sponsor's message
config 9 Oct 2008 08:56
3/6
Andronix wrote:
Germany has banned Gears of War. If PEGI had a truly universal system it would be banned in the UK as well. But each country does have some difference which eliminates the need for PEGI, and actually proves that the BBFC represents the UK best.
As stated in the news piece, Germany doesn't use PEGI. The sensitives in DE opted for their own ratings system - USK - so they could ban games that didn't have green blood or made Nazi reference and possibly some other heads-in-sand stuff like that.
I don't think PEGI has ever refused to rate a game.
Accepting that some countries are more sensitive and believe that it needs a higher rating for a particular game, the point of PEGI isn't to give a broadsweep rating - it's to present an internationally recognised ratings system to people that consume products from around the world, and to facilitate more open trade within the international community.
Look at it this way - imagine things from a developer or publisher's point of view with a PEGI-like system, where the dev/pubco passes its product to a single ratings body, gets feedback and ultimately a rating, then releases a single multi-language product simultaneously across all those countries.
Now look at it as its stands today - the dev/pubco has to submit its product to PEGI (EU), BBFC (UK), USK (DE), CERO (JP), ESRB (US/CA), OFLC (AU) - possibly some others if it wants to publish in China, India or the South Americas. The dev/pubco has to deal with all those bodies and their idiosyncrasies, managing lots of conflicting feedback and then, if it manages to get through all that, has to release numerous different products for each country, each with its own age ratings logo as per local legislature.
An internationally, or better still, globally recognised body is much better for the consumer and the creator.
PreciousRoi 9 Oct 2008 11:00
4/6
Yeh, I mean you've got most of the videogame playing world...US/CA, EU. UK, JP...one would think that these reasonable people could agree on a nearly common standard (JP would probably be a bit different for obvious cultural reasons) Then you've got those wacky buggers in DE and AU, who everyone already knows you have to make special allowances for. Less importantly, Russia, China, and North Korea don't like it when you point out how f**ked up they are, or could be. I have no clue what India's stance on videogame censorship is, but if we could nail them down, thats most of the world, right there... South America, Africa, Middle East and the less savory bits of Southeast Asia is all thats left, and I just don't see dev/pubcos falling over themselves to cater to them any time soon...
But I don't see any reason why EU couldn't have a common standard, with DE being able to freak out on anything that impinges upon their sensitivities, possibly one that could be brought into close alignment with that used in the US/CA...which would cover most everywhere people want to sell games, aside from the aforementioned "special" cases of DE and AU. I can see why DE is so wierd...AU is more of a mystery...has the "Mad Max" series of movies had such an extreme prophetic impact that the Australian government is afraid that videogame violence might just be the catalyst to bring its vision of the future Down Under about?
But I don't see any reason why EU couldn't have a common standard, with DE being able to freak out on anything that impinges upon their sensitivities, possibly one that could be brought into close alignment with that used in the US/CA...which would cover most everywhere people want to sell games, aside from the aforementioned "special" cases of DE and AU. I can see why DE is so wierd...AU is more of a mystery...has the "Mad Max" series of movies had such an extreme prophetic impact that the Australian government is afraid that videogame violence might just be the catalyst to bring its vision of the future Down Under about?
tyrion 9 Oct 2008 12:03
5/6
PreciousRoi wrote:
But I don't see any reason why EU couldn't have a common standard, with DE being able to freak out on anything that impinges upon their sensitivities, possibly one that could be brought into close alignment with that used in the US/CA.
The only issue with aligning, even slightly, the schemes in the EU and the US is the wildly differing attitudes to sexual content. I can imagine games in the US getting much straonger ratings than those in, for example, France if they show some breasts or something.
PreciousRoi wrote:
AU is more of a mystery...has the "Mad Max" series of movies had such an extreme prophetic impact that the Australian government is afraid that videogame violence might just be the catalyst to bring its vision of the future Down Under about?
Oz is just a nanny state in general. Fireworks other than sparklers are banned for example.
PreciousRoi 9 Oct 2008 12:15
6/6
Yeah, but is sexual content really a core issue in gaming...I mean compared to violence?
Irregardless, I still think a common ground could be found that would make life much easier on dev/pubcos. Just look at the US as a minor exception, similar to DE, except the swastikas are boobs, and we don't want to ban it, just give it a higher rating.
I mean, if common (or reasonably congruent) standards for violent content and language could be established, I think the devs could sort out what will "play in Peoria". It would at least be a step in the right direction. They already pretty much know what goes and what doesn't sexually, and where already, don't they?
Irregardless, I still think a common ground could be found that would make life much easier on dev/pubcos. Just look at the US as a minor exception, similar to DE, except the swastikas are boobs, and we don't want to ban it, just give it a higher rating.
I mean, if common (or reasonably congruent) standards for violent content and language could be established, I think the devs could sort out what will "play in Peoria". It would at least be a step in the right direction. They already pretty much know what goes and what doesn't sexually, and where already, don't they?