Byron backs film-style ratings for games Comments by Robert Purchese

"The games industry was also asked to make an effort to improve parents' understanding of age ratings"

Good luck with that, it's not like those kind of parents WANT to take responsibility for their children.

As long as the BBFC rate the games correctly then I see this as a good thing. The BBFC have been very sensible over the years (well apart from the debacle that was Manhunt 2) so if they get the extra manpower then this is the right decision.

There are already ratings on games that look exactly like movie ratings. At the end of the day, if a 12 year old is allowed to play GTA, it's the parents fault. If a 12 year old is allowed to watch Saw 3, it's the parents fault.

Good God, people need to take some responsibilty.

I think she looks fit.

does this mean that movies will be rated as games should be too.. hey .. you lot that rated Beowolf a 12A just because its animated. Did you even watch it? That gratuitous movie was a 15 and you fucking know it. Boobs and mega violence.. i thought it was great. But a 12A.. you're having a fucking laugh!

We all know that the PEGI ratings are better but at the end of the day if parents only understand BBFC rating then they are the one we should use.

aren't the PEGI and BBFC ratings essentially the same thing? a number representing the age?
Why would the PEGI be less clear??

It about frigging time if you ask me.

Its still not going to stop kids watching / playing 18 cert games.

I thought the BBFC were already rating the games anyway so what's the problem? Oh yes, the parents who refuse to take responsibility over what their kids play or what their kids want them to buy... ignorance is bliss eh?

That's it Labour blame all the troubles of young people and their place in society on computer games, what next, controls on what we say and do on the Web ? because its bad for us.

You promote a society where parents take no responsibility for their children at all, who don't care what their kids are doing on their PC or Console as long as they are out the way. The government also forgets some of its marvellous policies like raising kids in a stable home being dumped to promote single parent families through tax breaks which buggers many kids up. Oh and you prevent schools enforcing any form of discipline on children..........but its all the fault of cursed computers, just sitting there waiting to corrupt.

(sarcasm mode on)

"curse you computer games!!! ban them all, making local kids get drunk and smash the windows in the local Oxfam, making kids drop out school and do drugs, shakes fist at his PC" (sarcasm mode to sleep)

New Labour aagghhh the nanny state in perfect motion.

I'm generally in favour of BBFC-style age ratings. One of the problems with having two systems running in parallel (BBFC and PEGI) is that there's no consistency which makes it hard for uninformed parents to understand. I don't see why games can't be rated U, PG, 12, 15 or 18 as the case may be.

I mean, take Crysis - clearly a violent, graphic shooter (and nothing wrong with that), and it's got a 16+ PEGI rating. So how does that work against a BBFC 15 rating? The BBFC one seems to carry some legal weighting (retailers are not allowed to sell to under-age kids), but the PEGI one comes across more as a guideline for what age you'd need to be to understand and play the game, not an assessment of the suitability of the content.

Parental responsibility is definitely the main issue here, but it's also the hardest to tackle. Good luck with that one.

The only quite ludicrous suggestion is the cigarette-style health warnings. Yeah, like they really work to stop people smoking... a big fat "18" on the box should be more than enough to get the message across.

@rashes - because the lay person doesn't recognise the PEGI symbols. They do the BBFC cert because they have been around for years.

@rashes

The BBFC is an external body doing the rating - i.e. review by committee.
PEGI is a checklist a developer fills in, and so might be prone to bias.

Parents are familiar with the BBFC logos because they're on cinema posters and at the start of every film - PEGI ratings are the wierd grey blocks on the back of the packaging that parents simply don't understand or pay attention to.

It makes more sense to have one classification and with the technology of games these days giving a experience as good as cinema the BBFC ratings should be applied to games, it's a perfectly good system that works.

For me, the report hasn't told us anything gamers and the industry didn't already know, but the best thing to come of this though the understanding that parents need to pull their weight and understand what they are buying their children, and acknowledgment that all games are not for children. Maybe the idiots will shut up now.

Just a shame a load of tax payers money was wasted on reports when a bit of common sense would have got the same job done. Ah well, that's just the way UK government works :)

Most of what I've read sounds good; a single, clear system, a parental awareness campaign. It's what we need to protect gaming from the "ban this sick filth" crowd. The health warnings thing that the Times are reporting is ridiculous, though. Videogames are as unhealthy as cigarettes? Right.

I quite like the PEGI ratings. They at least tell you of the content of the game you're getting. I think it would be better to have the BBFC ratings on the front while maintaining the symbols from PEGI on the back (not the age rating though as this will only confuse everyone more).

Apart from that, I sort of agreed with the report. At least it wasn't completely biased against the games industry.

@rashes
Because some parents see PEGI rating in the same light that they see the age advice on the likes of Buckeroo and Mouse Trap. They see it as an indication of what age of child should be playing it and then they use the warped logic of thinking that 12 year old little Johnny is Einstein because he's able to play video games designed for 18 year olds.

This is bad news. The BBFC charges money for its rating service so this could well mean many lower profile games not being released here as it wouldnt be worth the cost to the publisher to get it rated. If they deface the boxart with cigarette style warnings I will not be pleased.

In truth, if the above actually happens then I would imagine some enterprising european retailer setting up a business of selling games to the UK from europe - where all this nonsense will not apply. Bloody stupid government

"Byron backs film-style ratings" ???

Since when do appoint crazed incestuous poets as our moral guardians?

This actually sounds rather reasonable. I wish those hypocrites of censors in Germany und ass-old politicians (who probably still are appalled by the very idea of TVs) got wind of this.

We already have sufficiently strict regulations over here, but none of the suits in charge seems to care about enforcing those. They'd rather just ban every game that's got a gun in it, because they are bad for children - which I won't argue, they are. Get retailers to follow those regulations (fines, prison terms) and tell parents that FPS-War on Terror and kids don't mix well.

And force them to play gears of war online for about an hour on an american server...

cheers,

Alex

It'd be interesting to see how this will impact the type of games made. Will we see less 'by numbers' shooters? It does seem like the lowest common denominator at the moment is to just bung out a sweary FPS. Maybe we will start to see publishers encouraging a bit of creativity and thought into their titles as part of the market is already counted out of being able to buy generic games. There does seem to be a bit of a mentality that if it doesn't look realistic and isn't a shooter, then it is childish and therefore substandard.

At the end of the day it's just down to the parents filtering the content the child is exposed to. Any responsible parent will have an idea of the content of a game/film/tv show etc before allowing their child to view it - even if NO guidance was given (e.g PEGI or BBFC classifications) the parent has THE responsibility to check the media content for appropriateness.

Sure, the government can help facilitate this process through such classications (one consistent one would be better, agreed) but as other posters have mentioned it's really purely down to the parents. If you, as a parent, are unsure of the content of a particular game then it is YOUR job to research the product before exposing the child.

BBFC now rates 12s as well as 15s. Nothing else changes.

Not that that will curb a lot of misplaced aggression and paranoia in this thread...

Good luck to them, I hope all games have an official age rating on them.

The trouble is, the only people who pay attention to the ratings are responsible parents, and responsible parents don't need the ratings system (although it's a good guideline). Parents should at least play the demo first, just as they should watch the film first before letting their child watch it.

About 10 years ago I worked in Game (Manchester) and kids would come up to the counter with games and DVDs which were clearly unsuitable and I would refuse to sell it to them, with the full backing of my manager. They'd only come back 30 mins later with their slag of a mother and she'd buy it for them and tell me where I can stick it.

@ systems

Sounds pretty much like every game shop around here in Newcastle too. The parents that do care wouldn't even try to buy the games for their kids. The parents that don't care think it's worth £40 just to get an afternoon's peace, and don't care about the content, even when someone in a shop explains it (and I've gotta say, all the retailers around here do actually check ages).

Unfortunately there's no Byron report for how to fix lazy parenting...

Yes to the BBFC age ratings for games, as long as the process does not further delay the release dates from the rest of Europe(!)

No to the cigarette-style health warnings. Aesthetically, that would ruin the boxart for those over 18 who care about such things and I don't agree with any comparison with the social impact/damage caused by smoking and video games.

As a smoker, I enjoy reading what the Government health watchdogs have decided to put on the packets next; a personal favourite being the erectile problems, always makes me snigger... Video games, however, do not cause fatal diseases or damage other people around the person enjoying the habit (as much as Jack Thompson would like to convince you otherwise) and, as such, the comparison should stop there.

God it's easy - just get PEGI ratings implemented as law WORLDWIDE (and therefore stop all the stupid shit in the US at the same time) and make sure that every shop that sells games has a big fuck off poster describing the system and its legal ramifications (i.e. games should not be sold to people younger than the age stated or you go to prison).

Well, okay, I say 'easy' but anything involving getting something passed as 'law' (especially worldwide) instantly makes it just ridculously hard to do.

If games aren't already rated by the BBFC, how come Guitar Heroes III has a BBFC 12 certificate on the front? Or is this only because it contains graphic sex and ultra violence?

how come Guitar Heroes III has a BBFC 12 certificate on the fro

Perhaps you should listen to the lyrics. Rock music has had parental advisory labels on it for longer than videogames have.

I am glad to see that the report (or at least the articles I have read about the report) is emphasising that ratings are there to inform parents and that the developers should make an effort to inform parents rather than censor their own work.

I was also surprised to see that GM:TV reported it this way and did not try to spin it into the usual "games are actively trying to corrupt our children" argument. Kudos to them. Maybe I am becoming cynical having seen the American reports so often.

Gamers and industry insiders have been saying this for years. It is nice that a major report backs up our views that games should not be censored on account of ignorant parents letting their kids play them.

Generally good I guess. I'm with Shrub on the box art issue though; there's currently only a subtle difference between the (usually original) US packaging and the UK version, and that's just down to sticking in the BBFC logos.

What do they plan to change? Stick stark warnings of impending doom such as "Playing games WILL retard your social life" or "Playing games under age WILL lead to increased street crime" all across the artwork of my steelbox limited edition? I imagine the sort of stuff they SHOULD put in those sort of warnings is already covered by the PEGI notes. Just get rid of the PEGI stuff, legally enforce BBFC rating and put subtle but useful content info a la PEGI next to the BBFC info.

Games are not like fag packets - they aren't consumed and binned. People collect them. I imagine Gordon Brown has a collection of LPs or CDs. I wonder what he'd feel about having large warning stickers slapped on his whole collection telling him that if he listens to them too loudly he'll go deaf?

Good thread this. Intelligent comments, even if there is a bit of paranoia kicking about the place :) Better than the shit tip that is the Call of Jihadi thread.

@Shrub

They don't charge that much really. Not compared to the other costs of development.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/news/stories/20061...

Each to their own I guess, but I don't really care what they put on the box. Actually, let me re-phrase that. I would object to misleading statements "this game may make your kids violent" and so forth, but I don't mind the principal of obscuring artwork (marketing people would probably slap me for saying that mind).

It does seem a bit odd to single out games for warnings though. Films and music don't suffer the same sort of warnings (tiny explicit lyric warnings on CDs not withstanding). There is absolute proof that cigarettes harm your health, but there is no firm proof that games cause any ill effects. I guess it ALL depends on what the warnings will say.

Developers / publishers go through the PEGI checklist and submit what rating they think the game falls within. PEGI then reviews the title and agrees / disagrees with the dev / pub. This also costs money. There is a fast track option which costs more money.

If a title comes up as 12+ for PEGI it also now has to go to BBfC and VSC for the more widely recognised age rating logo. This also costs money. BBfC have a dedicated team for games who are wholly seperate from the film side. I agree with them that Manhunt 2 shouldn't have been classified / released as it's utterly pathetic.

BBfC is fine for UK but most devs / pubs are looking at EU as a whole which only PEGI covers (hence Pan European...) - I agree that PEGI is the better system for ease but that the current logo looks more like a age suitability logo like with board games etc, further reducing their impact / purpose.

PEGI is "voluntary" but no retail chain will stock a title without a PEGI age rating. BBfC has to be consulted if PEGI finds the title to be 12+

However just to be difficult, Germany has it own ratings system, USK, which is far more hardcore than PEGi/BBfC - if a title comes up as an 18 (likely if it includes blood) then the title can't be advertised or shown on shelves. Annoyingly there are no guidelines for the USK for devs / pubs to reference throughout the process.

Why have a UK-only ratings system when there's already a perfectly decent European one, which is already supported by the parental lockouts of every current console? It's bad enough that Germany has its own system with the USK without another country requiring a unique version of the game.

Every single console game that's even remotely recent has a PEGI rating on it. Why do we need legislation to make games companies do something that they're already doing?

Plus, if they require ratings on all adult games, then that's PC indie and shareware developers screwed. They won't be able to afford to submit their games to any ratings body. You can say goodbye to the XNA creator's club in the UK too if there's no legal way to release unrated games.

"They don't charge that much really. Not compared to the other costs of development."

I presume you're joking? Given that most of the marginal games that don't get released are things like JRPGs, according to your link it would cost £2,160,300 to rate a game with 100 hours of content...

I just hope that this campaign to inform parents doesn't take the form of a government funded program to inform the public about how harmful games can be...

@ Fodder

Perhaps an education programme is needed for the parents then? They need to be taught that your console can lock out certain games if specified.

I'm happy for stricter, more applied guidelines, what I will not be happy with is instead of this, effecting changes to the games that are released. Is this not what happens in Germany at the moment?

@optimusprym8 - I totally agree there needs to be a proper legal European wide ratings system, for both films and games. Otherwise the big companies will just run to the lowest system anyway. i.e No 18+ games because they can't sell them in Germany easily. The Byron report should have addressed this, but hey one step at a time!

But overall the report was well thought out and didn't jump to "Daily Mail" like stereotyping.. clap clap clap to the government on this one and I don't say that very often.

yeah seems whoever was consulting with Byron forgot to mention that the in-built parental controls for consoles are based on / using the PEGI system ratings so forcing BBfC would mean consoles released in UK would have to be changed as well... major arse! PEGI PEGI PEGI!

common sense all round for the most part, good to see.

what was not good to see however, was the report about this on bbc breakfast this morning, dragging the old stefan pakeerah / manhunt case up again. had his father on claiming the usual line about how the killer was obsessed with manhunt, with no mention at all that the evidence did not bear this out, the judge actually ruled against it, and it was found that the game actually belonged to the victim. typical...

@ Kallenai

What a load of horse crap. According to you, we've got a society where people don't take responsibility for raising their kids... and it's all the government's fault! People should take responsibility for not taking responsibility for raising their kids and not blame all society's ills on the Government.

@ruttyboy

100 hours of content? You show me a lower profile game with 100 hours of content.

Anyway, thats not the important point. The more important point is, where the hell did you get £2,160,300 from?

By my reckoning it would cost a shade over £36k.... (is this the bit where I end up looking stupid for overlooking something obvious?).

Hahaha, no you're right it's myself who is the idiot, I charged by the second :D

Still the point is that a lot of Japanese games are picked up by small publishers and released (after a bit of shoddy localisation) precisely because they can do it cheaply. Any extra cost makes it less likely that this will happen and even an extra £10K on the balance sheet could stop a game being released.

@Mentalist(air)

It was a rhetorical question.

Who do the ratings that already appear on most games these days? Just wondering about the increased costs the publisher will have to pass on because of the extra bureaucracy here in the UK. Aren't the games region protected? in which case is there a UK region or just Europe which'd bet a better fit for PEGI. The point about the existing parental controls being PEGI is a good one, but they're pretty much identical anyway, or at least the difference to 15/16 doesn't strike me as that bigger deal (might if I was still 15). Restricting access on age is a pretty wide brush, really it should be down to the parents to decide about their own kids - they know them the best. This just punishes the retailer, who gave little Jonnie the £40 to buy GTA in the first place? who doesn't take an interest in what their kids are spending all their money and time on?

Obviously they've pitched for BBFC as they want to reserve the right to lean on them to 'suggest' sticker ratings or even totally ban games like Manhunt 2 the next time they need a whipping boy. Also remind me of the farce over food labeling, why not have little percentage boxes for the number of decapitations and alien sex scenes in every game. How about a pie chart showing the number of players out of a million that after playing a game injected themselves with the first hypodermic they found lying around and then wailed on some poor deep sea diver with a spanner.

Do XBLA games carry rating too? what about flash games on the web? cbeebies site and the like? What about game imports or the reselling of older boxed products lacking a BBFC rating? no rating no fowl?

PEGI is better: it shows clearly the content of the game in question, it's the same across Europe, and most importantly it's rated by the industry!

The big problem that I have with BBFC ratings is that the people who rate our films are not qualified to rate games. The whole Manhunt debacle highlights their ignorance clearly.

I'm all for games to have good content information so that people can be educated about any particular game, but I think it's important who does the rating.

..so the report has determined that nothing changes? Waste of taxpayers money. Only the ignorant parents will have not noticed the BBFC certificates on the boxes for the more 'mature' games.

The problem is with parents identifying age ratings as the degreeof difficulty of the game and not the type of content within it.

And finally, BBFC and PEGI are both upholdable by law, PEGI isn't just a 'suggestion'. You can still be fined for selling a higher PEGI rated game to a minor.

Wasn't one of the points of this report to highlight whether games actually have a link to violence etc.? Not seen it mentioned one way or the other.

Maybe I'm thinking of something else ...

maybe if all 18 games came in bright orange boxes like the cover of that report then there would be no problem? ;O)

@ruttyboy

"Hahaha, no you're right it's myself who is the idiot, I charged by the second"

Hehe, I want whatever job you've got :)

@Bitkari

"The big problem that I have with BBFC ratings is that the people who rate our films are not qualified to rate games"

Sorry dude, but that is just rubbish. The BBFC are perfectly familiar enough with games to rate them properly. They aren't some bunch of old farts in a dusty library somewhere you know. I'm a dev, I have met a bunch of BBFC people and talked with them about their work. Some of them were younger than me ffs and play as many if not more games than I do.

The whole MH2 thing is one single title that had some issues. That by itself is no basis on which to form an opinion of the whole organisation. And also, the BBFC rate games based on a set of rules they HAVE to follow. Those rules are created by public consultation; in other words they are OUR rules.

I honestly don't know what to think about MH2. Regardless of what you think of censorship in general, the job of the BBFC is to rate games based on the rule set. If the rule set says MH2 gets unclassified, then that is what happens. Rockstar made edits, but not edits in response to the feedback of the BBFC, so it still remained unclassified.

It is worth noting that the BBFC didn't ban anything, they just said it can't have a certificate. The console vendors won't allow a game to be published in that state, so they in effect did the banning.

The appeal was made, it was upheld, the descision was reversed. That is what appeal systems are for. It doesn't mean that the whole system is buggered.

5 years in prison? Yeah right. I was in woolworths the other day buying a cd and they young lad (10ish) in front of me was buying RFOM with his mum. He handed the box over and the assistant didn;t even bat an eyelid, just turnt to his mum and said 'thats x pounds please'. Mummy paid him and the assistant then handed the game back to the kid. RFOM has a BBFC 15 rating on the front of the box but nothing was said. Was gonna complain to manager but was in a rush and can't really be bothered as the mum would loose her baby sitter. Bet she'll moan when little billy shoots the bitch in the head though.

(last bit was sarcastic btw)