ELSPA praises UK ratings system after Manhunt 2 banning

By Tom Bramwell Published 19 June, 2007

DG Jackson says it's "effective".

ELSPA director general Paul Jackson has said that the decision taken by the BBFC to ban Manhunt 2 from sale "demonstrates that we have a games ratings system in the UK that is effective".

"The games industry is a creative phenomenon that produces all kinds of games across all kinds of genres that appeal to all kinds of people across the country, young and old, male and female," Jackson, the boss of the Entertainment & Leisure Software Publishers Association - of which almost all UK videogame companies are members - went on to add.

"The important thing to know is that all games are rated according to age suitability, with over 70 per cent of games being available to all ages over three years."

Earlier today the BBFC said it had rejected PlayStation 2 and Wii versions of Manhunt 2. It's the first time a game has been banned by the BBFC since Carmageddon in 1997 - a decision that was subsequently overturned on appeal, which is an option still open to Manhunt 2 publisher Rockstar.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000. Follow him on Twitter.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (59) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • agparrot #1 5 years ago

    Oh how many stories are there going to be on this? Can't we have something else about Haze?

    ;)

  • dadrester #2 5 years ago

    while personally, i find it a little frustrating, since i enjoyed manhunt and was kind of looking forward to the sequel, i think (censorship arguments) aside, this can only be a good thing for the industry as a whole. with gaming moving more and more steadily into mainstream entertainment, the media shit that would surround a release like this would be pretty damaging to the whole industry at a pretty critical time for mainstream acceptance. give it a few more years (for tech to cheaper and more versatile) and we'll be seeing more artistic and 'socially valuable' games (akin to indie cinema).

  • Xiaokiraa #3 5 years ago

    Ahhhh more publicity for the company and their game :D

  • MasterGrief #4 5 years ago

    So they banned it just to show they had the power to do so

    Hmm...

  • ProtoformX #5 5 years ago

    I agree with dadrester. This shows that the industry and the bodies that regulate it do have standards and are prepared to ban those games which are truly voilent/obscene. What I can't understand is Rockstar's tendancy to only create videogames that contain relatively high levels of violence. They made Table Tennis for 360 and that proved that they could make other good games. Maybe if they diversified a bit the media would get off their backs for a bit.

  • ruckus #6 5 years ago

    Wot no terrorist links o_O

  • jonsaan #7 5 years ago

    I still find it hard to believe that Carmageddon was ever banned. Lamest game ever surely. As far as violence went anyway.

  • abcd #8 5 years ago

    I'm not sure why Nintendo would allow that type of game on the Wii? It just doesn't fit with the Wii image...

  • dr_shambles #9 5 years ago

    Agree with dadrester on this.

    I'm no fan of censorship, but think some of the responsibility has to lie with the publisher. There was no way the BBFC would have passed that uncut.

    It's interesting as with films becoming ever more downmarket and disposable, gaming could find an interesting niche as a medium of 'intelligent' entertainment.

    Let's hope we move forwards not backwards.

  • Steroyd #10 5 years ago

    I'm not sure why Nintendo would allow that type of game on the Wii? It just doesn't fit with the Wii image...

    That's the point.

  • Tomnd #11 5 years ago

    OMG it's so violent, even adults can't handle it.

  • MrBiggles #12 5 years ago

    Ban this sick filth...

    I will import...

  • Rintintin #13 5 years ago

    As a 37 year old adult I want to be able to make my own choices when it comes to which games I buy and play. I do not want the BBFC to make this choice for me.

  • MrBiggles #14 5 years ago

    If you say they should allow games like this what you're basically saying is they should allow everything through and scrap the people who decide what's allowed to be unleashed on the general public.

    It's not going to happen, grow up and stop whining like man babies. Rockstar knew the risks, it took a gamble and it lost. Simple as that.

  • Kiigan #15 5 years ago

    ELSPA need to get some fucking balls and call this what it is - ludicrous state censorship that undermines the creative efforts of the industry and insults the intelligent adults that make up the majority of the game buying public. It singles out videogames for far more stringent rules than would EVER been accepted in the world of print media, DVD or other media. This whole affair is an embarrassment - this is the sort of thought-police shit one expects in Germany, not the UK.

  • remote #16 5 years ago

    Could this all be due to the recent hoo har over the manchester cathedral being used in RFoM? They just want to show they are prepared to ban stuff, so have come down hard on the next potential headline grabber. I suspect some politcs between various people is involved.

  • remote #17 5 years ago

    @MrBiggles
    "If you say they should allow games like this what you're basically saying is they should allow everything through and scrap the people who decide what's allowed to be unleashed on the general public."

    I don't think the BBFC should be scrapped... They should continue to classify media as being suitable for various age groups. I just don't think they should be allowed to totally ban stuff.

    If being exposed to this stuff is so damaging, then how come all the BBFC staff aren't all psychos?? Is it because they are good proper educated gentlemen, and we are inferior riff raff?

    Just give us fair warning of the contents, and let us make our own decisions.

  • Halo.Jones #18 5 years ago

    Rockstar have played the trump card and won. They did not have to submit Manhunt 2 to the BBFC for a rating as the rating is handled by ELSPA. By submitting to BBFC they have basically used this organisation to help promote a title which would have cost them a few million in adverts etc.

    Now everyone is talking about Manhunt 2 thinking that they must get this game to see what all the fuss is about.

  • MrBiggles #19 5 years ago

    Freedom of media is a right, but not an absolute one, its an important distinction, otherwise we would see sex, violence and profanity during daytime TV, "adult" music on mainstream radio etc, society usually can self censor, but there are times when outside, higher enforcement is needed, this is one of those times.

  • bloodflowers #20 5 years ago

    I didn't care about Manhunt 2 before, because the first one wasn't actually that good.

    Now it's banned I'll be importing it.

  • Hughes. #21 5 years ago

    The idea of Manhunt always seemed a step too far for me, although for all I know the publicity was as an innaccurate as it was for Canis Canem Edit, but that wasn't a road I wanted to walk, and MH2 sounded worse.

    I bet Keith Vaz is happy though. Whether this will make the video-game hate squad feel empowered to go and stir up more ignorant crap, or prove that game content IS subject to proper scrutiny and blowhards should stop whining about it, I don't know.

  • Lov3 #22 5 years ago

    I'm sorry, but I disagree with the above posters - no censorship is good censorship. When one small group of people are rating and deciding what is fit for other adults to see, it only indicates that they don't trust the general public to handle that information. Adults are not children, and it's not the sign of a mature society that we should be treated that way.

    I imagine some people are going to cheer on this decision. After all Manhunt isn't "art" is it? It's just senseless violence, with no value to society whatsoever. Which is exactly what was said about A Clockwork Orange, both the book and the film, before each was banned. Now maybe Manhunt 2 isn't the videogame equivalent of A Clockwork Orange... but maybe it is. Who are you to make that decision for 70 million other people?

  • dr.glyndwr #23 5 years ago

    @Lov3: A Clockwork Orange was never banned in the UK, in book or the film version. The book has never been banned here (although it has in some countries, notably the US original publication is shorter) and the film was voluntarily withdrawn from the UK by Kubrick following threats made to his family (more details). It had, previously, been passed for release by the BBFC.

    As to those who think nothing should be censored... There was an article in Empire about the work of the BBFC a few months back. The BBFC rules for porn, for example, are surprisingly lenient and pretty much only deny releases to stuff that is non-consensual or "likely to cause physical harm". Does anyone really have a problem with that? Honestly? I won't comment on this decision as I haven't played Manhunt 2, but despite being a libertarian I think the BBFC do good -- and undervalued -- work.
    Edited by dr.glyndwr at 19/06/07 @ 14:47

  • Skeletor #24 5 years ago

    @dadrester

    "the media shit that would surround a release like this would be pretty damaging to the whole industry at a pretty critical time for mainstream acceptance. "

    That's simply bullshit. Does the pornindustry damage the DVD market?! No, it doesn't because videogames or DVDs are just a medium. As long as the content is a work of fiction and NOT some kind of dangerous political propaganda or recorded real live crime, there is absolutely no reason to prevent adults from buying/consuming it. If I'm allowed to vote, drink and smoke I should also be allowed to read the books I want to read, watch the films I want to watch and finally play the videogames I want to play. This is simply censorship and there are many ways to fight it.
    If all this results in a lack of a PAL version, Rockstar will loose a lot of money BUT if it goes on sale in ONE European country, then this was the best publicity stunt Rockstar could ever get.
    Reminds me of the movie "Cannibal Holocaust", advertised as "Banned in most countries!".
    Edited by Skeletor at 19/06/07 @ 15:34

  • The-Bodybuilder #25 5 years ago

    >" no censorship is good censorship"

    Er, no censorship is no censorship.

    So, we might as well have peado sims, where people can be a free-roaming peado that snatches kids from playgrounds.

    Censorship is there for a reason. Geez, Might was well show porn in CBBC whilst were at it.

  • chupachups #26 5 years ago

    "I still find it hard to believe that Carmageddon was ever banned. Lamest game ever surely. As far as violence went anyway."

    It's not so much the violence they're worried about as how closely the violence could be confused with real life. The theory is that the closer the game is to reality, the more likely people are to confuse the game violence with real violence.

    No idea if any of this has any scientific merit, but that's the way most censorship boards think nowadays.


    "If being exposed to this stuff is so damaging, then how come all the BBFC staff aren't all psychos?? Is it because they are good proper educated gentlemen, and we are inferior riff raff?"

    Well, this is the big argument against all censorship, why shouldn't intelligent adults be allowed to judge for themselves whether something is dangerous?

    I can understand people being worried that 18-rated games might fall into children's hands, but surely that just means we ought to be cracking down on parents or games shops that give kids 18-rated games?


    "A Clockwork Orange was never banned, neither in book nor the film versions. The book has never been banned and the film was withdrawn from the UK by Kubrick following threats made to his family"

    Absolutely, the film never broke any laws and was always available for distibution if the owners wanted to do so. They just chose not to distribute it in the UK for the reasons you gave.

    It's a shame that something could be forced off the screen by threats of violence against the artist's family, but it was Kubrick's decision to put his family before artistic integrity, and most of us would do the same.
    Edited by chupachups at 19/06/07 @ 14:49

  • The-Bodybuilder #27 5 years ago

    Fact is, the BBFC are just trying to protect the industry from ignorant onslaught.
    If that means sacrificing a mediocore, unnecessarily violent (just for TT to get more attention) action adventure to save all games (or other possibly contraversial games like possibly even Haze), then I'm for it.

    Sacrifice a crappy Take-Two game to the over-zealous and ignorant mainstream media to spare others is a good thing.

  • ryohazuki1983 #28 5 years ago

    "Freedom of media is a right, but not an absolute one, its an important distinction, otherwise we would see sex, violence and profanity during daytime TV, "adult" music on mainstream radio etc, society usually can self censor, but there are times when outside, higher enforcement is needed, this is one of those times. "

    censoring sex, violence on tv is different to censoring games, as parents wouldnt be able to stop their kids from watching it if it was on adverts etc, BUT parents have a choice in what games they buy/allow kids 2 play.

  • MoGamer2006 #29 5 years ago

    @TheBodyBuilder:

    Fact is, you're an idiot.

    You're describing a game you've never seen as crappy and average yet you've never even played it. Most hands-on reports I've read say it's excellent.

    Somehow, I suspect your valiant wishes to 'Save the games' (bless 'em) would be rather different if, say, Haze were the title being banned...

    And as if Wii needed any more of a boost, I reckon this ban just made the Wii the coolest system on the planet...

    (There, that should wind the fanboys up...)

  • vane101 #30 5 years ago

    I agree with Bodybuilder. Developers should not forget that a sizable proportion of the authorities, population and mainstream media believe that video games have a greater influence on behaviour than films, whether that's true or not. A realistic looking games where you are meant to brutalise human looking characters isn't going to cut it anymore. Rockstar would do well to take this into account before it releases GTA IV.
    Edited by vane101 at 19/06/07 @ 15:03

  • hp_on_toast #31 5 years ago

    Wait one minute, didn't it already pass through Elspa? It was Rockstar's own choice to submit to the bbfc afterwards when they didn't have to (there's no FMV in there).

  • secombe #32 5 years ago

    Rockstar have played the trump card and won. They did not have to submit Manhunt 2 to the BBFC for a rating as the rating is handled by ELSPA. By submitting to BBFC they have basically used this organisation to help promote a title which would have cost them a few million in adverts etc.

    Is this strictly true?

    BBFC Guidelines

    And if so, why is everyone reporting it as "banned" now? Surely if they submitted voluntarily, they could release it regardless of the decision.

    In my opinion the BBFC has come along massively in the past 10 years and their rules/decision making has relaxed to an incredible degree. Certainly with regards to movies their is very little that wouldn't be passed now, and if anything I've found the 15 classification to be extremely forgiving in recent years. I don't doubt their decision on Manhunt at all.
    Edited by secombe at 19/06/07 @ 15:13

  • vane101 #33 5 years ago

    Disagree about Rockstar trying to get extra publicity. I think the lawyers probably told them to submit it to the BBFC.

    Well my bet for the next controversy is the use of little girls, which can be attacked, in Bioshock. Already lots of debate on many forums about this. If some gamers are questioning it then what's the mainstream view going to be like?

  • kangarootoo #34 5 years ago

    @secombe

    Thank christ at least someone has bothered to read that website :)

  • The-Bodybuilder #35 5 years ago

    @MoGamer

    LOL.
    The first one was pants, and I would love to see these "excellent" previews of the crappy sequel.
    And you think I care about Haze? HA. I couldn't give a damn (I merely used it as an example).

    Fact is, TT and thier games have put this industry into disrepute. The mainstream media are crying for blood, TT are cashing on another unnecessarily violent sequel to an unnecessarily violent and crappy prequel, and the BBFC are simply giving up a goat to save the rest of the industry.
    I mean, why should other games and the industry have to suffer just because TT likes violence?

    Manhunt is an annoying sacrificial goat anyways. The best type of goat to sacrifice is the one that isn't liked (by most anways).

  • Chaote-Imagicka #36 5 years ago

    "
    These games can only be bought directly from the publisher on-line - that should do it. "

    Or licensed sex shops. Either way no crappy parents buying it for their kids.

  • kmittal82 #37 5 years ago

    What the hell is going on?? The games are clearly 18 rated, and this is to say films like SAW and SEVEN should be banned for similar themes.

    For fuck's sake, stop babying everyone and spend more effort trying to prevent teenagers and minors getting hold of this.

  • AllMetal #38 5 years ago

    Maybe stores such as Game, and Gamestation etc should not sell 18 rated games to a 11 year old walking ASBO and this kind of censorship wouldn't be needed.

  • Stilicho #39 5 years ago

    This is absolutely awful news. I thought we'd actually progressed beyond these draconian measures. If the likes of Hostel 1 & 2 can be released in cinemas and on dvd with an 18 certificate there is absolutely no reason why Manhunt 2 shouldn't get the same treatment. If the BBFC think that nobody under the age of 18 watches 18 certificate films they are sadly out of touch. The problem lies with parental responsibility but as that seems to be too difficult a subject to tackle, the easy option is to start banning everything the moral minority deem unfit. It's a major blow to the games industry's hopes of being treated in a serious adult manner. If it's allowed to continue it won't be long before all we're left with is driving, football and Mario.

  • Halo.Jones #40 5 years ago

    There is no legal requirement for them to submit it to the BBFC, it's purely voluntary, once you are in the process you then have a legal requirement to fullfil the process and abide by what ever the BBFC say. If they tell you to edit etc then you have to do it to so you can release the title.

  • prettyboytim #41 5 years ago

    [link url=http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/student_guide_legislation3.asp
    ]http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/student_guide_leg...[/link]

    It's a rather informative article about how video games and videos in general came to be (partially) regulated by the BBFC.

    Some of us will remember the fuss made over 'video nasties' in the early eighties, which is where much of this legislation came from.

  • Benno #42 5 years ago

    "the media shit that would surround a release like this would be pretty damaging to the whole industry at a pretty critical time for mainstream acceptance"

    No publicity is bad in this industry

    Take the recent resistance media shit storm - i bet you my bottom dollar the game saw a sales increase right after.

  • secombe #43 5 years ago

    This is absolutely awful news. I thought we'd actually progressed beyond these draconian measures.

    We have, massively. I've followed the BBFC for about 10 years now after getting really interested in the 'video-nasties' saga. It took some time but the BBFC now has an extremely good system in place, tweaked all the time - ironically enough - based on public consultation. Consider that the MPAA is funded by the major movie studios in the US and we have as near as fair a system as we are going to get, based on the needs of the majority of the people in this country, not by men in suits.

  • CallousB #44 5 years ago

    "Maybe stores such as Game, and Gamestation etc should not sell 18 rated games to a 11 year old walking ASBO and this kind of censorship wouldn't be needed. "

    I really don't blame the stores.

    I've seen a 70+ grandmother buying her 10-12 year old grandson a copy of GTA Vice City in Game.

    The person behind the desk warned her multiple times that it's not intended for children and explained the content of the game....she just said "well his mum said it was alright" and got quite irate with the member of staff. He sold it to her in the end but he certainly made a strong attempt to disuade her purchase.

  • zuljin #45 5 years ago

    @dr.glyndwr
    "The BBFC rules for porn, for example, are surprisingly lenient and pretty much only deny releases to stuff that is non-consensual or "likely to cause physical harm"."

    I have a problem with that. Firstly, it is not "non-consensual", its "portrayed non-consensual". So why is fake non-consensual sex not allowed, but the rape scene in Irreversible is?

    And secondly, what on earth does "likely to cause physical harm" mean? Does this mean virgins are excluded from porn since first time sex could possibly be painful? Are certain pornstars not allowed to perform since they are too wel endowed? Where is the line drawn?

    Not for/against censorship, but theres just so many ways that these rules can be interpreted.

  • Stilicho #46 5 years ago

    Consider that the MPAA is funded by the major movie studios in the US and we have as near as fair a system as we are going to get, based on the needs of the majority of the people in this country, not by men in suits.

    I resent being told what my needs are, and I don't think I'm in the minority. And the MPAA can refuse a certificate but there is still the option of an unrated release which we don't have.

  • The-Bodybuilder #47 5 years ago

    >"Take the recent resistance media shit storm - i bet you my bottom dollar the game saw a sales increase right after. "

    Maybe so, but constant bad press coverage could inhibit console sales for the big 3 (and maybe indirectly to the DS even), which would inhibit sales of games, damaging publishers, developers and the industry as a whole, which would mean publishers will only create "sure bets", leading lack of creativity, and this forum would be filled with people crying and moaning about how they can only by "Need for Speed: Romford edition".

    It's sad, it's bad, but it's the situation were living in. The BBFC acknowledges this, and have made the necessary steps to ensure that the hungry media are kept at thier bay.
    Now those dumb parents won't fare thier kids being corrupted by gaming consoles, and will have no problems buying it for stupid johnny.

  • reddevil93 #48 5 years ago

    think about this for a second - what if all the content in manhunt 2 was released as a movie,would it of been banned???also i think rockstar will be happy , i think sales will shoot through the roof now and i personnaly believe a lot of retailers wouldn't have stocked this in the first place

  • Stilicho #49 5 years ago

    The BBFC acknowledges this, and have made the necessary steps to ensure that the hungry media are kept at thier bay.

    Does anybody seriously think the BBFC have banned Manhunt 2 out of consideration for the future of the games industry?

  • secombe #50 5 years ago

    I resent being told what my needs are, and I don't think I'm in the minority. And the MPAA can refuse a certificate but there is still the option of an unrated release which we don't have.

    An unrated release is generally commericial suicide and that aside, our system makes that look like something from the dark ages, we should be happy with what we have, the grass isn't greener anywhere else.

    We NEED restrictions, or would you like any TV shown at anytime of day, and an unrestricted road network? Sure some of us could exercise control and not kill ourselves or let our kids watch porn 24/7, but there are plenty of people who need those decisions made for us. That is how this country works.

  • kangarootoo #51 5 years ago

    There are two threads going on this subject. The older, larger thread answers many of the questions raised here.

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/article_discussion.php?article_id=77988
    ]http://www.eurogamer.net/article_discuss...[/link]


    but then... I would say that I suppose, as I answered many of them, in my usual grumpy style :)

  • Stilicho #52 5 years ago

    We should be happy with what we have.
    We NEED restrictions, or would you like any TV shown at anytime of day, and an unrestricted road network? Sure some of us could exercise control and not kill ourselves or let our kids watch porn 24/7, but there are plenty of people who need those decisions made for us. That is how this country works.

    So basically we should all be good little boys and girls and toe the party line without question? Sorry, but that's complete bollocks.

  • Kami #53 5 years ago

    No, but who takes responsibility otherwise for extreme violence in videogames? Not the publisher and certainly not the people who buy the game.

    People may bitch and moan and whine about this, but the BBFC are very very leniant and good with their ratings. If they can't pass Manhunt 2 uncut, then I think for one it demonstrates clearly the content of the game and as such, there is no way they could pass it.

    I know we are all intelligent people who can make our own choices, but at the same time there needs to be a filter if things go a little bit too far. That's what ELSPA and BBFC are there for - and by the sounds of it, ELSPA wouldn't have passed it either.

    Yes, it's publicity for the game but at the same time it does raise bigger points about how far we can push violence in games...

  • The-Bodybuilder #54 5 years ago

    >"Does anybody seriously think the BBFC have banned Manhunt 2 out of consideration for the future of the games industry? "

    Maybe so, maybe not.
    Either way, the outcome's the same.

    The hungry media ARE kept at thier bay.......for now anyways.

  • kangarootoo #55 5 years ago

    @Stilicho

    "So basically we should all be good little boys and girls and toe the party line without question? Sorry, but that's complete bollocks."

    Well that is very rousing, but not particularly constructive. Also, no one suggested toeing the line without question. You added that bit.

    What structure would you suggest in place of the current BBFC setup?

  • sillak #56 5 years ago

    I'm normally the first guy to cry foul when censorship rears its ugly head...

    ...BUT...

    ...the first Manhunt actually made me feel physically ill after playing it for a half hour or so. Heck, I'm no shrinking violet, but that game was sick! I'm not saying that I agree with censorship (unless the material constitutes hate speech), but I'll shed no tears that the game was banned.

    Still, I'm sure that some people will feel that allowing freedom of expression to be curtailed in this particular instance will invite harsher measures from the authorities in the future, and will fight it tooth and nail. Fair enough.

  • smelly #57 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo: The thing is, the bbfc is there to recommend who a film/game is suitable for. It's not really there to stop people who are old enough from seeing it.

    And the bbfc has amazing double standards. You wouldnt believe the number of games which get teen ratings for stuff which you see all the time on the cartoon network.

    And i'd be suprised if there's anything in manhunt 2 which i havent seen already in an 18 rated film.

  • kangarootoo #58 5 years ago

    @smelly

    "The thing is, the bbfc is there to recommend who a film/game is suitable for"

    Well, perhaps we differ on our definition of recommend, but the rating applied by the BBFC acts as a legally binding restriction at the point of sale or rental, so I think "recommend" isn't quite the right word. Thats like saying the road traffic act is a recommendation, when in fact it defines law (even though the authors don't enforce the law themselves).

    Like I've said many times on this and the other threads, they do the job they do because we the general public asked them to. They represent us and their rules are drawn up from our opinions. They don't write their own guidelines and they never have.

    "And the bbfc has amazing double standards. You wouldnt believe the number of games which get teen ratings for stuff which you see all the time on the cartoon network. "

    Errr, not exactly. The BBFC don't regulate broadcast television, so you would have to take that up with oftel (or whichever body covers the cartoon network if it isn't oftel). In fact the BBFC rules are extremely well laid out (I've read them) so it is actually pretty tough for double standard rulings to occur. The opinion of the individual reviewer doesn't really come into it, and if there is any question it goes to review by a panel of peers.

  • Stilicho #59 5 years ago

    I've been watching horror films for years, including some extremely gory stuff, and I haven't yet gone out and killed anyone (nor have I had any psychopathic urges to do so). The BBFC should be advising on content and allowing people to make an informed choice about what they want to play/watch. I thoroughly enjoyed the first Manhunt game as an incredibly tense thriller experience akin to watching a really gripping film and I was looking forward to the sequel. With the easy availability of product from overseas via internet shopping, this is a fairly pointless ban anyway. And the BBFC does show double standards - if they're happy to pass the Hostel films uncut for home dvd then this should also have been given the same certificate. All this will do is discourage the videogames industry from trying to produce more adult oriented products which I for one think will be a very bad thing.
    Edited by Stilicho at 20/06/07 @ 08:25