United Kingdom Legalizes PEGI Ratings

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

iseko:
To your first comment: Doesn't this new system forbid the sale of a game rated 16/18 to under age persons? Instead of the old system where it is just a recommendation, but kids can still buy them behind their parents backs. Or is that just a possible future implementation? If I misunderstood then yes, you are are right.

Yes it does.

BUT, the old system did as well, this new ruling just changes who's logo is on the box. Before it was the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) who decided age ratings, for a while they've been trying to get out of doing games. BBFC ratings (U,PG,12,15,18) have always been legally binding so selling a game with a rating to an under-age was still an offense.

Now it's PEGI that is legally binding, so the BBFC logos will be disappearing from games entirely and the PEGI rating (which goes 3,7,12,16,18) should be the only one on the front of the box.

For the people in shops this will make little to no different. Store policies have always been to treat all age ratings as legally binding regardless of it's actual status.

albino boo:

WaysideMaze:
Wasn't there a huge uproar about America trying to push through a law similar to this a few years back? That one in California?

This looks very similar to me, but maybe I'm just misreading the situation.

Its identical and the law has been enforce for about a year. Most democratic countries have something similar, only a few activity censor games (Germany and Australia). In much the same way there are law restricting the sale of booze and tobacco. It somewhat puts pay the alarmist claims that Amazon, Steam and Walmart would all stop selling games. All 3 continue to sell games in the UK, Wallmart trough its UK arm ASDA.

The main point of adopting Pegi rather the previous BBFC rating is to save money. The people at BBFC who used to rate games will be out of a job and reduce the cost to the tax payer. The Games industry also gains because they will have one less rating to pay for.

iseko:

To your first comment: Doesn't this new system forbid the sale of a game rated 16/18 to under age persons? Instead of the old system where it is just a recommendation, but kids can still buy them behind their parents backs. Or is that just a possible future implementation? If I misunderstood then yes, you are are right.

It has already been implemented, its already illegal to sell games to the underaged, just like DVDS, Booze and cigarettes. This change is about who rates not if the rating is in force. The change will almost to certainly go through as an order in council and won't effect the law on the ground.

There is a huge difference between the california laws and what we have implemented across Europe. We treat games as protected by constitution, they are art. The californian law would treat games as tobacco or booze, where in the government decides wich products it allows to be sold. You cannot sell booze without the government allowing you, and evne then, it decides what booze you can sell. This way, games would of been highly scrutinized, the market would of been stalled as the government inspects each andevery game sold, censoring it, implementing itself in its creation, and most likely changing stuff. Germany is much like this, and it is HIGHLY criticized for its stupid stick-up-ass behavior.

draythefingerless:

albino boo:

WaysideMaze:
Wasn't there a huge uproar about America trying to push through a law similar to this a few years back? That one in California?

This looks very similar to me, but maybe I'm just misreading the situation.

Its identical and the law has been enforce for about a year. Most democratic countries have something similar, only a few activity censor games (Germany and Australia). In much the same way there are law restricting the sale of booze and tobacco. It somewhat puts pay the alarmist claims that Amazon, Steam and Walmart would all stop selling games. All 3 continue to sell games in the UK, Wallmart trough its UK arm ASDA.

The main point of adopting Pegi rather the previous BBFC rating is to save money. The people at BBFC who used to rate games will be out of a job and reduce the cost to the tax payer. The Games industry also gains because they will have one less rating to pay for.

iseko:

To your first comment: Doesn't this new system forbid the sale of a game rated 16/18 to under age persons? Instead of the old system where it is just a recommendation, but kids can still buy them behind their parents backs. Or is that just a possible future implementation? If I misunderstood then yes, you are are right.

It has already been implemented, its already illegal to sell games to the underaged, just like DVDS, Booze and cigarettes. This change is about who rates not if the rating is in force. The change will almost to certainly go through as an order in council and won't effect the law on the ground.

There is a huge difference between the california laws and what we have implemented across Europe. We treat games as protected by constitution, they are art. The californian law would treat games as tobacco or booze, where in the government decides wich products it allows to be sold. You cannot sell booze without the government allowing you, and evne then, it decides what booze you can sell. This way, games would of been highly scrutinized, the market would of been stalled as the government inspects each andevery game sold, censoring it, implementing itself in its creation, and most likely changing stuff. Germany is much like this, and it is HIGHLY criticized for its stupid stick-up-ass behavior.

Small but rather important point movies, both in cinemas and on DVD have legal enforcible age limits on them in the UK. In the case of cinema the limits have been in pace for 80 odd years. I'm sorry to tell you its only the USA that has this hang up about age limts in the democratic world. Is American democracy so week that it can't treat dvd sales like tobacco sales without plunging in a fascist state? I think you have to examine whether you are being manipulated by the games industry who know that over 18 games are attractive to 15 year old boys more than they are 35 year old men. I would like to point in the direction of the deadsapce2 ads, your mother wouldn't like it, when the game was rated 18. Most 18 year olds are unaffected by parental opinions on gaming. It could be that the they aimed the ads at 15 year olds now. Its also interesting to note the only in the US did the games industry attack legally enforcible age limits, not one peep was heard in the rest of the world. Could that be because the rest of the democratic world regard age limits for films and games in the same terms as booze and cigarettes?

If the rest of the democratic world can manage this why can't the US?

WaysideMaze:
Wasn't there a huge uproar about America trying to push through a law similar to this a few years back? That one in California?

This looks very similar to me, but maybe I'm just misreading the situation.

It's pretty much exactly the same. The difference is that the UK doesn't have a "First Amendment" to contend with.

Given the wide variation in social taboos across the continent, a Pan European solution to game ratings seems illogical. There was nothing wrong with the BBFC. This move is just to make life a little easier for the publishers.

This is the complete opposite of what the ratings system on video games was designed to do. They were meant to be a form of self regulation, not legal regulation. But anything the the UK does regarding regulation doesn't surprise me.

albino boo:

Its identical and the law has been enforce for about a year. Most democratic countries have something similar, only a few activity censor games (Germany and Australia). In much the same way there are law restricting the sale of booze and tobacco. It somewhat puts pay the alarmist claims that Amazon, Steam and Walmart would all stop selling games. All 3 continue to sell games in the UK, Wallmart trough its UK arm ASDA.

Neither Germany nor Australia actively (I assume that's what you meant) censor games. In fact, the German ratings (USK) are very much comparable to the way the PEGI and ESRB systems work, i.e. a game is submitted to a ratings board (which by the way isn't under any government control, it's set up by the gaming industry itself) who decide on an age rating, which is legally binding to vendors.
If the ratings board decides on an 18+ rating, the game can also be submitted to a governemnt agency called the BPjM, which can issue further restrictions like putting a game on the "index", which means a game isn't allowed to be advertised or sold openly (but still "under the counter"). None of the above have a direct influence on a game's content or can demand changes, they just decide on a rating or if a game should be put on the "index", so there's no active censorship going on.
Naturally, publishers don't want their game to end up on the index, as that's bad for sales, so most of the time when there's the possibility that might happen, they'll submit an already pre-censored version to the ratings board. It's very similar to some horror movies cutting out some of the more graphic scenes to get a PG13 rating.
Nowadays, some of the pre-censorship going on in German versions is way over the top and still influenced by the overzealous BPjM of the 90s, who put pretty much every FPS that featured human enemies on the index. As I mentioned earlier, the ratings because of violent content have become much less strict in the last decade and most of the time, the USK ratings aren't different from their international counterparts like PEGI.

robert01:
This is the complete opposite of what the ratings system on video games was designed to do. They were meant to be a form of self regulation, not legal regulation. But anything the the UK does regarding regulation doesn't surprise me.

It's pretty much standard across Europe that age ratings for all media (DVDs, movies, games,..) are legally binding for retailers, and that has been the case for a long time. The only thing that changed in the UK is that they switched from one system to another to decide which age is suitable.
The difference to the proposed law in California (at least how I understand it) is that in the US, other age ratings aren't legally binding, so it would have been unjustified to treat games as something special from other forms of media (and thus an infringement on the developer's freedoms).

The people talking about the California law kinda have it wrong. We already have the ESRB here, so the law would have created an entirely new classification board just to put a sticker on every game 'deemed' violent. With no rules on what is classified as violent. So that E for Everybody game that has a kid bouncing a ball against other people? That could be given a 18 only sticker. Also, WE HAVE THE ESRB, and that could have been given legal clout.

Also, the MPAA and music industries are not legally bound here in the US. So if games were to be forcibly bound legally through shoddy laws, but the other medias aren't, that's a bit of discrimination based solely on your entertainment of choice.

If a game is an 18, I think they should be able to sell it to anyone with parental accompaniment for 17 or 16 year olds, but not directly to them. If the game is 18, don't sell it to anyone under the next certificate down at all (PEGI ratings 18, 16, 12, 7, 2).

That way mature people for their ages don't get screwed over, and children stay mostly the hell away from our games.

Subatomic:

If the ratings board decides on an 18+ rating, the game can also be submitted to a governemnt agency called the BPjM, which can issue further restrictions like putting a game on the "index", which means a game isn't allowed to be advertised or sold openly (but still "under the counter").

You forgot to mention, that games on the "index" are (intentionally or unintentionally) financially dead in Germany, since most of the stores don't sell games of the "index", pretty much similar to the AO rating in the USA (i.E. Gamestop, also those games are effectivly banned from digital distribution). Basically games that got the 18+ rating refused, mostly won't come out in Germany.
One of the biggest "Anti-Gamers" (Christian Pfeiffer) in Germany actually said that more games should land on the "index", to make Germany financially very unatractive for publishers of FPSs

Also you didn't mention that courts can actually ban games from sale, mostly because of the use of the swastika, wich is only allowed for use in "art", what games still aren't in Germany (i.E. Wolfenstein)
Also games can be banned the same way for violence (i.E. Dead Rising, Condemned)

I would love that Germany would get the PEGI as rating system, with no games not getting the 18+ rating (wich imho should be the highest), and we just get rid of the USK and the BPJM

N3squ1ck:

You forgot to mention, that games on the "index" are (intentionally or unintentionally) financially dead in Germany, since most of the stores don't sell games of the "index", pretty much similar to the AO rating in the USA (i.E. Gamestop, also those games are effectivly banned from digital distribution). Basically games that got the 18+ rating refused, mostly won't come out in Germany.
One of the biggest "Anti-Gamers" (Christian Pfeiffer) in Germany actually said that more games should land on the "index", to make Germany financially very unatractive for publishers of FPSs

Also you didn't mention that courts can actually ban games from sale, mostly because of the use of the swastika, wich is only allowed for use in "art", what games still aren't in Germany (i.E. Wolfenstein)
Also games can be banned the same way for violence (i.E. Dead Rising, Condemned)

I would love that Germany would get the PEGI as rating system, with no games not getting the 18+ rating (wich imho should be the highest), and we just get rid of the USK and the BPJM

I actually mentioned that "indexed" games are effectively unprofitable, but you're right that there are some more legal measures including a possible total ban that I didn't mention, but those are so few and far between (at least recently) that I don't think they are very represantative of the German rating system as a whole and mostly result from certain pecularities of the German law, like the ban of Nazi propaganda and symbols. My original point was merely clearing up the misconception that Germany (or Australia for that matter) has a government-run censorship board that decides to turn all blood green or turn soldiers into robots. I too think the BPjM is mostly unneccessary and the USK ratings are all that's required (or the PEGI ratings, though I don't think Germany will give up it's own rating system anytime soon).

Subatomic:

I actually mentioned that "indexed" games are effectively unprofitable

Touché, sorry.

EDIT: fixed quote, also fully aggreed, and well, let's hope together that the people in charge come to their senses

half tempted to say the US should give the ESRB some legal weight as well. But i know thats walking into a sticky situation.

SomeBrianDude:

LordOfInsanity:
Yet they completely ignore the fact that most 'Timmy bought this evil game!' yelling is from parents or friends of parents buying the high rated games for the children.

Yeah, that doesn't happen here often. Don't get me wrong, you hear about it from time to time, but usually the people making the fuss are ignored. See: Keith Vaz. Keeping reactionary idiots out of the public eye is something we do surprisingly well in the UK (most of the time, at least). What's more likely to happen is the parent will simply return the game, then chastise the child for not being honest with them.

I had a friend working in retail a few years back, when the big Christmas game was a gangster game chock full of swearing and violence. Lots of parents bought it, not really paying attention the BBFC '18' label on it.

He got a lot of returns on boxing day, along with complaints about the games content. He told me he was fighting so hard to not laugh in their faces as he was giving them the refunds.

WaysideMaze:
Wasn't there a huge uproar about America trying to push through a law similar to this a few years back? That one in California?

This looks very similar to me, but maybe I'm just misreading the situation.

PEGI is effectively a self-regulation thing for the industry and retail sector. The guidelines are not set by the government, the government just says "We cool with what these guys say and will back them up"

albino boo:

draythefingerless:

albino boo:

Its identical and the law has been enforce for about a year. Most democratic countries have something similar, only a few activity censor games (Germany and Australia). In much the same way there are law restricting the sale of booze and tobacco. It somewhat puts pay the alarmist claims that Amazon, Steam and Walmart would all stop selling games. All 3 continue to sell games in the UK, Wallmart trough its UK arm ASDA.

The main point of adopting Pegi rather the previous BBFC rating is to save money. The people at BBFC who used to rate games will be out of a job and reduce the cost to the tax payer. The Games industry also gains because they will have one less rating to pay for.

It has already been implemented, its already illegal to sell games to the underaged, just like DVDS, Booze and cigarettes. This change is about who rates not if the rating is in force. The change will almost to certainly go through as an order in council and won't effect the law on the ground.

There is a huge difference between the california laws and what we have implemented across Europe. We treat games as protected by constitution, they are art. The californian law would treat games as tobacco or booze, where in the government decides wich products it allows to be sold. You cannot sell booze without the government allowing you, and evne then, it decides what booze you can sell. This way, games would of been highly scrutinized, the market would of been stalled as the government inspects each andevery game sold, censoring it, implementing itself in its creation, and most likely changing stuff. Germany is much like this, and it is HIGHLY criticized for its stupid stick-up-ass behavior.

Small but rather important point movies, both in cinemas and on DVD have legal enforcible age limits on them in the UK. In the case of cinema the limits have been in pace for 80 odd years. I'm sorry to tell you its only the USA that has this hang up about age limts in the democratic world. Is American democracy so week that it can't treat dvd sales like tobacco sales without plunging in a fascist state? I think you have to examine whether you are being manipulated by the games industry who know that over 18 games are attractive to 15 year old boys more than they are 35 year old men. I would like to point in the direction of the deadsapce2 ads, your mother wouldn't like it, when the game was rated 18. Most 18 year olds are unaffected by parental opinions on gaming. It could be that the they aimed the ads at 15 year olds now. Its also interesting to note the only in the US did the games industry attack legally enforcible age limits, not one peep was heard in the rest of the world. Could that be because the rest of the democratic world regard age limits for films and games in the same terms as booze and cigarettes?

If the rest of the democratic world can manage this why can't the US?

you must of missed my point or sth, because that has nothing to do with what i said. and no, dvds and games are not sold and approved the same way tobacco or booze is in europe. to sell tobacco and porn and etc, you need a special license, beyond the license for selling that other products need. not only that, unlike books, movies and such, the content of tobacco and porn are scrutinized and determine wether you can even put that in the country. its equivalent to drugs really. this drug is legal because the government analized it and tehy think it can be sold(tobacco alcohol), but this drug is bad for some arbitrary reason, hencefort, illegal to sell(marijuana, cocaine). BUT, a book or a movie does not go under that scrutiny, it is simply given a rating, wich means only people of a certain age can buy it, THATS IT. and the california law did not give the right of artistic expression to games, treating it like a drug instead of a piece of entertainment. that is wrong ethically AND pragmatically. i have nothing against the age rating legal binding, that was not the issue at all. im all for 15 year olds being prohibited from seeing R rated movies n R rated games(not that cinemas stop 15 years olds from watchign them). the issue was taking the constitutional right as an artistic medium from games in the first place. and it was stated that the only issue with the law california was passing, was that it implied this fact, and had they been more specific in video games' position as protected by first amendment, it would of passed and it wouldnt have been a waste of time.

oh and btw, while a 15 year old could have never gone to see the R rated movies in UK for 80 years now, that doesnt mean the R rated movie could be banned. and that is the issue.

On one hand, this will save game developers and UK taxpayers quite a bit of money as they won't have to deal with the pointless double-rating system.

However, the content descriptors on BBFC stickers are much more informative than the ones on PEGI stickers. Also, more parents will recognise the BBFC stickers because they're used on films too.

Bvenged:
If a game is an 18, I think they should be able to sell it to anyone with parental accompaniment for 17 or 16 year olds, but not directly to them. If the game is 18, don't sell it to anyone under the next certificate down at all (PEGI ratings 18, 16, 12, 7, 2).

That way mature people for their ages don't get screwed over, and children stay mostly the hell away from our games.

As far as I know, it's already like that. The parent just has to say that they're buying the game for themselves and then there's nothing that the retailer can do to stop them.

DTWolfwood:
half tempted to say the US should give the ESRB some legal weight as well. But i know thats walking into a sticky situation.

Unfortunately, the US government cannot make age ratings legally binding for forms of art, so video games would have to be classified in the same way as pornography, tobacco and alchohol to get legally binding age ratings.

draythefingerless:

you must of missed my point or sth, because that has nothing to do with what i said. and no, dvds and games are not sold and approved the same way tobacco or booze is in europe. to sell tobacco and porn and etc, you need a special license, beyond the license for selling that other products need. not only that, unlike books, movies and such, the content of tobacco and porn are scrutinized and determine wether you can even put that in the country. its equivalent to drugs really. this drug is legal because the government analized it and tehy think it can be sold(tobacco alcohol), but this drug is bad for some arbitrary reason, hencefort, illegal to sell(marijuana, cocaine). BUT, a book or a movie does not go under that scrutiny, it is simply given a rating, wich means only people of a certain age can buy it, THATS IT. and the california law did not give the right of artistic expression to games, treating it like a drug instead of a piece of entertainment. that is wrong ethically AND pragmatically. i have nothing against the age rating legal binding, that was not the issue at all. im all for 15 year olds being prohibited from seeing R rated movies n R rated games(not that cinemas stop 15 years olds from watchign them). the issue was taking the constitutional right as an artistic medium from games in the first place. and it was stated that the only issue with the law california was passing, was that it implied this fact, and had they been more specific in video games' position as protected by first amendment, it would of passed and it wouldnt have been a waste of time.

oh and btw, while a 15 year old could have never gone to see the R rated movies in UK for 80 years now, that doesnt mean the R rated movie could be banned. and that is the issue.

In the UK to sell booze you need a licence to sell as well, where do you think the US got its licensing system from? The only people who gain in the US from not making it legally binding are the Games companies. Why would restricting sale mean it could be banned? Everywhere does it, what is different about the US. Theoretically any democratic government could turn around and ban games, but guess what, they don't. The tax raised is more important than a small minority and of slogan shouters and bandwagon jumpers. Every other democratic country manages to maintain free speech without the US constitution.

Every country has it founding myths, mine is no different from any other. However you should not blindly except that the US constitution as the only or even the best way to protect freedom. After all the, the constitution is only a modification of how the British government functioned at the time. The only major change was instead of having an hereditary monarch you have an elected president, the powers and role was basically the same. Most of the concepts of the constitution and even some of the language came out of the English civil war.

The British political system has evolved radically since then but the US system is stuck in aspic. There is an inherent risk in treating a 250 year old document with too much reverence, the world changes and the need to deal with issues that the drafters couldn't even imagine will increasingly put more and more pressure on the document.

albino boo:

draythefingerless:

you must of missed my point or sth, because that has nothing to do with what i said. and no, dvds and games are not sold and approved the same way tobacco or booze is in europe. to sell tobacco and porn and etc, you need a special license, beyond the license for selling that other products need. not only that, unlike books, movies and such, the content of tobacco and porn are scrutinized and determine wether you can even put that in the country. its equivalent to drugs really. this drug is legal because the government analized it and tehy think it can be sold(tobacco alcohol), but this drug is bad for some arbitrary reason, hencefort, illegal to sell(marijuana, cocaine). BUT, a book or a movie does not go under that scrutiny, it is simply given a rating, wich means only people of a certain age can buy it, THATS IT. and the california law did not give the right of artistic expression to games, treating it like a drug instead of a piece of entertainment. that is wrong ethically AND pragmatically. i have nothing against the age rating legal binding, that was not the issue at all. im all for 15 year olds being prohibited from seeing R rated movies n R rated games(not that cinemas stop 15 years olds from watchign them). the issue was taking the constitutional right as an artistic medium from games in the first place. and it was stated that the only issue with the law california was passing, was that it implied this fact, and had they been more specific in video games' position as protected by first amendment, it would of passed and it wouldnt have been a waste of time.

oh and btw, while a 15 year old could have never gone to see the R rated movies in UK for 80 years now, that doesnt mean the R rated movie could be banned. and that is the issue.

In the UK to sell booze you need a licence to sell as well, where do you think the US got its licensing system from? The only people who gain in the US from not making it legally binding are the Games companies. Why would restricting sale mean it could be banned? Everywhere does it, what is different about the US. Theoretically any democratic government could turn around and ban games, but guess what, they don't. The tax raised is more important than a small minority and of slogan shouters and bandwagon jumpers. Every other democratic country manages to maintain free speech without the US constitution.

Every country has it founding myths, mine is no different from any other. However you should not blindly except that the US constitution as the only or even the best way to protect freedom. After all the, the constitution is only a modification of how the British government functioned at the time. The only major change was instead of having an hereditary monarch you have an elected president, the powers and role was basically the same. Most of the concepts of the constitution and even some of the language came out of the English civil war.

The British political system has evolved radically since then but the US system is stuck in aspic. There is an inherent risk in treating a 250 year old document with too much reverence, the world changes and the need to deal with issues that the drafters couldn't even imagine will increasingly put more and more pressure on the document.

well ok.

1. im not american, and i despise the way that country is run. im european ok? :)
2. when i mentioned licensing, i was talking generally, not just the US.
3. i meant you need a SPECIAL license, that goes beyond a REGULAR selling license. a bar can sell food just fine with a normal permit, but it needs a SPECIAL license to sell booze as well. that goes for most of the world.
4. the issue isnt so much banning of great IPs(dont worry, gears of war would probably survive), its of clogging of new IPs, and stiffling creativity. dont forget america is made of lobbyists. not to mention, it would give one of the dumbest and extremist governments in the world free will to censor out games they dont want to stir a public reaction. say you wanna make a game that heavily criticizes america and its governments shady business, and its a really good game. OH WAIT, they wont let you, you are not protected in the first amendment, hencefort they can ban your game from existence. :/. while yes, it is not a major issue, and a bit extreme, it is one that you stop by the root now, rather than trying to cut down the tree later. dont forget, these guys just passed a law where they can drag your ass into a concentration camp, without due process or hearing, based just on terrorist suspicion.

and btw, i agree. they have too much love for that 250 year old piece of paper. it has some timeless rules, but some things just need to be fixed sometimes.

unfortunately, they usually fix it the wrong way.

The Plunk:

DTWolfwood:
half tempted to say the US should give the ESRB some legal weight as well. But i know thats walking into a sticky situation.

Unfortunately, the US government cannot make age ratings legally binding for forms of art, so video games would have to be classified in the same way as pornography, tobacco and alchohol to get legally binding age ratings.

Like i said Sticky :/

Aside from the art/medium discrimination of games that shot down similar legislation in California, I think there's another cultural difference between the UK and the US that allows one to have legally enforceable ratings and not the other. Disclaimer: I'm not either a citizen of the US or UK, my appreciation is foreign to both. I think one of the risks of making ratings legally enforceable in the US is the sue-happy system they have. I'm not too sure how many absurd lawsuits crop up in the UK, but the US is fond of allowing anyone to sue for almost anything, and many times get away with it. Therefore a ruling that makes ratings enforceable puts the retail store at a massive risk of lawsuits from parents that just don't understand why ratings are there in the first place. Maybe even class-action lawsuits. Or maybe I'm just ranting away here.

Plinglebob:

Strazdas:
So we give some assholes who think they know whats suitable legal power now? I guess Sieg Heil is in order, well played.

Its been done with films for decades and I've yet to see fascists marching down the high street thanks to that so applying it to games just makes things equal for both industries.

You mean beside the fact that whole movie industry is cutting their movies different from directors/screenwritters vision to appease the rating monster?

Strazdas:

Plinglebob:

Strazdas:
So we give some assholes who think they know whats suitable legal power now? I guess Sieg Heil is in order, well played.

Its been done with films for decades and I've yet to see fascists marching down the high street thanks to that so applying it to games just makes things equal for both industries.

You mean beside the fact that whole movie industry is cutting their movies different from directors/screenwritters vision to appease the rating monster?

Getting a little off topic here, but I wouldn't say it was just to appease the ratings monster. Just like with most major films being post processed in 3D, its so that movie studios can make as much money from films as possible, by reaching the largest possible demographics.

All I have to say about this is that PEGI have come out with some "odd" decisions, such as the first mass effect being an 18, whereas BBFC said it was a 12. Anyway I hope that those employed in the BBFC games division do not lose their jobs.

The_Waspman:

Strazdas:

Plinglebob:

Its been done with films for decades and I've yet to see fascists marching down the high street thanks to that so applying it to games just makes things equal for both industries.

You mean beside the fact that whole movie industry is cutting their movies different from directors/screenwritters vision to appease the rating monster?

Getting a little off topic here, but I wouldn't say it was just to appease the ratings monster. Just like with most major films being post processed in 3D, its so that movie studios can make as much money from films as possible, by reaching the largest possible demographics.

but thats exactly the point. they have to cut down the movie so they would get a rating that allows wider audience. if no rating system was there, the audience would be available without trimming down the original vision.

SomeBrianDude:
Yeah, that doesn't happen here often. Don't get me wrong, you hear about it from time to time, but usually the people making the fuss are ignored. See: Keith Vaz. Keeping reactionary idiots out of the public eye is something we do surprisingly well in the UK (most of the time, at least). What's more likely to happen is the parent will simply return the game, then chastise the child for not being honest with them.

A lot fewer of our idiot politicians would have means to fuel their insane propaganda if our adults were that responsible. I'd say I want to have some of you guys visit, but the Republicans would probably flip out, accusing you all of being godless monsters for not letting total strangers police your children.

This got way more opinionated than I meant going in.

WaysideMaze:
Wasn't there a huge uproar about America trying to push through a law similar to this a few years back? That one in California?

This looks very similar to me, but maybe I'm just misreading the situation.

In the UK movies and games are treated the same way. The problem with the US law was that it singled out videogames for this treatment leaving movies and other forms of media untouched.

Now as far as the overall media regulation system differences between the US and UK, that is a whole different discussion.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.