UK Gov favours PEGI over BBFC for game ratings
The Government has announced that the UK will adopt the PEGI ratings system for video games, bringing an end to the BBFC's involvement in the industry.
This means the BBFC ratings will be dropped from game boxes and PEGI will act as the UK's sole ratings authority for video games.
The news came in the UK Government's long awaited Digital Britain report, which was released yesterday and outlined the Government's plans for the future of Britain's digital infrastructure.
"PEGI will give consumers a single set of clear logos for video games that will apply across most of Europe, providing an international solution for game content regulation," read the report. "It has the flexibility required to adapt to the challenge of rapidly-evolving technology in the games sector and will be highly effective in the online world."
The BBFC claimed that a local board would be more in-tune with the needs of British children, while the Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association (ELSPA) said that all of Europe should be governed by a single ratings system in order to present clear, uniform ratings across the continent.
Unfortunately for the BBFC, the UK Government said that PEGI combined "the best of a pan-European self regulatory system designed specifically for video games with a strong UK based statutory regulator taking account of the views of the UK public."
In response to the announcement, BBFC was understandably disappointed and maintained that it offered the best safeguard for the British public, but said that it would "co-operate fully" with the legislative changes required to put the new ratings system in place. "We have argued consistently that the games classification system needs to put child protection at its heart," said a BBFC statement. "It needs to involve the provision of full, helpful and carefully weighted information to parents and the public more generally. It must have the power and will to reject of intervene in relation to unacceptable games or game elements."
The BBFC added that it has "always supported PEGI and wished it well, but it continues to believe that it satisfies these requirements better than PEGI."
Discuss in the forums.
Previous Article
21 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyPEGI is perfectly suitable and the correct age logos they now have colour coded are fine - Now lets educate parents and make sure shops enforce it.
What do you mean? We've had BBFC ratings on games for over a decade and I would hardly say the UK games industry is dead, more like growing faster than ever.
It's not like anyone paid any attention to what rating logos were on the box anyway, so I'm not exactly sure how it would influence sales.
Age ratings are not a single catch all for content, a description of the content is much more informative. "18" can mean anything from sex scenes only, to a Tarantino film.
Not that it really matters in the long run, but I don't see the point in changing something that has worked for us for over a decade. Besides, they have a point; Europe has a very different culture to Britain. The BBFC was in the better position to judge our games.
Ah well.
BBFC ftw.
PEGI rate all our games anyway, the BBFC only look at it if it's been rated over 15 by PEGI I think it is. So no, there is no more control given to big bad Europe. PEGI has always been there, now we're just removing the redundant extra BBFC classification from our games that are 15 or 18.
Reminds me of US teenages who "only play M-rated games because anything else is for children". There are plenty of amazing games that are below a 15 rating out there.
That's the kicker, though; educating the parents. Even if parents are educated, however, there will still be some that go in a throw a tantrum when a store won't sell a sex, drug, and violence filled game to their 12 year old kid.
It's not like the old days where mummy takes little Billy to the shop with his pocket money to buy a fun new game that mummy checks is suitable. Kids go and buy games on their own with their own money unless they're really young. So how is the sales assistant supposed to judge if someone is old enough or mentally mature/stable enough to play a game that involves violence or drug use for instance? I don't understand how this can be managed.
Venomous edges to the disc?
Game may contain bugs?
Don't play if you suffer from arachnophobia (game may contain spiders)?
Game only suitable for Spiderman?
Yes, this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegi#Age_ratings
First of all, you have "bad language", as if PEGI is there to make a judgment call on what constitutes "bad". Is "bad" language simply language inappropriate for young children, or is it negative language? A better term might be "offensive language" or "cursing" but even those are somewhat nebulous.
Second, you have the sex icon there, a link male and female symbols. While I thought it was a little clever at first, it's discriminatory because it reinforces heteronormative relationships. They could have come up with something a bit more socially aware and gender-neutral.
Third, there is the discrimination icon. Okay, seriously guys, what the ****? You've got two white guys who look like they're about to beat the crap out of a black guy. While I have nothing much against the "discrimination" qualifier (the ESRB doesn't do the same, and frankly about 95% of games should get it - try finding a minority character that isn't a stereotype, it's almost impossible save for one or two exceptions), the imagery there is just laughable because it implies that discrimination a) is only racial b) is only experienced by minorities (not to say it isn't in the vast majority of cases) and c) only applies to particular minority groups, i.e. whites and blacks. It's as binary as the superficial racial signifiers that we inappropriately utilise on a daily basis.
A lot of people might say that I'm worrying too much or that they're "just little pictures", but they are evidence of the ideologies that permeate the mass media, and they are continually being recreated and transmitted to others. We need to change that.
You are worrying too much.
Language generally considered inappropriate for younger audiences tends to be the typical 'taboo' words. It is 'bad' language.
The other two are not about enforcing any particular stereotypes - It's about the most obvious and easily understood symbols, an effort to make this simple.
Complicating it to be nice and flowery for heterosexual and homosexual couples and every type of discrimination would take most of the back of a box. It'd be over the top, misunderstood, and totally useless.
These are about easily recognisable, easily understood warnings.
That's exactly what they are.
In the early 1900s, blackface was also an "easily recognisable" symbol.
Well maybe its because you're being pedantic and looking for something to be wrong with it. Think of an example of better symbols that are just as easily recognisable. I will probably be able to find similar complaints about them.
If you get an offensive message from any of those, you're jumping at shadows.
There is nothing 'bad' about these logos, and to say they're unacceptable because they could be misinterpreted is ridiculous.
To be 'perfect' in your eyes they'd have to plaster the box with several different versions of most of those just to cover some very simple messages.
How would you depict discrimination without one group excluding an another?
How would you depict sexual relationships without using the male/female symbols?
If you go with two of the same sex symbol, then you get the implication that the game is about gay/lesbian relations - that'd kill sales in certain areas faster than taking it off the shelves, you'd get a similar situation to the Fox/Mass Effect situation because of a little logo trying to tell purchasers that there is sexual references in the game.
Out of curiosity, have you looked at the descriptions of each of these symbols?
How do ever leave the house if your offended by things like cautionary symbols on game cases.
I agree. I always just presumed the colours to mean "different", not literally black and white. They're not even real skin colours, no-one is that black or that white. Stop seeing prejudice where there isn't any.
Edit: Just having another look at the symbol: no black guy has hair like the silhouetted man in the symbol. Er-go: it's not a black man, just a silhouetted white/asian/anyone else with hair like that guy.
I'm sure there's at least one black dude with no hairstyle taste :p
One of the findings was that games needed to have a similar age rating to films so that parents could take the content more seriously and stop little nine year old timmy from running down hookers etc in gta.
What was the point of the study then if after all that, the reccomendations are just ignored anyway?
How much did the study cost?
The only reason to think about anything that woman does is to remind yourself that behind that pretty face is a pile of rotting useless. Yes. She has made 'useless' a tangible substance and used it for the part of the brain that deals with common sense and logic..
The Pre-PEGI system was terrible. The existing movie rating system is terrible. Simply because neither of them tell you want you can expect for your 15/18/whatever rated movie or game. Just that some arbitrary group has said it's probably not suitable for people under those ages and don't feel like explaining.