February 7, 2008
As GamePolitics readers will recall, TV self-help psychologist Tanya Byron has been conducting a review of media influences on children at the behest of Prime Minister Gordon Brown (left).MCV reports this morning that the U.K. game industry now fears that the PM will use the Byron report to wage a political campaign against video games. From the MCV story:
A Whitehall leak... week suggested that Brown was ready to introduce an aggressive ‘crackdown’ on violent video games in the wake of the Byron Review, which will recommend the introduction of BBFC ratings for all software titles when it is published next month.
Brown’s choice of rhetoric has got top publisher, retailer and development bosses concerned – not least because Byron has won industry-wide praise for her open-minded approach to her task.
MCV also quotes an unnamed game industry source:
There’s a definite fear that Brown will aggresively present this to the media and public as ‘we are fighting the industry for your kids’ safety’. Nothing could be further from the truth, and Tanya Byron knows that.
Comments
Agreed. They can bluster all they want, so long as all they achieve is headlines rather than legislation. Fingers crossed that's all it will come to - with the economy in crisis, I hope that Brown realises the fiscal value of a healthy and successful video games industry that's free from constraints.
I can't wait for the day that stances such as this are presented merely as embarrassing anachronisms. Roll on 2015, that's what I say (although I'll be 33 by then, eek).
Westminster should be concentrating on renovating/replacing the build-'em-cheap, stack-'em-high council housing estates of the 70s and 80s; developing vocational skill-based education options; lowering the age of employment from 16 to 14; and investing in properly-run, well-staffed youth centres/clubs - all of which would go a hell of a lot further to solve the youth-related violence across the UK than a bloody ban on video games.
Do these people not watch Dispatches?
All software eh?
Microsoft Windows Vista... Rated M for 'Might Work' ;)
Well time to wait and see if these comments from the rumor mill surface as the demon they're being portraited as.
The ESRB ratings were never meant to be enforced. They are not restrictions, merely recommendations. The BBFC ratings, on the other hand, were designed to restrict sales to certain age groups.
Andrew Eisen
Should it be a legal requirement? Well, I think as long as it is applied across the board, it is not discriminating, it should, in theory, mean that the same bar is set across the board, and, if the Byron review does recommend balancing out all the media systems, would actually mean we could do away with stupid comments like 'possibility of harm' that the BBFC used regarding Manhunt 2, because they wouldn't be able to make the claim that some versions would inevitably fall into kids hands nearly so easily.
What is really needed in the UK is to get out of the grey, voluntary or not, the system needs to work, and at the moment, it isn't properly, for a great deal of reasons, street trading, Internet downloads and lack of monitoring are among the many culprits.
Some of those fall firmly on the parents shoulders, a parent still has to take responsibility for their child, raising awareness of that is probably enough of a job, so it won't be a short haul, but to be honest, the government want to fiddle around with the BBFC as little as possible, and equally, the BBFC tend to resist government interference quite emphatically, regardless of rumour.
I suppose in summary, whether the system is a law-based or an industry-fine based one, it has to work and be effective whilst also being unbiased, otherwise it is pointless, and it's that which needs to be focussed on in the UK.
“There is evidence to suggest that violent media in general can desensitize children to violence.”
Yeah, but so what? Why is desensitization to violence a bad thing? Violence is a constant and very real part of humanity. People need to be at least somewhat desensitized to it or they won’t be able to function after reading the paper or watching the news (two things children are not legally restricted from consuming).
Desensitized to violence does not mean apathetic or prone to violence. Besides, virtual violence desensitizes to virtual violence much, much more than actual violence. Take a hardened 15-year-old GTA or Manhunt player and shoot someone dead right in front of him. I bet it will be a bigger reaction then, “Eh, I see that all the time in my video games.”
“But let’s think for a moment that some parents are not gamers, and have no idea what their kids are playing.”
That’s no excuse but okay, let’s say that. All a parent has to do is set the parental controls on the console and be done with it. But let’s say that Mom/Dad can’t be bothered to do that and Junior comes home with GTA IV later this year (pending delays).
So what? The game’s not going to hurt him.
“Let’s say that your kid falls in with a bad crowd at school, and goes down to Best Buy or Whatever you Yanks have over there and buys GTA anyway. Yes you will feel angry as a parent, but isnt the store irresponsible for selling him the game anyway??”
Nope. Retailers have no responsibility to keep things I don’t want my children to have away from them. That’s my responsibility.
Andrew Eisen
That makes me sad.
"Majority rule is a major principle of democracy, though many democratic systems do not adhere to this strictly - representative democracy is more common than direct democracy, and minority rights are often protected from what is sometimes called 'the tyranny of the majority'. Popular sovereignty is common but not universal motivating philosophy for establishing a democracy."
The thing is, I'd vote for someone else too, apart from the fact he's already made a whole pile of changes and STILL hasn't been voted in through any means whatsoever, he refuses to hold an election and keeps abusing his power, I'm actually getting a lot more concerned about that than his actions towards video games, he seems to be avoiding even considering holding an election, he knows he wasn't voted in, Blair was, and he knows that the chances are high that he will go down in flames when he does.
It wouldn't surprise me if he tried, though, Brown has very much got into the habit of dancing to the Tabloids' tune since he got into power, worse even than Blair.
Assuming of course that her report is what everyone expects it will be...
Please, somebody think of the ADULTS!
That's what's annoying me, these games are written for adult, by adults, and sold to adults. It's up to the parent to descide what their kids play. How many people under 17 will play the new GTA4? Probably more then a handful. How many of them that play it while being under 17 will be playing it at home? Do their parents know they are playing it? If no, why not?
Instead of fighting the "industry" to protect the kids, why don't you fight the bad parents to protect the kids?
Oh, because they are your constituents. You can almost here the soccer mom now:
"Look, I voted for you to protect my children, not to tell me how to raise my kids!"
From what I can find out all the results really seem to have found is that the legal enforcement of age ratings for most media is not being enforced acceptably, ironic since it's the system America wants to change to. From what I can garner, the overall shape of it will be a recommendation to bring all media under the BBFC or similar ratings systems, enforce the TV watershed more strictly and ensure that Trading Standards have to tools required to enforce the current rating system effectively, punishing shop-owners who sell Movies, Games etc to underage buyers, which is what it's supposed to do.
Basically, once again, from what I can garner, the report seems to imply that the problem is not so much the fault of the Industry, violent media has always existed, but the fact that the level of enforcement has dropped. This would mean that the government would have to spend money and accept they weren't fulfilling their obligations. When left between accepting that or simply sensationalising and pointing fingers at the Industry, there's little doubt what option they'll prefer at Downing Street.
This would mean the government needs to provide better funding and support to the TSO instead of simply throwing new laws at them and expecting them to cope. Which would require not only money, but an acceptance that the system needs fixing, some areas of the Industry are worried that Brown will, instead of making a commitment, merely make a scapegoat.
The ironic part is that, if the age-enforcement system were more effectively enforced, games like Manhunt 2 would probably have got an 18, even the BBFC admitted that the enforcement problems were part of the reason they couldn't be certain it wouldn't get into the hands of underage players. But the question remains, does the Government have the rocks to accept that?
Of course, at this moment in time, it's merely a concern, not a fact, there's been no real indication either way, so I'm not going to get too worked up about it until after the report is out and we know the actual findings and recommendations and see the reaction to it.
Retailers DO ID everyone, becuase they get their trousers fined off if they do.
End of story.
It's not the industry or the retailers that's the problem.
It's the shoddy parenting.
quite a strongly worded one, in fact.
Who told you that a system of content-based legal restrictions is what America wants to change to? It's true that government-enforced censorship is an idea that some pandering politicians spout off about to socially conservative voters each election year, but I'm pretty sure any "system America wants" would involve the Bill of Rights, which refutes the notion that the government has any place restricting free expression among the people.
We've had dozens of game censorship bills proposed across the country over the last few years, and every last single one of them was overturned before it could take effect -- if government-enforced censorship was a system we actually wanted, I think we'd have it by now.
@Canary Wundaboy:
Maybe stricter is better if you'd prefer to rely on a Nanny State to keep you from seeing the wrong image or thinking the wrong thought. From my perspective, government-enforced censorship is never "better." So "fact is," your system may be "better" for people who are used to the idea of having the government determine which entertainment media they are and are not allowed to consume, but you're dead wrong if you think such a system would ever work in the States.
I long ago removed what 'America' wants to do and what 'Americans' want to do, the two appear to be infrequently linked, much like what 'Britain' wants and what 'British' want.
"...will recommend the introduction of BBFC ratings for all software titles when it is published next month."
Um, doesn't the BBFC already do that?
"...there needs to be one rating system for transparency’s sake, whether that be the BBFC or something more voluntary."
There's already one rating system for film, video/DVD, and video games. It's called the BBFC.
Andrew Eisen
No, no they don't.
Why? Because he wants to roll out a classification system to all age-ranges across all video game formats?
Yeah, you're right. That's _spot on_ the sort of thing voters will rebel against.
Maybe you should look up Politics in Wikipedia.
Would it have hurt to expand on your answer a bit?
Anyway, it turns out you're right. The BBFC does not rate all software titles, just the ones that "depict, to any significant extent, gross violence against humans or animals, human sexual activity, human urinary or excretory functions or genital organs, or techniques likely to be useful in the commission of offences."
Andrew Eisen
I understand your point that most of Britain will simply not care about a ban on violent video games, in much the same way that most of Germany did not.
However, Brown was NOT elected as Prime Minister in any other terms than Blair, who was elected, gave him the job. Labour was elected, with Tony Blair as the leader. Then Blair quit, Brown got the job, and decided not to call an election as he was worried that the Tories would win.
The accusations of cowardice and lack of real commitment to the job that followed this have ensured that they probably will do in future (unfortunately.. I'm a Lib Dem voter myself).
Why are you Americans so adverse to this? Look, if a game is rated for a certain age group only, why is it wrong that retailers be banned for selling that game to people under the age limit? This is not the problem that faces us today. If parents don't their 16 year old playing GTA, then they can exercise their parental judgement, and buy the game. The problem that faces us as gamers today is not that games are rated at all, it's that the media seizes on the fact that it is too easy for kids to get games, either through their parents or through dodgy retailers.
The UK laws are fair, 12 year olds SHOULDNT be allowed to purchase GTA and there SHOULD be penalties for retailers that don't enforce it. Ultimately, our ratings arent bound by US religious conservatism anyway, hence why Mass Effect is a 12 over here and a 17+ over your side of the pond. The difference is that our ratings are properly enforced, yours arent.
They SHOULDN'T? Well... I guess that settles it, then.
It is my opinion, apologies for not making that clear.
And yeah, I believe that kids shouldn't be able to purchase games that are deemed by impartial classification boards to be unsuitable for their age group.
As a lifelong gamer, 19 year old and somebody who was only able to play 18 rated games when his parents deemed me ready, that is my opinion. Slate it at will. ;)
I believe that kids shouldn't be able to play games that are deemed by their parents to be unsuitable for them.
To be frank, I don't care how impartial it is, I am not cool with some classification board (gov't run or not) deciding what is and is not appropriate for my kids. That's my job.
Andrew Eisen
Why are you Americans so adverse to this? Look, if a game is rated for a certain age group only, why is it wrong that retailers be banned for selling that game to people under the age limit? This is not the problem that faces us today. If parents don’t their 16 year old playing GTA, then they can exercise their parental judgement, and buy the game. The problem that faces us as gamers today is not that games are rated at all, it’s that the media seizes on the fact that it is too easy for kids to get games, either through their parents or through dodgy retailers.
The UK laws are fair, 12 year olds SHOULDNT be allowed to purchase GTA and there SHOULD be penalties for retailers that don’t enforce it. Ultimately, our ratings arent bound by US religious conservatism anyway, hence why Mass Effect is a 12 over here and a 17+ over your side of the pond. The difference is that our ratings are properly enforced, yours arent.
Having been a retail clerk, I can see the other side of the coin. I don't want some minimum-wage clerk being slapped with a $5000 fine because he sold a violent video game to a teenager - especially if selling similar content in a movie wouldn't get similar treatment. And they're not.
If we were talking about porn, that's a different matter (and probably shouldn't be, but that's an entirely different discussion), but a 13-year-old kid can walk into Wal-Mart and buy a copy of, say, the Terminator Trilogy without being carded. These are R-rated movies. Games with a similar level of violence would be ranked as M-rated games. Should the punishment for selling the game be greater than the punishment for selling the movie?
It is my opinion, apologies for not making that clear.
And yeah, I believe that kids shouldn’t be able to purchase games that are deemed by impartial classification boards to be unsuitable for their age group.
As a lifelong gamer, 19 year old and somebody who was only able to play 18 rated games when his parents deemed me ready, that is my opinion. Slate it at will.
Who gets to make those decisions? And why should a government agency make decisions that affects all people by an arbitrary age standard without consideration for a child's maturity level? What makes a 12-year-old different from a 13-year-old? Or a 17-year-old different from an 18 year old?
Why should this not be the parent's decision? That was apparently sufficient for your household...
Oh no, people are actually going to listen!
There is no reason why the BBFC rating should not be enforced in law, we are not talking about banning games, we are talking about saying "hey, you know what, follow them ratings when you sell games".
Its not even saying "parent's can't buy games for their kids".. its just telling the retailers to make sure they don't sell to kids. I've worked in retail, in the games industry, I know that sometimes kids try and buy things they shouldn't.. that's why you card EVERYONE. Really, we need to introduce some kind of ID scheme that everyone can get for free, because not everyone has a driver's license.
I always got irritated when, as someone in my late teens, I did not get carded for violent games. I should have. I should have been asked my age for anything I was gonna buy that has an age limit on it.
Now, I don't agree with them banning violent games, or restricting the content any more than they do movies.. I dislike Saw and Hostel as much as I dislike Manhunt, but if they allow the first two they should allow the third... but what's wrong with expecting companies to enforce the ratings? I say, that if a parent wants their kid to be allowed to play Manhunt or watch Saw, they should be able to buy it for them. The game isn't banned, and really all its doing in a way is protecting the company who is selling the game.. it allows them to sell it, but nobody to say they are selling it to minors, unless they break the rules.
Nekojin raised the point that selling games shouldn't incur a greater punishment than selling movies... and I agree.. but then I personally believe that, in the UK, the "legal age" for everything from violent movies, to porn, to driving, to drinking, etc, should be universally 16. Since when we are Sixteen we are legally allowed to do what is arguably the most important thing (have children) we should be expected, every last one of us, to be legally and socially responsible enough to do the rest of it too.
I think there's no reason why they *should* be enforced by law.
To explain, in part, why we are so adverse to this, allow me to defer to the opinion of Judge Richard Posner in American Amusement Machine Ass'n v. Kendrick, 244 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2001) (emphasis mine):
If parents wish to tilt at this windmill, that is their right. But we generally do not like the government telling us which thoughts are good and bad, regardless of age..