Byron Report Released in U.K. - Ratings Will Change, Laws Will be Passed
Byron Report Released in U.K. - Ratings Will Change, Laws Will be Passed
March 27, 2008
Dr. Tanya Byron's long-awaited review of the effects of video games and the Internet on children has been released in the U.K.
While much is being written about Byron's report, the key points, as described by the Mirror, include:
-Giving video games a more "robust" movie-style age classification.
-Making it illegal for retailers to sell any video game to a child younger than the age rating on the game box. At present, only the most violent and sexually explicit games are regulated.
-Developing a new code of practice aimed at regulating social networking sites, such as Bebo and Facebook, including introducing standards on privacy and harmful content
-Undertaking a new publicity campaign for parents to understand the sort of digital material their children are accessing on the Internet and how they can block it.
-Introducing new laws banning Internet-assisted suicide.
-Creating a national council to implement the strategy.
The British government has reportedly confirmed that all of Byron's recommendations will be implemented. For her part, Byron told BBC Radio:
In the same way you wouldn't let your 11 to 12 year-old watch the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which is an 18-rated film, you really shouldn't be letting them play 18-rated video games.
The Guardian reports that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was quick to support Byron's recommendations:
If our children were leaving the house, or going to a swimming pool or going to play in the street, we would take all the care possible about their safety. Is there proper policing, is there proper safety?
When a child goes on to the computer and on to the internet or on to a video game we should be thinking in the same way. It's really difficult for parents because we didn't grow up in the computer age, many of us.
We've got to make it easier for parents and get the information to them in a more simple form. We've got to get the classification clearer so that people know 12-plus. When someone is trying to sell a game they've got to give the proper information.
Byron added:
I'm making some pretty tough recommendations to the prime minister, to the government, about the video game classification system and about the internet generally and how we can empower parents and teachers and all adults to help children be safe.
I'm asking the prime minister to change legislation so that from 12 upwards children or parents can't buy games unless it's for the right age of the child.
A widely-cited Times Online report, which carried the headline, Computer Games to Get Cigarette-Style Health Warnings seems to overstate the case a bit. While Byron does call for a revamped content rating system as well as ratings that appear on the front of game packaging, GP found no reference to "cigarette-style" warnings in her report.
Those who were rooting for either the PEGI or BBFC classification systems to be favored by Byron will be disappointed. As Next Generation reports, Byron recommends:
Reforming the classification system for rating videogames with one set of symbols on the front of all boxes which are the same as those for film.
Lowering the statutory requirement to classify video games to 12+, so that it is the same as film classification and easier for parents to understand.
Her report recommends a blending of PEGI and BBFC:
In the context of this Review, where my remit has been to consider the interests of children and young people I recommend a hybrid classification system in which:
- BBFC logos are on the front of all games (i.e. 18,15,12,PG and U).
- PEGI will continue to rate all 3+ and 7+ games and their equivalent logos (across all age ranges) will be on the back of all boxes.
GP: The Byron report will have far-reaching effects on the video game industry in the U.K. In addition, readers can expect that it will be closely studied by political figures, activists and industry types in the U.S.
UPDATE: PC World's Matt Peckham has a rant about the "cigarette-style" warning labels...
WANT A COPY ? Click: Byron Report (report + supporting materials)
Comments
I think I understand what you mean, but that's a bit of a stretch, isn't it, to say that "the legal system is independent of the government"? Isn't it the U.K. government that is promising to put the Byron Report suggestions into law? Maybe we are using different definitions of "legal system" and "government."
In any case, although incorrect, please understand that it's easy for us to consider the BBFC a government agency (even though technically it is not -- I do understand that). In the U.S., it is hard for us to imagine any law being made or enforced, directly or indirectly, by an authority that is not somehow accountable to the people, either directly or indirectly.
As odd as it seems to us to have the government make rules that restrict free expression, it seems even odder that these rules would be based on the recommendations of an independent organization that doesn't have any direct accountability to the electorate.
It's also sad that I've become so cynical because of all the bashing and posturing that has come before. I can't wait for Thompson to see this.
I think it means that for all games rated for player 12 years and older, that children and parents cannot buy them unless it is intended for someone who meets the age requirement on the lable.
I don't know how they can tell for whom the parent is buying the game. As a parent and adult I can buy any rated game for myself. But if I decide to buy a teen game for a preteen how will they know? Weird.
How do you think it works for alcohol, or smokes, or infact existing violent media rules?
If you have good cause to suspect they are going to give it to a child, you say no.
Are you a parent?
No, I disagree. I interperated the recommendations as saying the BBFC logo should be displayed on the front but the only legal requirement to do so is for 12+ certs. Other classifications can be issued but they have no legal requirement to be displayed.
Gift.
I don't recall saying anything in particular against the Byron Report. I know i have said a lot about the BBFC, just not the Byron Report.
"In the UK, movies at the cinema and DVD’s have to be classified by the BBFC. The ratings are enforced through law. In the UK a parent cannot take a 15 year old into an 18 cert movie."
How about buying an 18 cert DVD and bringing it home and showing it to your 15 year old child? Is that illegal in the UK?
No it is not illegal for a parent to purchase an 18 rated game/film and take it home and allow their child to watch/play it. The legal restrictions relate only to sale, not to viewing.
The report says NOTHING about criminalising parents who buy games for their children who are below the recommended age. I reckon she's been quoted out of context in the Guardian interview, in the report NOTHING is written about it at all, and even if it HAD been, it's unenforcable and therefore would never pass.
/lesson on UK constitution.
BTW, @ All American posters, you can stick your first amendment where the Sun doesnt shine, it's an overused piece of legislatory hell that allows your feral press to wreck the lives of innocent individuals at a whim and has created your ridiculous culture of the media dictating your ideas.
I'm not interested in arguing the other points any further. Rest assured, I see your argument and still disagree...and sometimes you're just plain wrong. I also think you should put more care into your analogies. I still love you though.
"Which is why I’m trying to get the US mindset as to why, being able to prosecute people for selling rated games to underage kids is seen as a bad thing."
There is no compelling state reason to prosecute the sale of any video game/movie (Exception: Obscenity/Pornography) to children, regardless of age. You seem to laboring under the impression that there are ill effects of media, a la tobacco, and there are not. Media's effects are largely overstated, as this Byron report is well pointing out. But where it fails (yet, I haven't read all 260 or so pages) is it assumes the video games that are violent have an undue effect - they do, BUT only in parental absentia. A parent can use the violence in most games as a teaching moment, if not, then stop their kids from playing.
So what reason WOULD you have in prosecuting the sale of rated games to minors. Here in the States, if a store sells M games to minors, it goes under simply from angry parents buying somewhere else. Why else would EB/GameStop, one of the (if not the) largest game retailers ask for ID for EVERY sale of an M game? Because consumers have enough recompense outside of law. Our system works, so does yours.
I prefer the one where the people have more power, but I'm not going to call your BBFC oppresive - just OLD media rules trying to force new media to fit.
The issue, as many have stated, is what your legislature does with the Byron Report (and from her quote it doesn't look good), and this will effect us across the pond - as much as we ran your Redcoat asses into the sea during the Revolution :p - our laws mirror yours and often borrow precendent.
Trust me, I worked in a store that sold games of all kinds... I would regularly see kids come in with money their parents had blindly handed them before they walked out the door that day, just because the said "hey mom, I want to buy a game, can I have some money?"
These parent's need, badly, to be educated that "game" does not equal "kids toy" and that they should actually be paying attention.
Dude, I'm a Londoner - I get the difference, trust. And I;m sure most Americans will too. But from what I understand of American media, the word "state" tends to be used mostly in the context of socio/communist countries like China and Cuba. And that won't sit well with their constitutionally guaranteed rights.
I would struggle to say 'good' or 'bad'. That probably depends on your baseline view on personal liberty/regulation.
It's certainly even-handed and well researched.
Current practice:
BBFC review all games that are certified 18 and 15.. PEGI do the rest.
Proposed practice:
BBFC review all games that are certified 18 and 15 and 12. PEGI do the rest.
Of course, how they pick the ones that will have the 12 certificate in advance seems a bit odd. I guess the game devs will go through the PEGI checklist first. But the thing to understand is that there are no new legal/regulatory processes being put in place. This is no new Videgame Censorship bill.
Saying that "Parents should be able to show horror/porn films to their children if they want to, it my right as an American" should understand that the UK has had this debate, and decided that this shouldn't be the case*. The BBFC is a respected institution that is almost 100 years old. We are quite happy to let them get on with their jobs. I understand some Americans might be aghast at this, but the fact that they have this power doesn't mean they abuse it. They've a good record so far, over a very long period of time. Yes they have banned films they considered obscene, and demand cuts from some films, but they have not interfered with Political Free Speech, which is the central issue here.
*Of course, those Brits who are under 18 probably feel differently, I know I did, all those years ago. :)
I don't know why you bother sometimes. GoodRobotUs and BlackIce stopped trying to educate/pacify each and every American spoiling for an argument ages ago. Can you imagine if we trolled USA-orientated threads in the same way, with corresponding cries of "our system is way better, you're dumb/bad to disagree"?
Right, some choice, relevant quotes for those unable to make up their own minds (looks at DarrelBT)
Taken from this article: BYRON: THE INTERVIEW
Next-Gen: "One of the fears for the games industry or for adult games players is that somehow your recommendations might stop people from playing adult games. Is there any way that this might come out as a result of what you’re recommending?"
Byron: "Absolutely not. That’s certainly not what I’m recommending. I’ve worked with a lot of gamers throughout the review and I do believe that adults have the right to make decisions about the content that they access, whether it’s viewing or interacting.
There’s a huge moral debate around content in videogames. I’m very clear, that wasn’t the remit of my review to pass judgment on that and I do believe that content for adults is content for adults. It should be rated that way.
I can understand that gamers fear that there will be a ‘you can’t play these games anymore.’ I’ve not said that, I’d never say that, and certainly if I heard people beginning to use my review to try and imply that I will be very quick to say that that was not and will not be a recommendation of mine."
Next-Gen: "I don’t want this question to sound facetious, but what makes a game appropriate for a twelve year old as supposed to say a ten year old? Give me an example of something that would trigger that."
Byron: "When I started I looked at the way the classification system changes [in movies] around twelve you begin to get more realistic violence, you begin to get sexual innuendo. For me it’s really about not just the age rating but the content description on the back of the game. If a parent sees a game they evaluate it against what they know about their child, that’s their choice.
Some ten year olds are more mature than twelve year olds and some twelve year olds are less mature than some ten year olds. For me it’s not about having a Nanny-State approach and saying this is exactly what you have to do, but it’s about providing enough information and support for industry, retail, and parents to make the right choice for the individual child that’s standing in the shop asking for the game."
Next-Gen: "You said you went over to the United States recently. Do you think your ideas will be looked at carefully over there or is that just not relevant, what those guys are doing?
Byron: "It’s entirely relevant. The internet, the online space, and videogaming, it’s global. It’s about children living in global landscapes now, you know? This is what the online landscape gives children. It’s amazing, it’s a fantastic opportunity for children to grow, for communities to develop in a way that’s positive."
Anyway for those unable to make up their own minds (looks @ DarrelBT), you should find the following interview both interesting and relevant, originally found on Next-Gen.biz.
Next-Gen: "One of the fears for the games industry or for adult games players is that somehow your recommendations might stop people from playing adult games. Is there any way that this might come out as a result of what you’re recommending?"
Byron: "Absolutely not. That’s certainly not what I’m recommending. I’ve worked with a lot of gamers throughout the review and I do believe that adults have the right to make decisions about the content that they access, whether it’s viewing or interacting.
There’s a huge moral debate around content in videogames. I’m very clear, that wasn’t the remit of my review to pass judgment on that and I do believe that content for adults is content for adults. It should be rated that way.
I can understand that gamers fear that there will be a ‘you can’t play these games anymore.’ I’ve not said that, I’d never say that, and certainly if I heard people beginning to use my review to try and imply that I will be very quick to say that that was not and will not be a recommendation of mine."
Next-Gen: "I don’t want this question to sound facetious, but what makes a game appropriate for a twelve year old as supposed to say a ten year old? Give me an example of something that would trigger that."
Byron: "When I started I looked at the way the classification system changes [in movies] around twelve you begin to get more realistic violence, you begin to get sexual innuendo. For me it’s really about not just the age rating but the content description on the back of the game. If a parent sees a game they evaluate it against what they know about their child, that’s their choice.
Some ten year olds are more mature than twelve year olds and some twelve year olds are less mature than some ten year olds. For me it’s not about having a Nanny-State approach and saying this is exactly what you have to do, but it’s about providing enough information and support for industry, retail, and parents to make the right choice for the individual child that’s standing in the shop asking for the game."
Next-Gen: "You said you went over to the United States recently. Do you think your ideas will be looked at carefully over there or is that just not relevant, what those guys are doing?"
Byron: "It’s entirely relevant. The internet, the online space, and videogaming, it’s global. It’s about children living in global landscapes now, you know? This is what the online landscape gives children. It’s amazing, it’s a fantastic opportunity for children to grow, for communities to develop in a way that’s positive."
I have also seen a parent buy an 18+ game for their 11-12 year children, but insisting that they pay for it themselves out of their pocket money. I have also seen a video store clerk advising that GTA should only be played by those over 18+ - but the grandparent or parent bought it anyway.
I understand your pain, but I also don't think it should be respsonsibility e bringing up people's children. You can tell them what's in the game, and tell them what the rating is, and maybe tell them a little bit about the game's content. And then let them decide...
I just thought that in the UK, the 18+ and 15+ raings are enforcable by law? The only thing that's about to change is that the 12+ rating now will be enforcable by law...
I don't mind people getting more informed about how to use the parental controls in XP or Vista, but I find them very easy to use, especially, as I understand it, in Windows Vista...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725547,00.html
Read my (extra-long) post above. To whit:
Byron: "Some ten year olds are more mature than twelve year olds and some twelve year olds are less mature than some ten year olds. For me it’s not about having a Nanny-State approach and saying this is exactly what you have to do, but it’s about providing enough information and support for industry, retail, and parents to make the right choice for the individual child that’s standing in the shop asking for the game.”
"I go with whats presented. Maybe that will change in the future when more is presented, but this is my opinion with what information I have at current."
People have given you tons of information to correct your opinions, you just choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore it. At last count about a dozen people here have told you why you are wrong and explained what the position is in the UK, but you do not want to listen. It's kind of infuriating when you don't even acknowledge what has been said, but pick out 1 sentence in 20, completely out of context, and reply to that instead.
I think people have just given up trying to inform you now and will leave you to rant alone in future.
There is some evidence of short term aggression from playing violent video games but no studies of whether this leads to long term effects.
There is a correlation between playing violent games and aggressive behaviour, but this is not evidence that one causes the other."
How dare she say something so well balanced and informed!
1. Games may have some effect, but no real evidance supports.
2. Theres no need for major change, but some minor, very logical recomendations are suggested.
3. The report recomends more Parental involvment, not government regulation.
That about right everyone?
Yep, that's about right.
Thanks for confirming that.
Sad to think this was what we were all so worried about.
I have feeling this report will be largely ignored because its not what they want.
Not that this automatically affects how seriously her work should be taken, I'm just curious about it.
It's ok Shae, I"m to busy playing Ultimate ninja 3 to care right now about this this report anymore. Read it, laughed, and went back to being a ninja.
Whinge whinge whinge. Seriously mate, get over it.
... HEADSHOT!!!
Yeah I wonder that to. Seriously, with that giant row of chompers she has she may want to shill for Crelm Toothpaste (+10 Old School for anyone who gets that reference).
I'm glad something like this came out. I just want to see what the crackpots and d-bags that just plain seem to hate videogames (not naming any lawyers or politicians specifically) will say to this one....
She's hosted a couple of TV shows about dealing with problem children. I don't really watch that sort of thing, so thats as much as I know
The bad: It is peppered with quotes that can be taken out of context to make it seem like the report demonizes video games
The ugly: Byron's face?
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad she's being sensible over it, and gaming will be relaivly untouched\will not need to worry about only being able to play barbie games for the rest of my life (or time in the UK) but FFS, she had me worried.
Could common sense prevail in Parlament after this. Stayed tuned.
These days ANTHING can be taken out of context.
Dennis, can I suggest sticking a link to here up.
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/byronreview/
Amongst other things its got the appendices and lit reviews which make for further reading. Of interest is the documents covering the replies to the Call for Evidence.
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2008_0059
"Ed Balls and Andy Burnham today welcomed the Byron Review of the risks to children of potentially harmful or inappropriate material on the internet and in video games. Accepting all Dr Byron’s recommendations, they pledged to act immediately on taking forward her proposals."
The BBC focuses on the "overhaul" and throws in one of those glamour shots that Campion mentioned -- I had no idea Dr. Byron was such a fox. Meanwhile, Darren Waters' blog presents it as forcing the gaming industry to undergo "a dramatic increase in workload" while the general area of online activity is left up in the air.
The international news community doesn't seem to be picking up on it yet, although CNN has a bit of alarmism about something called "Miss Bimbo."
Like I said before, T rated games; way more tamed than a lot of children cartoons. I'm sure I don't need to list them again there, oh ye Byron Report.
"I recommend that the Entertainment Retail Association and the Video
Standards Council work together to review and align their Codes of Practice. I also recommend that this work should include:
-Consideration of using specific and prominent shelf level notices where 18+ rated games appear, in order to support the message that ‘not all games are for children’
-Consideration of punitive measures for non-compliance with these codes
-Agreement on formal, independent monitoring of what information shops provide, the results of which is made available to consumers"
"I recommend that the Government should commission and oversee research to examine (1) if video games are being advertised responsibly, in line with age-ratings, and (2) the role of marketing in stimulating children and young peoples’ desire to play video games which are not appropriate for their age."
"I... recommend that there should be periodical monitoring by Trading Standards of retailers’ compliance in not selling video games to underage
children and young people, which would need to be properly resourced by
Government."
"I recommend a hybrid classification system:"
You can make your own conclusions about how even handed this woman is, but she is proposing things that have been fought by the industry in the states and declared unconstitutional.
I'm very fearful of the government making blanket statements like that. They're implementing ALL of the recommendations? wtf? That scares me. Even if the recommendations are only to host ice cream parties every other Friday... to make a statement like that is never a good sign.. at least IMO.
Different cultures have different values, there is no absolutes in those regards. Just because something is unconstitutional in the states does not automatically imply its illegal or wrong in the UK.
It also recommends that new PCs be sold with software that will help prevent children seeing harmful online content.
Later:
Work should also be done to see if there are technical means that can oversee where people go online and warn them about illegal or harmful sites they may visit.
It also called for the creation of kitemarked filtering software that is installed on all new PCs sold for use in the home and which is given away with all new net contracts.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7314751.stm)
Not directly game related, but scary nonetheless. The wording is not exactly clear as to whether or not the report is recommending that the government -require- such software on all PCs sold for home use. Making it voluntary is still iffy, because who really wants the government, or software created/influenced by the government, constantly monitoring their internet activity? There are plenty of content filters, that block out pornographic or otherwise age inappropriate material, already available. Why does there need to be a government created one?
This leans a little too far in the Big Brother direction for comfort. Especially as the report says the governments accepts and will act on -all- the recommendations.
(From the same source)
Schools secretary Ed Balls "... said the government would legislate where necessary to bring some of the recommendations into force."
That was the only line that made me confused, because the second half of it is (a) pretty much un-enforceable and (b) A good 1/3 of the problem.
Other than that, pretty much what I expected.
Unfortunately though, Dr. Byron does support banning games seemingly on the basis that parents aren't educated enough to understand the system (see 7.22). I really struggle with this view, how clear does an 18 cert have to be? I'm glad she still leaves the door open for change but nevertheless I do feel it's little more than sweeping the problem under the carpet. Banning some games, which are judged to test the boundaries of good taste, will do nothing to keep the 18 games that do pass out of the hands of children (so what is the logic?).
On a related note, I don't know if anyone noticed this:
6.15 Overall parents feel that deciding what games are appropriate has to be their decision
because it depends on their child, but that they would welcome clearer and more specific
guidance explaining the rationale for the age ratings. In particular, some parents assume
that the ratings would be too conservative and hence ignore them.
It really caught my eye and, although I don't want to go OOT with an anecdote, it does seem to suggest some people have a significant lack of faith in our classification system. Surveys, regarding banning etc. are all well and good but their shortfalls and hypothetical nature really are exposed when individual cases are considered. It would appear that placing a parent in a shop complete with nagging child can result in 15/18 games being purchased anyway, presumably on the basis of "I want a quiet life" and "it's probably not that bad anyway". IMHO, this goes to the heart of the problem and Dr. Byron is right to focus on it. We really need to drive home the fact that ratings are not just pretty box art, but a considered opinion regarding the content of a game. I doubt the same parents who give their 13 year old and 18 cert game would do the same thing with an 18 cert film; that problem seriously needs to be addressed.
Gift.
Shes a child psychologist. Shes more known however for hosting the BBC3 UK show 'House of Tiny Tearaways' where various terror infants are calmed down through both dicipline of the kids and also by sorting out any problems the parents are having. Its more of a 'help' show than a showcase of bad children though (like supernanny).
I disagree there. Some 18 rated games may be not bought 'as much' thanks to ratings being more clear to some parents but sales will still go on. Just take a look at the sales charts in the review to see that '18' rated games are not the most bought anyway.
Hmm, that sounds like an extreme measure - I'll just look at my games collection to see what covers will look like with these on the front. Hmm, Oblivion; no wait, it already has one. BioShock! Nope, that already has one too. F.E.A.R? World in Conflict? Company of Heroes? Gears of War? The Witcher? Half Life 2? Splinter Cell Double Agent? All of them ALREADY HAVE THE BBFC RATING ON THE FRONT.
In addition, the paper said that Byron called for consoles to be made with parental controls. For someone doing a report for the government, surely she'd know that all three consoles already do?
Meanwhile, The Times had a column along the side giving examples of controversial games. GTA IV - players are encouraged to run over pedestrians, murder policemen and drink drive! Are they? I get the feeling most players will be perceptive enough to realise that driving gets harder if they make Nico drink.
The column continued. God of War - players are encouraged to burn prisoners alive and slice women in two. No mention of the execellent narrative of your character being an obvious bastard I guess.
While I bet the red top tabloids were quite a lot less even handed, I think the only argument here needs to be with right wing lunatics in the media who.
In other words, the only problem with the report are the Tabloids newspapers ruining everything.
Tabloids are tabloids. We can't do a THING about them. Heck, these people did a report on "Buzz, the School Quiz", and what did they do? They created a made up Jack Thompson quote about how he thinks it won't work because "games are demeaning and teach no value whatsoever". When JT found out, he was furious, because he was never contacted for an interview and never even heard about the game.
If these people can create a non existent Jack Thompson quote, they'll take this report out of context.
I especially liked her references to how our culture seems to be trying to avoid any risk or perception of harm to children.. and of how she mentioned that the internet and video games may be forcing adults to face the realities of childhood that they may not like.. that children need to take risks and explore things that sometimes adults, quite naturally, don't want them exploring.
Wow, did she really just say that? Children, I understand - it's the UK and Mum's gonna watch the kiddies, no suprise there. But parents!, too!? Maybe GP quoted her out of context, or is she seriously advocating making it illegal to buy out-of-age-range games for your own children?
I'll read the full report this evening, but that quote struck me as kind of appalling, if it holds to be true.
"You can make your own conclusions about how even handed this woman is, but she is proposing things that have been fought by the industry in the states and declared unconstitutional."
This is what worries me; how the US politicos are going to try to use this. "Look, the UK made it illegal to sell games to people below the ratings, we should do it too!"
On the one hand, she points out there's no evidence to support the "games cause violence" argument, but then goes on to recommend what I feel is a pretty high level of direct government interference/regulation of the sale of games. That doesn't quite jive in my mind.
And yeah, about that "intended for" bit... HOW, pray tell, do you plan to divine just who a game is INTENDED FOR when it is purchased? If the person handing the cashier the money is of the age required to purchase the game, who the hell are they to say "no, can't do it"? Where would that sort of behavior fly in ANY other industry?
No, your wrong. The report was commissioned to investigate the effects and influence of new media on children. Games are only one part of the report.
No, she states, clearly, in her report that she understands that the majority of gamers in the UK are in thier late twenties, and that there is a section of games designed with adult gamers in mind.
She basically states that those games should be for adults, she just thinks that kids should have access to those games restricted, but not that the games should be banned from sale. At least thats how it appears to me.
1) This is in the UK, hense no 1st Amendment. They may have somethin gsimilar though, but perhaps not to the same extent.
2) She is expressing the same thing I had said for a while. I don't have a problem with them selling videogames the same as movies. What I object to is the "video games as porn" attitude. This means that in areas where a kid couldn't buy an R rated move, they couldn't buy an M rated game. I understand this isn't a totally popular opinion, but I believe it is fair and balanced and agrees with the "Games as Art" argument. If moveis = art, and R rated movies = kids can't buy, then M rated games should = kids can't buy.
What I do disagree with is the idea that games are often rated much stronger then they should be. Oblivion should have stayed with a T for Teen rating. The Barbie doll like undetailed nudity should not have gotten a stronger rating.
"In addition, the paper said that Byron called for consoles to be made with parental controls. For someone doing a report for the government, surely she’d know that all three consoles already do?"
Forgot to mention that part. Every tech-related "recommendation" she made up there is already in existance. All three current-gen consoles have parental controls available. Web browsers already have security settings to keep children from viewing "high risk" web sites, and they already have browser histories to show where users have been. I have a bad feeling that those "recommendations" are going to be warped by the time they actually see legislation.
The problem here, as well as in the US, is the knowledge gap between adults and kids. Parents who were not raised with computers tend not to play games and dismiss them as being 'for kids'. It's all well and good saying that parents should take responsibility, they absolutely should, but you can't force them to take up their kid's hobbies to make sure they're happy with how that hobby influences them. I am not interested in stamp collecting and no amount of will can force me to take it up as a hobby. Considering some of the nonsense in the media that we've seen, this needed to be as high-profile, and accessible, as possible. I think this report is exactly that.
The only problem with the recommendation for me is the 12 certificate. I don't see the point. The way the BBFC rates games is broken. Take Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. A 15 rated game that some parents will not buy simply because it's a 15. Compare it to Medal of Honour, where you slaughter hundreds of people but hey, that's okay because there's no blood and the Nazi's were horrible anyway.
The system needs to take into account why the game may be objectionable and put it on the box. People are offended by different things. If there's swearing, note that on the box. If there's violence, note that on the box. If you're not offended by violence but you are by swearing, don't buy the game for your kid. Easy.
@Ian Charles - What games have been banned? Manhunt 2's ban has been lifted meaning there is clearly a solid appeals process. No need to be sad.
I did find it funny that they are going to regulate facebook and other networking sites though.
also it will be hard to penalise someone like a retailer trying to sell a 12 rated game to a 10 year old, it seems to be a little insane if the kid is mature enough to understand it...
Also this kind of law is also unconstitutonal and will be hard to pass in the UK as it has been in the US.
I feel that what Byron says is true, but what the politicians and the media are saying 'so called' recomendations are perhaps over the top and generally have not read the Byron report yet.
anyway, I am going to read it now.
Also, you can't protect children from everything, also they need to know how to handle their own problems too, like you can't ban bullying because it is a socitey issue and no one can control it except for those individuals themselves...
Also I thought that the PEGI symbols were really clear and they reach a wide European audience that does not always speek English...
That is why symbols are there for...
Anyway, it is obvious that the real problem is that parents never grew up with these ratings so any change will be useless because there will be some parents will never understand them anyway no matter how hard you try,
sorry to rain on the parade but that is my own opinions before I read this...
I have read what others in the mainstream say, and now I am going to read this report for myself and reply back saying a few things about it...hopefully positive things...
Where is that quote:
"I’m asking the prime minister to change legislation so that from 12 upwards children or parents can’t buy games unless it’s for the right age of the child"
come from? I can't find it in the report.
I'd also like to know what effect this will have on the BBFC's ratings- will they go more draconian than they already are, or will a greater number of games running through their offices cause them to understand the medium better and as such provide better ratings?
Having skimmed through the report, it's not wound up bad, but then it's far from good. I think it'll be a while before we truly find out, either way.
/b
What needs actually changing then? If a game is BBFC or PEGI the rating is clearly marked on the box, if you watched the news today you would have seen parents that ignore them anyway, so the rating system works but its ignored by parents.
If the game is BBFC rated (like movies) its against the law for a shop to sell them to a kid who is under that age.
All i see here is teach the parents when i'm sure most know and dont care, god sake my mother knew nothing about games until i was interested and she took that time to see what i was playing and weather it was suitable for me.
More parents should take a interest yes will this make a difference? No
It is extremely well balanced, and many of the recommendations she makes are simply enforcing things that developers, publishers and games companies do already voluntarily anyway.
Ive read it, and Im not worried, it's a superb piece of investigation and conclusion IMO.
The byron report seems well balanced and curiously calm mannered. From the brief look I've had and the comments here, I think that the general consensus is right in thinking she's done a good job and more or less agreed with people.
I'm very intrigued by the comments of a few US posters who seem concerned by games being regulated like films here, I understand the 1st ammendment makes this bizarrely illegal in America, but it blatantly hasn't killed the film industry here and is unlikely to have a major impact on the games industry. What is the real concern?
Also this kind of law is also unconstitutonal and will be hard to pass in the UK as it has been in the US.
Sorry but no, we have this on movies, the BBFC rating is law and is punishable, if a kid buys an 18 rated movie, that shop is heavy fined, so if all games were BBFC rated then it covers it.
The States run on a total different way of doing things, you can take a kid to see Hellraiser, here you can not
It isn't in the report. Its in an interview I believe.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/mar/27/digitalmedia.childprotection
Those may reflect her personal views and as such why they weren't included in the report.
For those who quote saying that she reccommends consoles having parental controls, read again... she says they're already there. For that part, she's pushing for companies to make it more aware that their consoles have parental controls. In my opinion, that's very reasonable.