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
You see the BBFC here rate things and classify them according to a set of ratings which stand with the full weight of the law behind them. 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. The question of banning aside.
To be honest, the only kind of regulation they can really enforce would be something like a passworded firewall that blocks sites like Facebook, iirc, the servers aren't even in the UK, so no direct action can be taken to regulate the site itself, however, I think what Byron is recommending falls more under the 'parental controls' section than anything else, contrary to popular belief, it's actually extremely difficult for our government to get permission to invade someone's' personal Emails etc.
They might be unconstiutional in the states. But our laws are different... and over here most people don't mind the idea that age certificates are legally enforceable.
-She seems to imply in her comments farther down the blog that parents should be banned from buying the games for the kids as well. That takes parenting out of the hands of the parents. Not sure if I like that idea (tend to be a parenting first type)
-Her hybrid classification system, one on front, one on back, is possibly more confusing than helpful. What if they conflict? They mention a simple and easy to read system to get this information out to parents and this is not the way.
-They want film like treatment of this material? It was my understanding, though I might be wrong, that the film industry is self regulated (at least in the US) and that allowing someone into an R movie isn't illegal, just a violation of industry standards/generally accepted moral practices.
Just some thoughts, need more time to process the whole report.
UK here, too :)
My problem with the US approach is not the fact they want to regulate, it's the fact that they want to single out games. It's so obviously influenced by the fact that both Film and Music industries have massive lobbying powers in Washington. I wouldn't be surprised if the furor dies down once the ESA lobbying gets a few years old.
Personally, I wouldn't get involved if a law was suggested that covered all media types, as I've said before, but the way it is being approached in the US just stinks of opportunism, soap-boxing and going for the 'low-hanging fruit', as it were.
I'm a big fan of 'fair', just as I thought it was unfair that all films, but not all games had to be rated in the UK, and I'm glad to see that hole going a long way towards being fixed, I think a rating system is only going to be effective if it is applied to all media at the same time.
BBFC certificates are legally enforceable. If a game has a 12, 15, 18, PG, U (which most games already do by the way) then they are legally enforceable. Films are similar in this country, however individual councils can certify, they usually leave the BBFC to it.
Once again... BBFC certificates are LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE.
Films, DVDs, Games - Doesn't matter... and its the retailer that has to make sure.
From anecdotal evidence, most people agree that kids shouldn't be playing adult games unless the parents OK it first and that stores should enforce their own policies to prevent mature games from being sold to youths.
But as it stands it's not unreasonable to believe that a 15 year old with a fist full of dollars could go into a store and leave with a copy of GTA.
So its ideal for retailers to optionally choose not to retail certain material to some people but its not ideal for that to be made mandatory?
@Marc
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.
Thank you. Thank you. I'm here all week.
I agree, fellow UK citizen here as well. I think games and films should be treated equally. BTW, just a note as far as the BBFC are involved. Games will only have a legal requirement to display the ratings 12, 15, 18. I dunno if they can get an R18 (That is not going to be a fun day if that happens ;)). Anything less than a 12 doesn't need anything on the front of the box although I'm sure they can do so. This explains why Guitar Hero had a 12 cert as someone mentioned earlier.
Your such a card ;)
In my first draft of that post I was going to say $40 instead of fist full of dollars, but then I realised I have no idea how much games are in the states and that with the strength of the pound against the dollar it was all up in the air. ;)
What i can see from the text you quoted (have the report downloaded, just not read yet) none of those recommendations are restricting the videogames industry.
- They only call for an overhaul of the rating system (not a bad concept), enforcable ratings (not bad at all, means shop-owners get punished for ignoring the rules, not the industry)
- Marketing to be held to the age ratings aswell (don't market violent 18+ game to teens, show rating in commercial, again no problem)
- Monitoring if shops are clear in their information regarding the new and improved rating system. (only common sense really)
As for your claims "all this was found unconstitutional in the states", i think you're taking that a little wrong. the laws retracted in the US were far more viscious in design and punished the industry if anything went wrong, essentially cencoring them, not so here.
Care too elaborate on that fud you just posted?
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/448/frontpagewt2.png
The Lie:
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/9748/thelieex6.png
The Truth:
http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/185/thetruthbo1.png
"Dr Byron wants a single statutory classification system. Ratings would have to be displayed prominently on all packaging materials, like health warnings on cigarettes, as well as on shop display cases."
BBFC-rated games from my stash (over half of it):
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/9273/stashid8.png
-Hope this helps, apologies for a bit of blur
Exactly, a parent who wants to buy it for their child can. Thats why the report is more inclined to push the angle that its important to get the message out to parents so they understand what the ratings mean.
@Mr Blackett
To pick up on an earlier point, you mentioned a Tony Hawks game got a 15 cert but I can't find any evidence that it did, are you perhaps mistaken? The BBFC site doesn't have it listed, infact all the TH games that have been rated by them have been passed with a 12. The Wikipedia pages doesn't list it either.
explain or die plz
no need for that but yes i would also like to know why Rodrigo thinks that
just replying to a ridiculous and thoughtless post with an equally ridiculous and thoughtless post.
I mean how are gamers, majority of whom are able to play mature games screwed?
how is the report ridiculous?
how are laws that keep small children from games like manhunt or NARC(simply a horrible game) bad?
I think your taking the wrong end of the stick. No one is saying you can't. What they are saying is that your kid can't walk into a store and buy it. You would need to buy it for them. Sorry if that sounds unreasonable.
What the hell does "stomp all over the founding elements of their country" have to do with this discussion about a UK based report?
The UK is not China. The BBFC is not stifling political dissent. The only games banned so far have been banned because of lurid, graphic violence and both bans were overturned on appeal. If a game was banned over a political message then I'll join you in your concern. Violence that is childish in it's gratuitousness (I'm looking at you, Manhunt 2) won't be missed by me.
The BBFC is very liberal, particularly when compared with the US equivalent. This isn't an end to freedom of expression for the UK. It's a reminder to parents that they might want to keep an eye on what their kids are doing.
Yes, its your business to be a bad parent. I think the Byron Review was trying to look at ways to fix that.
I don't care about the rest of the report, I care about video-games... and frankly I don't think anything changes in the big scheme of things.
On the note about Internet Assisted Suicide, alot of people encourage acts of suicide online. Spend some time in video game chat rooms. You don't even need to go near facebook. You'll see so many directions for users to "Kill yourself" or "Go die in a fire" that it's just rediculous. I believe this is what they refer to.
----
Papa Midnight
Actually it is more likely to do with various "suicide cults" and "suicide clubs" that have been springing up... websites actually trying to organize groups of people to kill themselves at the same time.. really disturbing stuff.
It's very sad- I had high hopes for what games would evolve into in the next few decades... :(
Rubbish, a classical kneejerk reaction. This is a minor adjustment to a system that has been in place for sometime now. Funny that GTA, one of the top 5 selling and popular gaming franchises is developed in Scotland UK. If only the evil BBFC weren't there to stomp on their creative freedoms, they could be number one.
I hope you're right. We will see what happens in the next 10-20 years...
That's the core problem - you are giving Video Games much more 'power' than they really have.
I used to play 'violent' games as a child before I ever touched a video game. I'm in a good position as Video Games came out while I was growing up, so I know both sides of this.
Most kids out there - dealing drugs and carry guns in real life - are learning it from the environment they are brought up in - not video games. The video games - like GTA - are fashioned after REAL LIFE - not the other way around - at least in that specific case.
Violence existed long before Video Games, that's for damn sure.
Actually - when I went to school - and I'm sure most can agree - the most aggressive, violent kids in school were the sport's nuts.
"-Developing a new code of practice aimed at regulating social networking sites"
But the US has been EXTREMLY slow on developing any laws that could be of use. Plus you have the "Well we need to make more laws to enforce the old laws that we never enforced in the first place!"
My point is that your response is just as unbased as the antigamers arguement that Bully will cause highschool shootings.
just replying to a ridiculous and thoughtless post with an equally ridiculous and thoughtless post.
Very True, yet i'm just sitting here laughing my ass off at some statements, 'BBFC stopping GTA being Number One' is still making me giggle like a girl.
I was wondering that myself, its refreshing to meet someone with the same viewpoint as me on these forums :)
The BBFC rating system already exists, and unlike its US equivalent it was designed from the ground up to be enforcable by law.
All this report does is recommend that a rating of 12+ is added to the current set available to the BBFC, which isn't as big a deal as many of the Americans present here appear to think.
In no way is this report recommending liberties be abandoned or otherwise altered.
I'm sorry, who gave you or anyone authority over any parent's child?
Who is anyone to dictate what I or anyone would or should let their children to be exposed to. Just as some let their children have wine at a certain age, or expose them to birds and the bees at a stage deemed acceptable by the parent.
Just because you think a 12 year old shouldn't see Texas Chainsaw Massacre doesn't mean everyone else should step in line with you.
I actualy do agree with some regulation preventing kids from buying on their own, but the ultimate decision lays with the parent, if a parent wants to take a kid to an r rated movie, not anyone, not the government nor the queen should prevent them from doing so.
Regulation isn't the answer, the answer is an industry lead improvments to the awarment system.
My statement is that the game industry and the political figures arguing it are in complete agreement, but continue to argue. I follow game politics pretty closely and through all the articles I have read I have gotten a main overall idea from the two sides. The game industry says "Games are an art form and our ratings system works though parents and the general public are misinformed." The political side of things say "Violent Video Games can cause major problems in children and minors so we need to enforce our thoughts. The majority of parents don't understand what the ratings system is so we need to force retailer regulation." You know what I get from this? I get that both sides agree parents don't understand ratings. I get both sides agree some of these games should not be played by minors. I get both sides agreeing that retailers for regulate the sale of R/M rated material to minors. Ok, so we are all in agreement why not do something like the ESA and educate instead of continuing the debate?
It is like everyone is arguing just because they want to win a battle that doesn't need to be won. I just think someone needs to make this statement and let everyone read it. It needs to be made in a neutral tone and read by everyone. If the industry and political figures involved can digest it we might be able to move the game industry out the "target" phase all media goes through.
The system works, it just needs some modifications to make it up to date and more smoothly running.
In all, I can only hope that the message of responsibility in the home is something that is taken on board over in the states too and helps to dull the voice of JT, Dr Phil et al.
Actually, has anyone got any response from JT about what he thinks of this report, I'm sure he will be able to add his two cents.
This will mean games like Medal of Honour, which have so far not received a classification, will be required to do so.
If you folks in the UK are comfortable allowing your government to regulate advertising, sale, and censorship of your video games as this woman clearly wants to do by all means sit on your hands. I'm just gonna sit here and enjoy playing my games 6 weeks before you can.
The BBFC classification takes place BEFORE the games are released, just as they see films before they are done. You can try to make it sound like we're the victims of some fascist right reduction here, but you're just making yourself sound silly.
I read it has games will be rated U, PG, 12, 15, 18 and gamers will have to be 12 or over to buy a 12, etc