Byron Report Released in U.K. - Ratings Will Change, Laws Will be Passed
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)
March 27th, 2008 at 8:31 am
The feared Byron report. The document detractors claimed would bring about sweeping change. A document that would be critical of the games industry and be used as fodder for destroying the videogames industry. What does it say, the BBFC should include a 12 certificate. Woe is us.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Don’t forget, parents should keep an eye on what their kids are up to.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:37 am
“The evidence on video games is discussed in Chapter 6. There are some possible negative effects of violent content in games, but these only become ‘harmful’ when children present other risk factors:
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!
March 27th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Reading…
March 27th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Judgment day…………so to speak
March 27th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Let’s not jump to conclusions before reading the report. There’s a lot that seem reasonable. I’m going to read how they handled academic evidence on video game and give my opinion later.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Ok, So, lemme put it in easy to understand terms for us supposedly (according to Jt) Brain damaged kids.
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?
March 27th, 2008 at 8:46 am
@Yuki
Yep, that’s about right.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:47 am
@Darrel
Thanks for confirming that.
Sad to think this was what we were all so worried about.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:49 am
@ Yuki
I have feeling this report will be largely ignored because its not what they want.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Can someone clear up a question for me? Why does this doctor have a seemingly endless supply of glamor headshots? Is she one of those television &/or book-world celebrity doctors?
Not that this automatically affects how seriously her work should be taken, I’m just curious about it.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:50 am
I am reading as we speak.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:53 am
@ Shaesyco
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Just started reading the document but if she is recommending a 12 certificate, don’t we already have that? I know Mass Effect has it clearly on the front.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:53 am
@Shaesyco
Whinge whinge whinge. Seriously mate, get over it.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:54 am
@Campion
… 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).
March 27th, 2008 at 8:54 am
It sounds like she is applauding the ESRB in chapter 7
March 27th, 2008 at 8:56 am
To tell you the truth, I was never really worried about this. The fact that this woman took this long to finish her review means that she either was told to hold back her “findings” which were simply pre-fed information from all the doomsayers, or that she was doing [I]real scientific study[/I]. Obviously from this report, we can see that she was doing the latter.
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….
March 27th, 2008 at 8:57 am
@Campion
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
March 27th, 2008 at 8:58 am
The good: The report seems to make good conclusions, and decent suggestions
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?
March 27th, 2008 at 8:59 am
WHAT? Thats it. Can’t read the now as I’m college but it sounds very lack luster after all that was being said about it. I was even fearing that I’d need to go and move else where to get freedom to play games cause this report would destroy gaming in the UK, and it turns out to be an anti climax!!!
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:01 am
@Deus Payne.
These days ANTHING can be taken out of context.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:03 am
I’ve only read the areas that are of interest to me but it seems on the whole perfectly reasonable and sensible.
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:05 am
In other news
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.”
March 27th, 2008 at 9:07 am
I thought she’d sell games up the river for politics, but she didn’t. It’s actually good to know there are people out there willing to really do the work and look at the results, instead of trying to shpe the work to meet a particular result.
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Going around looking for stories while glancing through the report… not enough coffee in my system to haul through 200+ eerie powerpoint-esque pages just yet.
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.”
March 27th, 2008 at 9:15 am
-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.
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:16 am
You guys need to get to the findings part. Thats where her recommendations are. She is obviously a big government proponent despite her admissions that video games have barely been shown to cause short term increases in aggression.
“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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:18 am
[…] has the fullreport. […]
March 27th, 2008 at 9:18 am
“The government said all the recommendations would be implemented.”
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I’m looking forward to hearing Leland Yee (and Schwarzenegger) complain when his appeal is denied. ..I can respect Dr. Byron’s effort though, because it’s not full of sound bites and leading questions for starters.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:21 am
@jon
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Most of what’s in the report doesn’t seem that bad. Inconvenient, perhaps counterproductive (putting two ratings on a game, when they are saying parents are unable to understand the one?), but not that bad. Except for this:
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.”
March 27th, 2008 at 9:25 am
‘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.’
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:25 am
I’m still not convinced Byron was the best person to do this… what does she do?
March 27th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Odd I got the impression most people were expecting the report to be a pretty calm affair. The real question is what parts of the report will the government act on? Personally, I see little for ammunition for things to go wrong (mercifully).
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:32 am
I sadly expect more games to be banned now. I also expect games to take even longer to come out in the UK, and some smaller games wont come out at all.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:34 am
It has some merit at first, especially revolving research done on the effects of games (or the lack thereof) on kids, but then it sort of falls over into politcally pandering bullsh!t.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:35 am
@GoodRobotUs
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:36 am
@ me
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).
March 27th, 2008 at 9:38 am
@Ian Charles
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:38 am
The only real problems this report generated were the reactions of the newspapers. I get The Times, which overstated that all games would receive ‘health warnings’, which I immediately envisaged as being like “THIS GAME WILL MAKE YOUR CHILD CRAZY” stickers on the cover, but further reading showed what they actually meant was that a BBFC classification had to be shown on the front of games.
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:44 am
@Haggard.
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Well, I’ve had abit of a read.. no way I’m reading all of it, I got dailies in WoW to do.. but overall it seems excellent, well balanced, and something I can defiantly get behind.
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:45 am
But isn’t a “child psychologist” biased from the start? The assumption seems to be that all games are for kids…. again.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:47 am
It seems like Matt Peckham,in his blog, is reacting to a poor headline about this instead of responding to the actual report.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:48 am
“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.”
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:48 am
@ jon:
“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?
March 27th, 2008 at 9:50 am
@me
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:51 am
@ me
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:53 am
A few things I would like to point out.
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:53 am
@ Haggard:
“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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:55 am
@me - She’s a qualified child psychologist so I think she was an ideal choice. She’s relatively well known on television meaning a lot more parent’s eyes will find the report. That’s a good thing.
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:55 am
So, is anyone going to tell the PC World’s Matt Peckham that the “cigarette styled Warning labels” was fabricated by the newspaper and was not in the original report?
March 27th, 2008 at 9:56 am
To those asking about the “intended for” thing in limiting games being purchased…
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:00 am
To tell you the truth, I think this actually good. The byron report is the first step into initating change, which does need to be there. I hope the changes are as effective as they are hoping it to be.
I did find it funny that they are going to regulate facebook and other networking sites though.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:08 am
I feel that the mainstream media are blowing this out to be more than what it seems,
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…
March 27th, 2008 at 10:09 am
@GoodRobotUs
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:10 am
I, for one, am less worried about the content of the report, but how the government will interpet it. The government have made no bones about how they want to bring down increased censorship on the artform, and I can see them taking the recommendations and implementing them 110%- dangerous for the more heavy-handed recommendations.
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
March 27th, 2008 at 10:10 am
@ Cidas
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
March 27th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Read the entire thing this morning.
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Ah, I see the quote is not from the report but from “The Guardian”.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:15 am
The media are, as usual trying to make a headline, and sadly “Respected child psychologist says games should be rated like movies.” isn’t as attention grabbing as “Evil Video Games will need cigarette style health warnings!!” So they twist things.
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?
March 27th, 2008 at 10:16 am
@ Tbone Tony
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
March 27th, 2008 at 10:18 am
@Bill
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:19 am
I’ve read bits and pieces of 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.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:26 am
I really like that she is promoting parental controls…. and education as well… her recommendations that ISPs and Console companies should include step by step, idiot proof, instructions as to how to set things up are excellent.
One problem with it though, how she is suggesting that “all new computers” include it.. since PC sales are not that simple, when you consider self built machines.
Although.. I suppose if you don’t know how to set up a piece of software, chances are you are not building your own machine.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:26 am
So it says “do what we are doing now” and that The Industry should go on a charm offensive. Win hearts and minds of the parents (or at least make the understand that the 18 sticker is their for a reason).
March 27th, 2008 at 10:28 am
@Colonel Finn:
It’s not killed the UK film industry, but it’s not done it any favours- not only does indigenous film development lag massively behind foreign output, our retail shelves are not quite as diverse as that of other nations due to the prohibitive cost of getting a rating- distributors of niche content (anime, for one) complain that getting a BBFC rating eats into a disproportionately high amount of their revenue, reducing their potential UK output.
I would also point out that the UK film industry gets huge tax breaks from the government that the games industry does not.
/b
March 27th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Colonel Finn,
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/classification/c_12.php
No, she said take the 12 rating and make it law to enforce, “parents can’t buy games unless it’s for the right age of the child.” How is that in any way how film is currently enforced? Despite the wonky way the BBFC has the force of law currently, this is ither a misstatement by Byron or a call for outright restriction of the rights of adults.
How is it “bizzarely illegal” here in the US? The First establishes free speech, and the due process (forget the amendment now, forgive me here) doesn’t allow for a private ratings board, the ESRB’s, rating to carry the force of law. Pretty simple stuff, if you ask me.
I think people are confusing what ratings do: Inform consumers of what content is in games, movies, et cetera so we can choose to partake, or shelter as we see fit. They do NOT exist to tell people how old you have to be to LEGALLY watch/play something. At least here in the US.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:39 am
I’m not a parent, so if anyone is, please explain to me why it seems that people become retarded when they sprout offspring.
“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.”
Seriously, people, what the hell? Common sense will dictate to you how to handle things. I’m for providing information on a game’s box and elsewhere to determine how a game is rated, but seriously, if you can’t make a decision based on what is provided, you don’t need to have kids anyway.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:42 am
*Looks at his copy of Guitar Hero 3 complete with a 12 certificate on it* - Erm… How does this change anything, other than helping to muddy an already confused water???
Well done Tanya… you’ve managed to achieve absolutely nothing.
When BBFC certificates are on boxes, they are already legally enforceable… Its the PEGI certificates that aren’t.
All thats changed is the BBFC will now auto slap a U onto 3+ PEGI rated games, a PG onto 7+ PEGI rated games, and now slow down the release process by having to process potential 12+ rated games… which where possible will mean more black market and imports… Bravo!
March 27th, 2008 at 10:43 am
@Bill
You’re right, my mistake, that’s an opinion, not a recommendation, it did confuse me somewhat, I’ll admit.
To be honest, there’s not much there that I wasn’t already expecting, though, I’m not sure of the cost of having Video Games rated by two separate systems when films etc are only rated by one, the Industry may baulk a little at having to pay out twice for ratings compared to other media formats.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:45 am
@mbkerr
Are you a parent?
March 27th, 2008 at 10:46 am
@mbkerr
ahh ignore me, i missed your first sentence. sorry. I’m a twat.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:48 am
“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.”
So, under the reports recommendations, it would be illegal for me to purchase a game rated 12+ for my 11-year-old child? Am I misunderstanding?
This is not the way it works for movies in the UK as well, is it? I know there are “12+” BBFC age restrictions for films, but currently, U.K. parents aren’t fined or imprisoned for allowing their 11-year-old children to watch Revenge of the Sith, are they?
Does the Byron report suggest that the 12+ recommendation be changed to legally prevent parents from allowing their under-aged children to watch “12+” movies as well, as well as “12+” games? It looks to me like maybe the rule would apply to games only. Is that fair, considering the ?
I don’t get what’s up with all the “this report just states the obvious” and “this is no big deal” posts. That “12+” enforcement recommendation seems radical and wrong. And it seems like a pretty big deal to me.
Maybe it’s just my U.S.-bred sense of individual accountability and civil libertarianism, and maybe these would be out of place in the U.K. Maybe you guys over there are totally cool with this sort of thing? Seem wrong to me, and seems like a pretty big deal.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Why regulate Facebook? It’s as safe as you could get without governmental regulation, and what’s on Facebook is private. It should be the parents job to watch out. Byron, before enforcing regulation on Facebook, let the public read all your e-mail for now on, and it would be fair. Who knows, you could be a terrorist or a sexual predictor.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Sorry, it’s just that from a UK standpoint, it seems odd that it’s illegal to enforce a rating. Seeing as it’s standard practice here. As you said in your last sentence, “at least not here in the US”.
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I replied to their “call for evidence”, and I don’t regret it. For what I’ve read of the report, it’s fair and well-balanced. But once again (and as it has been said previously), the problem is how mainstream media interprets it. On the subject of video games, they’re not trustable.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:57 am
@KayleL
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:58 am
@jon
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Points of interest:
-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.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:03 am
While this isn’t necessarily a great thing, it is better than what the PM would have wanted to enact (I think…)
March 27th, 2008 at 11:05 am
@Colonel Finn
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Okay, what the hell is “Internet-Assisted Suicide”? I could make a guess, but how do you ban it.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:06 am
@Marc
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I’m with Finn, I’ve never understood the mindset behind it either. Personally, I feel its more of a reaction to gamers as a group feeling persecuted rather than anything else.
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:16 am
@Buncha - I doubt a retailer would accept a fist full of dollars in the UK. They prefer Pound sterling and besides, dollars aren’t worth very much.
Thank you. Thank you. I’m here all week.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:17 am
@GoodRobotUs
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:19 am
@Mr Blackett
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:21 am
@jon
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:27 am
British gamers are screwed. I´m deeply sorry for them. I really hope someday they can make a stand to reject this ridiculous report and laws.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:29 am
@Rodrigo
Care too elaborate on that fud you just posted?
March 27th, 2008 at 11:32 am
so no real massive impact if you are over the age of 12. I don’t see how this will make much difference. A parent who wants to buy the game for thier child still can. I suppose Dr Byron could make a developer sit on the naughty step.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:35 am
The Times’ front page today:
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
March 27th, 2008 at 11:41 am
@Discombobulator
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:42 am
@rodrigo
explain or die plz
March 27th, 2008 at 11:46 am
@ DCOW
no need for that but yes i would also like to know why Rodrigo thinks that
March 27th, 2008 at 11:48 am
If I want my kids playing an M-rated game when they’re 12, that’s my business. Screw Bryon and anyone else who says that’s not good for the kid, the only people that think it isn’t are the same idiots that stomp over the founding elements of their country (I’m looking at you, PTC and FCC). And Facebook regulation is just insane. I don’t get where the internet-suicide thing came from…
March 27th, 2008 at 11:52 am
@bones
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?
March 27th, 2008 at 11:52 am
@PeterWDawson
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:53 am
@PeterWDawson
What the hell does “stomp all over the founding elements of their country” have to do with this discussion about a UK based report?
March 27th, 2008 at 11:53 am
@Rodrigo - Please don’t waste your sympathy. I’m sure if those laws were being used against us, we would make a fuss. They’re not. They give parents that care about their kids the knowledge they need to make informed decisions on the media their kids consume. They also provide an incentive to parents that couldn’t care less NOT to buy games with mature content.
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:55 am
@PeterWDawson
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:55 am
@Peter Dawson: If more parents thought like you, then we wouldn’t have this problem at all.
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:56 am
[…] Child Psychologist Tanya Byron released her much-anticipated review today… “The Prime Minister asked me to conduct this Review in order to help parents and their children get the best from new technologies while protecting children from inappropriate or harmful material. The objectives of the Review were: […]
March 27th, 2008 at 11:57 am
@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.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
This is the beginning of the end for games as an accepted, UNHINDERED, form of free expression and art. Never doubt that this is the precedent needed to begin the process of regulating content. Once that starts, we can look forward to this cancer to spread to the US, Japan, and the rest of the world.
It’s very sad- I had high hopes for what games would evolve into in the next few decades…
March 27th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I believe the internet sucide thing is a reference to a suicide epidemic that happened in Bridgend, Wales. I haven’t followed the story so I can’t comment with any level of accuracy but IIRC there may have been fears that the people involved were in contact via facebook, bebo etc.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
@Buncha - Don’t hold me to that. It might have been 12. I’m just recalling a story I heard a while ago where a mother refused to buy Tony Hawk because of the rating, instead choosing Medal of Honour.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
@Zerodash
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
@Buncha
I hope you’re right. We will see what happens in the next 10-20 years…
March 27th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
@Zerodash - No it isn’t. Have you even read the report? It’s asking for minor changes to a system that’s already in place. No precedent is being set. There’’s no vast government conspiracy to crush creativity. If the British government wanted to do that, it would stop funding the arts.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
@Buncha - Are we the same person? I’ve never seen us in the same room together. Weird.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
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.
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I’m not sure on how other countries are dealing with tech laws.
“-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!”
March 27th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
@Zerodash
My point is that your response is just as unbased as the antigamers arguement that Bully will cause highschool shootings.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
@ Sorry DCOW
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
@My Blankett
I was wondering that myself, its refreshing to meet someone with the same viewpoint as me on these forums
March 27th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
@Zerodash
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
“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.”
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I don’t usually comment on anything I read on gamepolitics.com but this report is basically the last straw for me. All the review does is agree with each side and confirm that we are arguing for no reason. Dennis if you could please piece together an article that has quotes from political figures, the ESA, the ESRB, and game studios you can probably have a huge impact on how people are thinking.
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Yes, I think the Non-UK members need to realise that we’ve had this system here for a long time and as of yet it’s really made no palpable difference in the gaming over here and over there.
The system works, it just needs some modifications to make it up to date and more smoothly running.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Seems like the Byron report has done what many of us gamers have been saying for an awful long time. Games can be for children and adults but obviously it is the responsibility of parents to make sure that what their children are playing is suitable, doesn’t sound like a huge event TBH and I am glad that she has not sunk into spewing sensationalist nonsense and tabloid pleasing generalisations. Her recommendations seem sensible and in general suggests that the systems in place now are quite adequate (they are IMO) but the problem is parents being clueless and/or uninterested so it is them who need to be educated rather than the entire industry being muffled to pander to ignorance.
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Can I clarify something about how the BBFC currently work with regards to games. As is my understanding, game developers only submit to the BBFC if they believe their games may be within the bounds of a 15 or 18 certificate. Any other submission is voluntery. This is why some games have already been released with a lower cert i.e. Tony Hawkes with a 12. The recommendation is to drop this back a step and make minimum submission for a 12.
This will mean games like Medal of Honour, which have so far not received a classification, will be required to do so.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
For whatever it’s worth, my previous comments were simply pointing out that U.S. courts have already examined much of the research Ms. Byron is citing and found it to be insufficient to support legislative action regarding distribution and advertising. Obviously this point only applies to the U.S. although it will be ignored by any American politician who wants to appear to be “tough” on something.
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Re: Jon
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
@ Buncha Kneejerks
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
March 27th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
@ Colonel Finn
Here Here
(And the fact we are already regulated on advertising, sale, and censorship)
March 27th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Well, for one, the whole ‘6 week’ deal is nothing to do with the rating system, for two, with relation to games rated 15+, this is business as normal, for three, the inclusion of compulsory parental controls actually removes responsibility from the Industry and onto the Parents, since they cannot argue that they were not given the tools required to do the job. It actually makes it harder for detractors to blame anything other than the parents themselves, and for four, the whole ‘assisted suicide’ thing was, I think down to the events recently in Wales, however, it should be noted in that case that even the parents were saying that the level of coverage from Newspapers and the BBC was far more likely a cause than social interaction sites.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
You do that jon, you are aware the reason it takes so long for games to be released outside of the US and Japan is because a) localisation and converting the engine from NTSC and PAL and b) Contempt certain companies have for Europe (I’m looking right at you Nintendo), its nothing to do with the BBFC or government intervention.
I could just as easily turn round and ask if your happy for your country to market and allow unrestricted access of mature media to kids but its not because thats what I believe to be true, it would only be to make an exaggerated and caustic comment as you did.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
@Colonel Finn
It would be hard to explain why, but I’ll try.
The first problem this would pose is that it violates the First Amendment, which is designed to protect expression by the people in whatever form they choose. Video games are a form of expression, as they bear the influences and opinions of their creators in their designs, even if they are not explicitly set out in the story. Thus, preventing access to these games by the populace would be preventing this expression from getting out, and thereby violating the first Amendment.
It would also be admitting that the games can harm those that they are not intended for. Mature video games are not intended for a child’s viewing, true. However, they have never been shown to cause a child harm either.
It might also stem from a general dislike by the US populace for Federal intervention. Frankly, we do not like our government attempting to run our lives. We do not like being spied on, and we do not like being told what we can and cannot see. Ratings would signify the government telling us what content is appropriate for us and for our children, and we believe that it is the parents responsibility to monitor what their child sees.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
@Bones
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
[…] Filed under: NewsAs you all probably know, following the whole Manhunt 2 thing, noted psychologist in the country Dr. Tanya Byron was knee-deep in an investigation into the effects of games and internet media on children in the UK. Her verdict? The BBFC should have a bigger role in rating games (right now, they only intervene on games flagged with violent, sexual and criminal content).Her solution involves a new 12+ classification, as well as the BBFC handling just about all duties involving rating games. But, as anticipated, she’s also endorsed the PEGI system, as well. She hopes that the PEGI ratings can go on the back of the game’s box, with the BBFC classification being displayed on the front.This is all just the tip of the iceberg, however. Her report has lots more interesting information, so for the rest, head on over to Game Politics.[Via Joystiq]Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments Ads by Google […]
March 27th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Is it just me or does overhaul seem a drastic term to use? Its more like a tweak if you ask me
March 27th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I love this quote.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
@Buncha I think the overhaul bit is more to do with parent’s perception than changing the system. Or that’s the impression I get from reading the report.
Gift.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
@EZK
From some of your past posts prior to the release of the I’m betting you are suprised to find something in it you loved
March 27th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
What this report has wrong is the fact that we already do this, just not for all games. The reason is that some publishers feel that parents trust the BBFC rating more. Hence when Mass Effect at a BBFC 12 and not a PEGI rating.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I read the report. It states no evidence that videogames are harmful to children. Instead Byron talks from her “gut”, as Stephen Colbert puts it. Her gut tells her she doesn’t want her children playing these games therefore no-ones children should be playing these games. If you disagree with her parenting tactics, too bad. It’s going to be the law, chummer.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
@ Buncha
Sorry kinda off topic atm, But I’m from the Rhondda, the next valley over from Bridgend. From what I have heard locally, the suicides have had very little to do with the internet and social network sites. Obviously I don’t know for sure, but if there was clear evidence that the suicides were linked via internet sites, there’s would have been an even bigger fuss made about it, and people living close to the area (like I do) would know.
Back on topic. No big deal really. All it does is give the BBFC a harder job, and possibly confuse people (due to the dual ratings).
It essentially shows that the rating system is fine, just parents don’t listen to it. If parents don’t listen to it, I can’t see much you can do really. You can make it illegal (as has been proposed) but i can see it being very difficult to prove in court.
The UK however is used to having ratings legally enforced (all movies are, and a lot of games are), so I can’t see this making much difference tbh
March 27th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Within the week, we can expect that anti-video game poiticians will be cherry picking quotes from the report, or misrepresenting it to people they know won’t actually read it.
JT is probably going through it now to see how he can “accidentally” misquote it to suit his own ends.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
@ Buncha Kneejerks
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Next up: Nanny State gets to decide what foods can and can’t be sold to people depending on their age and weight.
On the plus side, most British food is horrible, so maybe this is a good thing. However, I have to ask…
WON’T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE FISH AND CHIPS!?!?!
March 27th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Sorry EKZ, my mistake. Apologies if I mischaracterised you.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
@Gameclucks
Next up: An expose of Brits who do things differently from Americans inspite of the first ammendment! News at 11!
March 27th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
@JazzMalong
The problem is that they don’t agree. Politicians blame the game industry for the ills of the youth. The game industry disagrees. Politicians blame the game industry for making M rated games available to kids, when the game industry blames parents, since it is typically the parent who pays for the game (on a side note, how many 10 year olds with $50 are there).
March 27th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I don’t like how the report said that the BBFC should be able to ban more games.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Where does it say that? I’ve only read through the executive summary, but didn’t see any recommendation along those lines at all, in fact, it suggested more communication between the Industry and the Ratings systems.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I was just wondering that myself, its several hours since I read as much as I did, and not every detail… but I can’t recall them saying they should be able to ban more games, rather that they should maintain the right to ban games.. with more communication, that should happen even less than the super rare times it has happened in the past.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Now all we need are Four Horsemen or an Austrian Robot and it’s really Judgement Day..
March 27th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
The Byron report is…….. SANE. It’s well-rounded.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
@Cheater87
It appears that she didn’t call for further power to ban games, but simply that the power to do so already exists (see 7.3, 7.21, 7.22, 7.69 The PEGI Code of Conduct). Unless you mean extending the BBFC’s ability to rate games as low as 12+ .
March 27th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Thanks Bill I misread it.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Since my first comment, I have come to understand the idea of making it illegal for parents to purchase “12+” games for their 11-year-old children is something Byron says and promotes, but it is not suggested in her formal report. Is this correct?
The idea that the government should have any legal authority over what mainstream media I can allow my own child to experience is extremely offensive to my core ideology. I am an American, though, and I realize that my American political perspective may be the primary factor in this offense. And so, I am honestly very curious how this idea is interpreted by U.K. citizens.
By what I can tell from the BBFC website, it currently is NOT illegal for a U.K. parent to allow his 11-year-old child to watch a “12+” movie. I ask in earnest: In the context of your system, should it be? Or, should it be illegal in the U.K. to let your kid play games above his age rating, but not movies?
Or, is Byron just giving lip service to the idea that the government should determine what media parents allow their kids to see? Should her comment be ignored? Is it an actual possibility that, as a result of Byron’s suggestion, it would become illegal for U.K. parents to allow their children to view material the BBFC has judged unfit for them?
I would be well served if any of you U.K. posters, especially any of you who have prolifically supported the report in this forum so far, would share your points of view on this aspect of the issue. At this point, i am honestly not looking to argue — just to be informed.
@mogbert
If you are talking about politicians here in the U.S. using the Byron report to promote more game restriction law over here, I am not too worried about that happening. As far as I can tell, the report doesn’t really present any new anti-game evidence for politicians to exploit. It only compiles existing studies and statements for the U.K. government to consider. The most opportunistic politicians in the U.S. are often also the most jingoistic, just like the constituents to whom they pander. In other words, I can’t see any U.S. politician (or even JT) getting much traction out of a “England censors its mainstream media so we should too” argument.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
@Rabidkeebler
I agree there are some topics that are still being argued but in the end we aren’t really getting anywhere. There is so much both sides do agree on we just need someone to say “Hey lets take action on the things we do agree on.” instead of the argument on whose to blame continuing.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Since my first comment, I have come to understand the idea of making it illegal for parents to purchase “12+” games for their 11-year-old children is something Byron has promoted, but it is not suggested in her formal report. Is this correct?
The idea that the government should have any legal authority over what mainstream media I can allow my own child to experience is extremely offensive to my core ideologies. I am an American, though, and I realize that my American political perspective may be the primary factor in this offense. And so, I am honestly, very curious how this idea is interpreted by U.K. citizens.
By what I can tell from the BBFC website, it currently is NOT illegal for a U.K. parent to allow his 11-year-old child to watch a “12+” movie. I ask in earnest: In the context of your system, should it be? Should it be illegal in the U.K. to let your kid play games above his age rating, but not movies?
Or, is Byron just giving lip service to the idea that the government should determine what media parents allow their kids to see? Should this aside be dismissed, or is it an actual possibility that, as a result of Byron’s suggestion, it would become illegal for parents to allow their children to view material the BBFC has judge unfit for them?
I would be well served if any of you U.K. posters, especially any of you who have prolifically supported the report in this forum so far, would share your points of view on this aspect.
@mogbert
If you are talking about politicians here in the U.S. using the report to promote more game restriction law over here, I am not too worried about that happening. As far as I can tell (so far), the report doesn’t really present any new anti-game evidence for politicians to exploit. It only compiles existing studies and statements for the U.K. government. The most socially conservative politicians in the U.S. often also the most jingoistic, just like the constituents to whom they pander. In other words, I can’t see any U.S. politician (or even JT) getting much traction out of a “England censors its mainstream media so we should too” argument.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I hope that when Jack Thompson reads this as he surely will that he takes the following statement on board:
“Having considered the evidence I believe we need to move from a discussion about the media ‘causing’ harm to one which focuses on children and young people, what they bring to technology and how we can use our understanding of how they develop to empower them to manage risks and make the digital world safer.”
I wouldn’t bet on it though. He could learn a lot on how to communicate effectively and without hyperbole from Dr Byron.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
@ Canary Wundaboy:
“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.”
Ah, but there’s the rub. Look at the laws that have been struck down here in the U.S. as unconstitutional. They’re promoting concepts that the industry generally supports (e.g. don’t sell M-rated games to 8 year olds, etc.). The idea is that the government should not be the ones enforcing these ideas - the industry should.
It appears to me that the UK government is intending to use this report as grounds for taking that responsibility upon itself, rather than leaving it to the industry. THAT is what worries me about the above quote, not the notion that little kids shouldn’t play mature games.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
@ Colonel Finn:
“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?”
Fair question. It’s a “slippery slope” sort of thing, I think. Once they have legislative control over one aspect of industry sales and censorship, it’s rather inevitable that they’re going to try to creep into other aspects. And that first little victory makes all the difference in the world in determining just how far they manage to go.
I guess it is a little hard for us to look at this in such a manner as to disregard freedom of speech.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
@Stinking Kevin
I’ll chip in with my take. Byrons report stated she recommends keeping the system more or less the same as it is. With a minor addendum that any game that should be certified 12 or above should display the correct BBFC logo. I have no problem with that at all and to my knowledge neither do the bulk of the UK citizens. I agree with the BBFC classification system and I agree that retailers should not provide media to children if they are underage i.e. selling a 18 cert game or movie to a 15 year old.
Now Byron was quoted in the Guardian as saying
“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,”
Nowhere in her report did she state or even mention it should be a parent should be prosecuted for buying media for a child they were not entitled to. In fact most of the report goes into education parents so they can make an informed choice.
As a UK citizen, I disagree in the strongest possible terms that parents should be charged if they buy media for their children that have a wrong classification. Now, I am going to come across as an apologist, but I feel that Mrs Byron has poorly chosen her words in the Guardian interview. It just seems so odd that her personal view takes such a tangent from her own recommendations. But I cannot say for certain either way. Ideally, I would like further ellaboration on her statement.
Hope this is of interest.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
“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.”
Anybody else have a MAJOR problem with this? First off this really will give government the authority to say what is and is not appropriate for children they never met and it takes away choice from the parents.
We’re sorry we won’t let you get grand theft auto for your kid, we think it’s too violent. “But my kid is mature for his age and I’ve seen him play the game and I think it’s fine.” Sorry ma’am”
I honestly hope reatailers tell parents to lie and say the game is for them (even if it’s manhunt for a 13 year old).
March 27th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
“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.”
Okay, back up the “What the Fuck!?” train.
Is this saying that they will ban the sale of such a game to a legal adult if they make the decision th