United Kingdom Legalizes PEGI Ratings

[Marshall Honorof]

United Kingdom Legalizes PEGI Ratings

PEGI will become the sole ratings agency for British videogames.

Regardless of whether videogames can inspire real-world violence [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118027-Researcher-Links-Media-and-Violence], it's fairly unambiguous to state that certain games are not for children. To this end, the United Kingdom has long employed the Pan European Game Information (PEGI) ratings system to inform consumers of a given game's content. On July 30, 2012, PEGI will gain some legal weight in Great Britain, eliminating the secondary British Board of Film Classification rating and making it possible to sanction retailers for selling inappropriate games to minors.

"We very much believe that the sole adoption of PEGI will provide clear and consistent direction on age ratings for parents," says Jo Twist, CEO of the Association for UK Interactive Entertainment (UKIE). "[It] will be a vital tool in helping them to understand the types of games that their children should be playing." Up until now, games depicting graphic sex and/or violence would receive a secondary rating from the BBFC in addition to PEGI's. The decision to give PEGI sole ratings responsibility also means that its ratings will become legally binding: shopkeepers who sell mature games to underage customers could face charges for their noncompliance.

Twist reiterates that Parliament works on its own schedule, and that the July 30 date is "technically still subject to Parliamentary scrutiny and therefore open to possible small delays." The PEGI turnover may not drastically change the way British videogame sales work, as the BBFC rating on mature games was technically legally binding as well. However, it's sure to bring about a new round of "retailer responsibility vs. governmental oversight" questions for the island nation. If nothing else, this development demonstrates that PEGI has proven its worth in the eyes of Parliament, and will hopefully do so for investigative parents and caretakers, too.

Source: MCVUK [http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/pegi-ratings-go-official-on-july-30th/099296]

Permalink

 

[InsanityRequiem]

Yet they completely ignore the fact that most 'Timmy bought this evil game!' yelling is from parents or friends of parents buying the high rated games for the children. At least it's the gaming classification that's gotten the legal authority, and not a newly created political committee that understands nothing about games.

 

[WaysideMaze]

Wasn't there a huge uproar about America trying to push through a law similar to this a few years back? That one in California?

This looks very similar to me, but maybe I'm just misreading the situation.

 

[SomeBrianDude]

This won't really change anything. Retailers (HMV, at least) have given PEGI ratings equal weighting to that of the BBFC for years, regardless of the fact that failure to uphold them wasn't a criminal offense.
There'll be less clutter on British game cases now, what with one less rating logo. That's nice, I suppose.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

It's definitely a step in the right direction, good show.

 

[Evil Smurf]

in the end, parents are responsible for their 15 year olds buying r rated games. That is what I think anyway.

 

[SomeBrianDude]

Wasn't there a huge uproar about America trying to push through a law similar to this a few years back?

It's a very similar law, but in the UK this isn't new. All that's happening that the BBFC is going to stop rating video games, and PEGI's rating will become the legally enforceable one. The only real difference should be that shop assistants will now be pointing at a different rating logo when asking kids for ID to buy a game.

Yet they completely ignore the fact that most 'Timmy bought this evil game!' yelling is from parents or friends of parents buying the high rated games for the children.

Yeah, that doesn't happen here often. Don't get me wrong, you hear about it from time to time, but usually the people making the fuss are ignored. See: Keith Vaz. Keeping reactionary idiots out of the public eye is something we do surprisingly well in the UK (most of the time, at least). What's more likely to happen is the parent will simply return the game, then chastise the child for not being honest with them.

 

[JasonKaotic]

I suppose I don't have to worry about this, I'll be turning 18 next year... but I've never really agreed with age ratings. I've played 'inappropriate' games ever since I was 3, and it hasn't ever affected me one bit. If anything they made me more mature.
Seriously, what harm is it going to do for a kid to hear people say bad words a few times in a game? And when's the last time you heard of a kid going clinically depressed after seeing a pair of tits on-screen?

 

[Kmadden2004]

I suppose I don't have to worry about this, I'll be turning 18 next year... but I've never really agreed with age ratings. I've played 'inappropriate' games ever since I was 3, and it hasn't ever affected me one bit. If anything they made me more mature.
Seriously, what harm is it going to do for a kid to hear people say bad words a few times in a game? And when's the last time you heard of a kid going clinically depressed after seeing a pair of tits on-screen?

Look at it this way; they're an insurance policy for the developers and publishers, stores like HMV and GAME, and gamers like you and me when the "somebody think of the children" brigade come running into town with torches and pitchforks.

Also, and I'm sorry to play this card on you, but you may appreciate age ratings a little more if/when you ever become a parent. Not every child is the same; what you may have been able to handle at the age of three, may become the source of a month's worth of bedwetting for another three-year-old.

 

[Lunar Templar]

Wasn't there a huge uproar about America trying to push through a law similar to this a few years back? That one in California?

This looks very similar to me, but maybe I'm just misreading the situation.

this one seems less dickish in nature then the one California tried, this one actually sounds appealing, the other, if i recall, was trying to treat 'Mature games' (the oxymoron of that makes me giggle every time) like porn. which is not the way to go

 

[Clearing the Eye]

I think mandatory rating systems are a bad thing. Then again, I also dislike mandatory disabled parking, so I guess I'm an outlier.

 

[Sylveria]

I suppose I don't have to worry about this, I'll be turning 18 next year... but I've never really agreed with age ratings. I've played 'inappropriate' games ever since I was 3, and it hasn't ever affected me one bit. If anything they made me more mature.
Seriously, what harm is it going to do for a kid to hear people say bad words a few times in a game? And when's the last time you heard of a kid going clinically depressed after seeing a pair of tits on-screen?

Look at it this way; they're an insurance policy for the developers and publishers, stores like HMV and GAME, and gamers like you and me when the "somebody think of the children" brigade come running into town with torches and pitchforks.

Also, and I'm sorry to play this card on you, but you may appreciate age ratings a little more if/when you ever become a parent. Not every child is the same; what you may have been able to handle at the age of three, may become the source of a month's worth of bedwetting for another three-year-old.

Eh, its not an insurance policy. They'll cry "MY CHILD GOT AN M RATED GAME. NOW HE'S GONNA BE A SERIAL KILLER!" to which we will calmly reply "It's M rated, why did you buy it for him? It's clearly labeled that it isn't suited for your 3yr old." and Mrs. Lovejoy will respond "WELL HOW DID I KNOW M HAD THIS AND THIS IN IT. THE LABELS NEED TO BE AS BIG AS THE BOX AND THEY NEED TO BE HIDDEN BEHIND THE COUNTER AND ANYONE WHO SELLS THIS STUFF RAPES BABIES!"

That's what they do. There's never any logical reasoning with those people. Jesus told them this is bad, thus it is, regardless of what publishers/developers/retailers/etc do to try and get the point across that little Timmy probably shouldn't be playing this game and the parents should be reading the labels. They will make up any excuse, regardless of how stupid it is and how stupid it makes them look, to get this stuff banned and it'll slowly work since stupid people run the world.

For everyone except the fundamentalist christians and negligent parents, this is a no-win situation. All it does is make things harder for the retailer and the non-retarded consumers. The religious right/stupid parents aren't going to be happy until every video game is gone and anyone who ever played one is behind bars and/or burning in Hell.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Wasn't there a huge uproar about America trying to push through a law similar to this a few years back? That one in California?

This looks very similar to me, but maybe I'm just misreading the situation.

Yep. It was a good idea last time and will be a good idea this time. Asking a retail outlet not to sell something because you asked nicely isn't particularly effective. Making it an actual law is.

The important thing about these regulations means that the blame of buying inappropriate games falls entirely on the kids' parents, which is exactly where it should be.

 

[Dogstile]

Wasn't there a huge uproar about America trying to push through a law similar to this a few years back? That one in California?

This looks very similar to me, but maybe I'm just misreading the situation.

Yep. It was a good idea last time and will be a good idea this time. Asking a retail outlet not to sell something because you asked nicely isn't particularly effective. Making it an actual law is.

The important thing about these regulations means that the blame of buying inappropriate games falls entirely on the kids' parents, which is exactly where it should be.

There was actually a reason it was a bad idea last time. Last time they were trying to make it so that 18 rated games would be treated pretty much like porn, which is crap.

This is good, because all it's doing is going "here you go parents, its your problem". The other one wasn't doing that.

 

[Strazdas]

So we give some assholes who think they know whats suitable legal power now? I guess Sieg Heil is in order, well played.

 

[JokerboyJordan]

I prefer the little BBFC logos though....

 

[Plinglebob]

So we give some assholes who think they know whats suitable legal power now? I guess Sieg Heil is in order, well played.

Its been done with films for decades and I've yet to see fascists marching down the high street thanks to that so applying it to games just makes things equal for both industries.

Eh, its not an insurance policy. They'll cry "MY CHILD GOT AN M RATED GAME. NOW HE'S GONNA BE A SERIAL KILLER!" to which we will calmly reply "It's M rated, why did you buy it for him? It's clearly labeled that it isn't suited for your 3yr old." and Mrs. Lovejoy will respond "WELL HOW DID I KNOW M HAD THIS AND THIS IN IT. THE LABELS NEED TO BE AS BIG AS THE BOX AND THEY NEED TO BE HIDDEN BEHIND THE COUNTER AND ANYONE WHO SELLS THIS STUFF RAPES BABIES!"

That's what they do. There's never any logical reasoning with those people. Jesus told them this is bad, thus it is, regardless of what publishers/developers/retailers/etc do to try and get the point across that little Timmy probably shouldn't be playing this game and the parents should be reading the labels. They will make up any excuse, regardless of how stupid it is and how stupid it makes them look, to get this stuff banned and it'll slowly work since stupid people run the world.

For everyone except the fundamentalist christians and negligent parents, this is a no-win situation. All it does is make things harder for the retailer and the non-retarded consumers. The religious right/stupid parents aren't going to be happy until every video game is gone and anyone who ever played one is behind bars and/or burning in Hell.

Thankfully in the UK we see the sort of people you're talking about as either entertainment or just ignored because you just don't do that sort of thing. They may get a spot on the local news or on something like Loose Women *spit*, but after a couple of weeks everyone will have forgotten about them. Someone will no doubt remind me of a recent incident, but rarely does anything get banned or anything really serious come from a kid seeing something they shouldn't precisely because the age ratings are legally enforced.

Edit:

I prefer the little BBFC logos though....

Same, but a separate ratings board is understandable as they should be looked at differently.

 

[iseko]

This is a good thing. Parents can not watch their children ALL the time. And if the children are pc gamers it's easy to play the wrong games behind their backs (I know because I played doom and duke nukem without my parents knowing. When they found out they were pissed). This helps parents from having their 12 year old play a game like left4dead or splatterhouse.

I'm not a fan of the idea that violent videogames create psychopaths. But little children should not be decapitating people with a chainsaw (for obvious reasons). Even if it is a videogame. Especially with today's graphics. I'm not one of those people who would forbid his kid to play mass effect or dragon age because there is 12 seconds of 'bare' animated ass in it. Or because there is the option of a gay relationship. But they won't be playing the extreme violence games either.

For me it serves a second purpose also. I want my kid to know that he is a kid in my eyes. He will not get whatever he wants no matter what his friends get. This is important for me. I will keep certain things from him (like a cellphone, my kids ain't getting one until they are 15. And I will be damned before they get a friggin' smart phone). Yes he/she will be pissed of but in the end they will thank me for it (like I thank my parents now). All those little shits who got whatever they wanted are deadbeats now.

But I digress, back OT: This is a good thing and I hope they invoke this in my country as well.