U.K. PEGI Ratings Delayed Once Again

[Andy Chalk]

U.K. PEGI Ratings Delayed Once Again

The plan to switch from PEGI [http://www.bbfc.co.uk/] videogame ratings in the U.K. has been pushed back to September as the country's game industry says it's "unhappy" with the government's current plan for the changeover.

In 2009, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport decided to switch the U.K.'s videogame rating scheme from the British Board of Film Classification to the Pan European Game Information system, which was established in 2003 specifically to classify videogames. The game industry has supported the change since the 2008 release of Dr. Tanya Byron's "Safer Children in a Digital World [http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/byronreview/]" report, saying the system is better suited to videogames and more appropriate for the global market because it's already being used by other countries across Europe.

Actually getting the job done has proven to be a bit of a slog, however, and now the matter has been pushed back once again as the U.K. government and U.K. Interactive Entertainment trade body continue to hash out the details. A new update on the UKIE website [http://ukie.info/content/pegi-implementation-update] says the implementation of PEGI is "not likely until at least September of this year" because the government's proposal still allows for dual labeling (BBFC and PEGI) on games that contain "linear content" like trailers.

"Any dual labeling is contrary to the principles that were established in having PEGI introduced into the Digital Economy Act and if this proposal were implemented we believe it would only cause unnecessary and potentially harmful consumer confusion," the trade body said.

"UKIE is unhappy with this proposal and the subsequent delay in implementation and is working with DCMS officials to resolve these outstanding issues as quickly as possible," it continued. "UKIE has recently held a meeting with officials where we strongly advocated the need to have just one rating label on all video games packaging and we are confident that these issues will be resolved favorably for the interactive entertainment industry."

The change had already been pushed back from its original completion date of April 1 earlier this month when Minister of Culture Ed Vaizey said there were still "a few kinks [http://www.next-gen.biz/news/pegi-delayed-again-confirms-vaizey]" to iron out.

via: Edge [http://www.next-gen.biz/news/pegi-delayed-until-september]


Permalink

 

[Megacherv]

Hang on a sec, I'm pretty certain we have games rated PEGI anyway, right?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

4 years to change labels.

/headdesk.

We really suck at times.

How about "For Kids", "For Adults" and "For Anyone"?

 

[Woodsey]

Hang on a sec, I'm pretty certain we have games rated PEGI anyway, right?

The implementation is meant to be a full switch over, as of now, there's more PEGI ratings, but it's a mixed bag.

OT: PEGI is the worst of the two rating systems, as they don't (unless this has changed) look at things in context, unlike the BBFC.

They gave the GI Joe Wii game a 16+, for example.

 

[CosmicCommander]

If PEGI were able to rate it, they'd have probably branded the Thriller music video an 18.

 

[Palademon]

I prefer the film classification. They explain what exactly it has. PEGI just has pictures. Is PEGI aware of just HOW MANY different things a violence label can mean?

 

[NeedAUserName]

Is PEGI an actual legally binding age restriction. I'm sure I bought loads of 16+ games when I was 13 or so. Maybe I just always chose the guy who didn't care...

 

[JediMB]

Hang on a sec, I'm pretty certain we have games rated PEGI anyway, right?

The implementation is meant to be a full switch over, as of now, there's more PEGI ratings, but it's a mixed bag.

OT: PEGI is the worst of the two rating systems, as they don't (unless this has changed) look at things in context, unlike the BBFC.

They gave the GI Joe Wii game a 16+, for example.

I've never experienced any problems with the PEGI ratings on the 8-or-so years we've had them here. Looking at the G.I. Joe gameplay, though, the only reason I can see for it to be rated 16+ is to keep the kids who don't know better from buying a crappy game.

It's nice to have standardized ratings too. I think the Aussies would appreciate if Australia could somehow switch to PEGI.

 

[Woodsey]

Hang on a sec, I'm pretty certain we have games rated PEGI anyway, right?

The implementation is meant to be a full switch over, as of now, there's more PEGI ratings, but it's a mixed bag.

OT: PEGI is the worst of the two rating systems, as they don't (unless this has changed) look at things in context, unlike the BBFC.

They gave the GI Joe Wii game a 16+, for example.

I've never experienced any problems with the PEGI ratings on the 8-or-so years we've had them here. Looking at the G.I. Joe gameplay, though, the only reason I can see for it to be rated 16+ is to keep the kids who don't know better from buying a crappy game.

It's nice to have standardized ratings too. I think the Aussies would appreciate if Australia could somehow switch to PEGI.

Well until the last few years most games above a 7+ were being rated by the BBFC, I believe.

And use the BBFC ratings as standard then; that way you also circumvent any excuses total dipshits have for claiming they didn't know what the big number on the front of the box meant.

 

[Therumancer]

My attitude on the whole PEGI thing (looking at it from the outside) is that the EU is a mess. If it was one nation divided into states, as opposed to a bunch of seperate nations with substantial cultural differances, then a universal rating system could work. As it is now the ratings are basically something that is going to be decided by cultural commitee, which means that as it becomes entrenched and more political disagreements on what a rating should be are probably going to hold up games, and lead to some absolute ridiculousness. I more or less applaud the UK for sticking to their guns.

I get the reason why the EU exists, but really I think it's not workable in the current form for anything that isn't going to become a giant joke. The basic idea was to set it up for easier trade accross europe and international boundaries by having standardized currency and so on. The idea being that as a whole Europe could then compete with nations like the US and China more effectively, and perhaps again become the center of global economic power. Likewise a portion of the idea seemed to be a desire to pool military forces so they could be more easily used to defend Europe as a whole if the need arises.

In reality every nation pretty much only cares about the EU in terms of it benefitting from the arrangement. If it comes to say people from other European nations being able to more easily settle in France or whatever, people freak out. Likewise with various nations on cultural perservation kicks, other than money and trade (which is pretty much assumed to be trade that benefits them) it seems like every attempt to do something like PEGI, or even discuss it turns into a giant joke.

On top of this, the EU has proven itself to be almost entirely ineffective internationally during that whole "Georgia" thing where it literally had the Russians invading a nation right on the EU borders. This coming right on the heels of the Russians both threatening Poland for hosting a defensive (interception based) military outpost which they are upset about because it would make it harder to shoot missles into/accross the EU, and then for good measure they shut off the fuel to the EU to show the dependancy and there is nothing the EU was going to do about it. The european nations with militaries availible like France and Spain pretty much sat there going "thank you comrade, can we have another?". The UK at least had an excuse with it's military involved in "The War On Terror".


While I doubt it will happen, I'm pretty much of the opinion that the European union might as well dissolve, and the various countries making it up now should probably just pass internal laws to share the same currency or something.

A bit more involved than I intended to say, but really it surprises me that with everything else going on that anyone thinks something like PEGI is liable to work. Everyone acts like indpendant nations and ignores the whole "union" thing whenever they don't like something as it is, so why bother?

 

[Distorted Stu]

Didnt we already use PEGI?
Also, dont change anything if it means banning games.

 

[Delusibeta]

Didnt we already use PEGI?
Also, dont change anything if it means banning games.

That would involve change. UK government reserves the right to ban games (and films, and any other media), and has done so since pretty much day dot.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Why should we have a separate system for films and games?

Different content needs different ratings, I suppose. In a movie, there's a definite chain of events that will happen over the course of the narrative; in games, there are far more variables that can (or might) affect a potential rating. They're distinct media and they should have distinct rating systems.

 

[Tyrant T100]

Although I don't mind PEGI I'd rather the BBFC rate everything, we used to have a system on PS1 games before PEGI that was stupid categories. 11+ 15+ and 17+.
The age ratings on games should be the same as films, it's stupid to have a game with excessive gory violence to be rated 17+ when a film with the same content would require you to be a year older to buy it.

Also as already mentioned many games rated by PEGI seem to be rated wrongly. I'm pretty sure XIII was an example of that, got a 12+ first and was given a 16+ later when they "discovered" it had swearing in.

 

[Andy Chalk]

On top of this, the EU has proven itself to be almost entirely ineffective internationally during that whole "Georgia" thing where it literally had the Russians invading a nation right on the EU borders. This coming right on the heels of the Russians both threatening Poland for hosting a defensive (interception based) military outpost which they are upset about because it would make it harder to shoot missles into/accross the EU, and then for good measure they shut off the fuel to the EU to show the dependancy and there is nothing the EU was going to do about it. The european nations with militaries availible like France and Spain pretty much sat there going "thank you comrade, can we have another?". The UK at least had an excuse with it's military involved in "The War On Terror".

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the matter at hand but I do feel compelled to ask, what would you have done? Declared war on Russia to protect a non-EU, non-NATO nation?

Seriously, I'm curious.

 

[FightThePower]

Personally I think they should have the BBFC do all of them, they are way more accurate at determining appropriate age ratings for a game than the PEGI from my experience

 

[killamanhunter]

I use PEGI alot because I get most of my games from European distributors(It's cheaper!) and I have seen a few games rated low in the states and games rated extremely high over in Europe. Which makes no sense in a few parts and heck I can't even read the reason why it is 16+ The fist either means Despotism or Violence.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Spoiler: Lots of text about EU

My attitude on the whole PEGI thing (looking at it from the outside) is that the EU is a mess. If it was one nation divided into states, as opposed to a bunch of seperate nations with substantial cultural differances, then a universal rating system could work. As it is now the ratings are basically something that is going to be decided by cultural commitee, which means that as it becomes entrenched and more political disagreements on what a rating should be are probably going to hold up games, and lead to some absolute ridiculousness. I more or less applaud the UK for sticking to their guns.

I get the reason why the EU exists, but really I think it's not workable in the current form for anything that isn't going to become a giant joke. The basic idea was to set it up for easier trade accross europe and international boundaries by having standardized currency and so on. The idea being that as a whole Europe could then compete with nations like the US and China more effectively, and perhaps again become the center of global economic power. Likewise a portion of the idea seemed to be a desire to pool military forces so they could be more easily used to defend Europe as a whole if the need arises.

In reality every nation pretty much only cares about the EU in terms of it benefitting from the arrangement. If it comes to say people from other European nations being able to more easily settle in France or whatever, people freak out. Likewise with various nations on cultural perservation kicks, other than money and trade (which is pretty much assumed to be trade that benefits them) it seems like every attempt to do something like PEGI, or even discuss it turns into a giant joke.

On top of this, the EU has proven itself to be almost entirely ineffective internationally during that whole "Georgia" thing where it literally had the Russians invading a nation right on the EU borders. This coming right on the heels of the Russians both threatening Poland for hosting a defensive (interception based) military outpost which they are upset about because it would make it harder to shoot missles into/accross the EU, and then for good measure they shut off the fuel to the EU to show the dependancy and there is nothing the EU was going to do about it. The european nations with militaries availible like France and Spain pretty much sat there going "thank you comrade, can we have another?". The UK at least had an excuse with it's military involved in "The War On Terror".


While I doubt it will happen, I'm pretty much of the opinion that the European union might as well dissolve, and the various countries making it up now should probably just pass internal laws to share the same currency or something.

A bit more involved than I intended to say, but really it surprises me that with everything else going on that anyone thinks something like PEGI is liable to work. Everyone acts like indpendant nations and ignores the whole "union" thing whenever they don't like something as it is, so why bother?

You know, I'd probably have to agree with you here really.

Historically, the EU seems to derive from the Benelux region, which did not have a common currency, but did have open borders.

Luxembourg hardly registers as a country, being little more than a city state, but the thing is, in that case it made a lot more sense because the Netherlands and Belgium have a lot of cultural common ground.
(Well, the Flemish part of Belgium anyway).

I mean, with the trouble in Belgium at the moment, Flanders is on the verge of becoming it's own country, or perhaps trying to align itself more closely with the Netherlands.

But in a wider context, the EU is becoming a bit crazy. Open borders are great, but there's a lot of comments and weird rules that nobody seems to like.

Germany is complaining about having to financially support weaker countries by virtue of the common currency...
Every day the EU seems to propose ridiculous new laws that nobody likes...

And as for PEGI, while I understand why dual rated games might cause confusion, I personally find the BBFC ratings far more useful than the PEGI ones.

I just don't know if the EU is workable when Europe is such a divided place, historically.

I mean, the first world war was basically caused by national pride and weird alliances amongst various European countries...

Just because we all seem to get along now doesn't mean the tensions that led to that have vanished completely.