Raph’s Website » And now, the unbalanced take (the Byron Report)





By N2H

blog · games · writing · music · art · shop · about Raph · contact

And now, the unbalanced take (the Byron Report)

March 27th, 2008 (Visited 2714 times) Tags: game politics, vw law

So the UK has “accepted all recommendations” in a commissioned report by Dr. Tanya Byron, best known as a psychologist on various reality shows about troubled kids on British TV (not a knock — she does seem to be quite qualified in the psych arena). The bottom line of the report? Internet sites get a pass and “we need more education,” whereas packaged games get the BBFC ratings put on them in addition to the PEGI ratings already there. The BBFC will now have to review most games made, instead of only the couple hundred they used to.

This is a blow to the games industry — it shuffles their self-regulation efforts (PEGI) off to the back of the box, and puts governmental regulation front and center. The Times Online describes it as “cigarette-style health warnings.”

…[S]chools secretary Ed Balls at the launch event… [s]aid the government would legislate where necessary to bring some of the recommendations into force.

Among the things supposedly in the report (haven’t had the chance to read it yet myself, but there’s an “at a glance” version on the BBC website)

mandatory parental controls on consoles
fines or prison time for selling inappropriate games to underage kids
user-created-content websites can voluntarily commit to a “code of practice” on the timeline for content removal of “harmful” stuff
filtering software installed by default on all new PCs and with all Net connections
and search engines to have filtering and child safety info on their front pages

This is one of those things where reasonable people may disagree. And on a lot of it, I disagree.

Edit: Virtual Worlds News has summaries of the parts of the report that specifically touch on virtual worlds.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

35 Responses to “And now, the unbalanced take (the Byron Report)”

Jump to reader comments » | Leave a reply »

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Techmeme wrote on March 27th, 2008 at 8:56 pm:

+ Discussion: BBC NEWS, Times of London, Guardian, GamePolitics.com, BBC, Virtual Worlds News, Terra Nova, Joystiq, The Technology Liberation …, Cisco High Tech Policy Blog, edu.blogs.com,Raph’s Websiteand WebProNews

Game Tycoon»Blog Archive » Articles of Interest wrote on March 31st, 2008 at 1:20 am:

[...] response to the recommendations made by a commissioned report, the UK will require all packaged games to display BBFC ratings in addition to the now-standard PEGI ratings. The BBFC ratings are described as [...]

Reader Comments

Derek Licciardi said on March 27th, 2008 at 10:28 am:
This is a big blow to the games industry if it stay in tact. Consider Dell installing filtering junk software on all PCs to comply with the law. Then consider that same computer allowing access to something objectionable. Dell could be dragged through the courts defending itself under the notion that it put the filtering software on there, so it should work. I mean, the tobacco companies put the Nicotine in the cigarette so if you smoke it and die, it’s clearly the tobacco company’s fault. I’m exagerating to get my point across that this sets up the games industry, games retailers and PC manufactures for lots of negligence claims.

How does Second Life react to this? They don’t even control the pipeline for content yet they clearly operate a game. This is a blow to them as well. In the US this would immediately be struck down as unconstitutional and laws like it have been struck down in a dozen or so states so far. In the UK, with it’s far more liberal population base, I’m not sure this gets defeated in any real way. The mere thought of this type of law makes me shiver because you know some Democrat in the US is going to try and buy votes this year by saying “Look it works in the UK…”
DM said on March 27th, 2008 at 10:37 am:
I agree with the above poster in everything but the “Democrat” part. Practically any politician would use this to get votes. And that’s what makes it particularly frightening, because it’s something many people on both sides of “the aisle” might agree upon.
Derek Licciardi said on March 27th, 2008 at 10:39 am:
I’ll retract the jab at the Democrats.
Ben Sizer said on March 27th, 2008 at 10:49 am:
To be honest, I’m not all that concerned about this. Most of it is just extending the rules for films to games. Self-regulation has been shown to be pretty toothless over here, and having the current dual system where the BBFC rate certain products but not others adds to the buyer’s confusion.

The only bit I would be concerned about is the filtering software aspect, and even that is qualified with ’should’ and ’sold for home use’.

Derek, the liability issue you talk of wouldn’t apply. The report specifies ‘kitemarked parental control software’, where ‘kitemarked’ means the British Standards Institute signs it off as fit-for-purpose. Dell or whoever would fulfil their obligations merely by ensuring the software they supply has that approval, which is trivial to verify.
Peter S. said on March 27th, 2008 at 11:27 am:
Minor point of contention: the tobacco companies were, essentially, misrepresenting what nicotine does. Among other things. They really shouldn’t be used as an example of a poor argument of culpability/fault.

Though, the overall point made is still parsable, so no worries.
Derek Licciardi said on March 27th, 2008 at 12:22 pm:
So the UK Government is assuming the liability through the “kitemarked” process. Fair enough. I still do not like the idea of government regulated ratings for content. Movies, music and books do not have government rating systems in place in the US and this point is raised all the time to defeat the “witch hunts” that go on with 90% of the video game laws introduced into the US courts. (The underlying issue here is that the Video Game industry doesn’t tithe to the politicians nearly as much as the MPAA and RIAA do so they are easy targets for these types of laws in an effort to buy votes during an election year.) Selling a minor a rated R movie does not result in a fine to the retailer nor does letting a minor into a rated R movie at a theater. These systems are voluntary and despite what the sensationalistic media will tell you, they work properly (NOTE: I did not say perfectly.) without government regulation.

I’m petrified that this will break down when a politician, Democrat or Republican, picks up on the new “successfully passed” video game law in the UK and tries to force it into law in the US. In the US we put more weight on personal freedoms as a whole and we’ve wasted enough time and tax dollars on law suits that time and time again are proven to be unconstituitional. California Illinois Michigan

There’s more but you get my point. I’m wondering why UK residents wouldn’t be up in arms about where the money for this legislation would come from. More games to rate, companies to fine, eventual law suits to handle… The author of the study even tries to claim that the rules are enabling a parent to be a parent. They’re not. They’re setting up government run facilities supported by tax dollars to do the parenting for you. Do you really think the BBFC ratings will be any more informative than the PEGI ratings? How is an organization with a skewed view on what video games mean to public health better at rating games than PEGI? How is this government organization not susceptible to fraud or manipulation by a politician in the UK government? There’s a million reasons why laws like this don’t hold the mustard in the US. I wish it were that way in the UK as well but I guess I may never understand why.
Ilsoap said on March 27th, 2008 at 12:52 pm:
It’s kind of funny, actually. The media suggests that video games might have harmful effects, the game industry responds with “No way”, and the consumer assumes that this means that all video games are suitable for everyone and buys little Jimmy a game rated for mature content. Then the consumer is horrified that their console could have such filth on it, the media reports it, and the politicians get up in arms.

Perhaps we should actually admit what we’ve subliminally known about other forms of media like magazines, books, and movies: some content is not suitable for everyone. Some things are actually harmful for the wrong group of people.

I know this post doesn’t really solve anything… I just feel like we could have saved ourselves some trouble with media perception.
Jon K said on March 27th, 2008 at 1:30 pm:
I think this is an issue that depends very much on your starting point.

Videogames containing violence or sex already get BBFC-rated (typically getting 15/18 ratings). All films are already rated by the BBFC, and the sale of a film or BBFC-rated game to anyone under age is already illegal here. The only strict age-based rating that this change would introduce is the “12″ rating. U/PG films do not have an age restriction.

I firmly believe that games and films should be treated equally.

In the UK, if a DVD case doesn’t have the red age circle (12,15,18) or U/PG triangles, most people will assume it’s fine for everyone. It’s the rating system we’re used to, and most people see the European PEGI ratings as “guidance” similar to the recommended ages on a box of Monopoly. Frankly, they get ignored.

I’ve thought about this a lot, and I approve of legal restrictions on the age of purchase of such products for anyone up to 18 years old. This gives parents/guardians the freedom to buy games for their children, but reduces the chance of the kids themselves getting hold of inappropriate games without the parents’ knowledge. It also introduces a responsibility on the part of the retailer that is on a par with the sale of alcohol or cigarettes — if you’re under age, you will get asked for ID.

The BBFC does a fantastic job. Should this recommendation be implemented, they will have a hell of a lot more work to do, but I do not personally find them in any way inferior to PEGI… I follow their ratings quite closely, and I actually trust them MORE, as does the average UK consumer. That is why I am willing to be taxed more for this.

As long as they don’t overstep the mark and propose outright censorship (as in the case of Manhunt 2) I will defend the BBFC to the end.

The other issues:

Mandatory parental controls on consoles? Simple technology, already implemented — fair enough.

User-created-content websites can voluntarily commit to a “code of practice” on the timeline for content removal of “harmful” stuff? Voluntary, you say? Fine.

Filtering software installed by default on all new PCs and with all Net connections? OK… not so keen on this one… mostly because the body controlling the filtering is undefined.

Search engines to have filtering and child safety info on their front pages? Fair enough, especially the child safety issue.
Richard Bartle said on March 27th, 2008 at 3:32 pm:
I was phoned by my local radio station this morning to give my take on this.

What I told them was that it’s basically a good report.

Tanya Byron was deliberately chosen, because of her high profile as a child psychologist, in the expectation that she’d come up with a heavily anti-games report that would give the government permission to unload on computer games (which they believe is a vote-winner). However, it turned out that Dr Byron actually did her job properly, and listened to the games industry as well as to academics and parents. She dismissed the “games cause harm” argument almost out of hand, for example; computer games are a fact of life.

The reason she wants BBFC ratings on games is because people don’t understand PEGI. Now you may think that’s strange: how can someone misunderstand what 12+ means? Well, you know when you buy a board game and it says on it “suitable for children aged 8 years and over”, but your little Johnny is good at games so he should be able to play it? That’s how many parents see PEGI: they think 15+ means it’s such a hard game than only 15-year-olds and older will be able to play it. However, since their 12-year-old is good at games, he should be able to cope with its difficulty. The switch to a BBFC rating (which we already have for 15 and 18 games) is because people know that means unsuitable content, rather than difficulty level.

Personally, I’m fine with using BBFC ratings, and until the Manhunt 2 fiasco would have defended the organisation resolutely. Now, though, I’m less confident in them. If PEGI ratings came with the BBFC stamp without having to pass through the BBFC’s hands, that might be a compromise; after all, it would be odd to see a game with a 12 rating from the BBFC and a 15+ from PEGI, or vice versa.

The main recommendation of the Byron report is the setting up of some committee with wide-ranging powers reporting direct to the Prime Minister. I think Dr Byron may be overplaying her hand here, but you never know… She also wants millions spent on educating parents and children about games and Internet safety, which the government is very keen to do – at the games industry’s expense. Why they can’t teach the children as part of their ICT or CMP lessons is not apparent.

It’s only a transient problem, of course. 20 years from now, the PM will have played computer games in his or her youth and will not regard them as a danger to the country’s morals. If we’re really lucky, they’ll have learned more about the world from them, too.

Richard
Richard Bartle said on March 27th, 2008 at 3:38 pm:
Derek Licciardi>How is this government organization not susceptible to fraud or manipulation by a politician in the UK government?

From a UK perspective, this is a “does not compute” question. Other developed countries have problems with politicians trying to manipulate independent authorities?

Weird.

Richard
Andrew Armstrong said on March 27th, 2008 at 5:12 pm:
It is rediculous the BBFC, a proven (film run!) censor is given more powers. However, it’s more problematic the stupid laws regarding the internet, nevermind the addition of a 12 certificate.

Sigh.

Sure, the BBFC is meant to be independent – but as shown, it goes into courts to get something banned.

Sigh.

I wish I was in a permanent residence which didn’t have a bloody party whip, and I’d talk to my MP. Hmm. My options are limited complaining about this, which is annoying.
Derek Licciardi said on March 27th, 2008 at 5:56 pm:
I don’t pretend to know what it’s like to live in the UK and live under its idea of what a proper separation is between industry and government which is why I guess I’ll never understand how UK residents can sit by while these type of laws are passed. It does surprise me that the couple of you posting here are essentially in favor of the legislation. I figured that being from the games industry and seeing the shot down legislation that has happened in the US that more would be against this type of regulation simply on principle. *shrug* It’s the UK and whatever its citizens want to live by I’ll respect cause its not my business.

Anyway, the only thing I can say is that a law like that won’t fly here in the US. If it does get off the ground it would be shot down very quickly.
Michael Chui said on March 27th, 2008 at 8:14 pm:
Anyway, the only thing I can say is that a law like that won’t fly here in the US. If it does get off the ground it would be shot down very quickly.

In high school, I said that Bush wouldn’t get elected because the American people would never allow a dynasty.

I think your prediction has as much weight.
Woop said on March 28th, 2008 at 2:33 am:
“In the US we put more weight on personal freedoms as a whole” – Derek Licciardi

Actually I’ve always felt, growing up, that the UK was all about personal freedom. You do get the feeling that is starting to erode to some degree nowadays, but I wouldn’t say we were in doom and gloom territory yet.

For me there is nothing wrong with games being clearly rated in a way that the average parent understands. If we have a problem now, and if the reports recommendations can resolve these, then fine.

I know it is an easy ‘get out’ but there has to be some question over how many parents take an in interest in what games their kids are playing. Don’t spin that and think I’m suggesting all (or most) parents don’t care, but some of this does seem to fall into the alarmist laps of parents who don’t pay any interest (but would they look at better ratings even if they were there?). Richard suggested the government see this as an election issue. If it is then it highlights how misunderstood gaming is and how much the British public like to vote on matters they are not that well informed on (well, that’s probably true of much of any electorate).

Richard also suggested that it is very much a transient problem. Probably/hopefully right.

I saw TIGA had responded to the report by generally backing the report but said “the Government must not burden the games industry alone with the cost of executing an information campaign about the ratings system for games.”
len said on March 28th, 2008 at 6:19 am:
Bartle: “Other developed countries have problems with politicians trying to manipulate independent authorities?”

That’s the best troll I’ve seen in weeks. Since when did they ever stop? But it’s always an embarassment to appoint a blue-ribbon committee to do a hatchet job and then they simply won’t do it. See “LaGuardia” Committee Report (New York, 1944) and. President Richard Nixon’s Blue Ribbon “Shafer” Commission (1972).

Some games do harm some people. Some don’t. Coupling strength can’t be measured reliably over a heterogeneous population. The problem of rating systems is deciding in advance the level of statistical precision required to justify applying the rating to a given game for a given demographic. It is useful to study the norms and affordances of games that can be shown to have a harmful effect and reduce the instances of those but you’ll never get a 100% coverage without a minority opinion because you’ll never be able to isolate other sources affecting the outcomes.

So the game industry will resort to the same tactics as the tobacco industry as learned from the 1950s automotive industry. Eventually a consensus will form around some kind of safety standard and ratings system which seems to be the way the Brits are heading the US will follow.
Derek Licciardi said on March 28th, 2008 at 7:40 am:
@Michael: Follow the links in post 6. There’s too much precedent already set in laws throughout the US for a law like this to not be shot down in the US. It would be a very significant achievement for a law to survive given the growing mountain of lawsuits and challenges to previously introduced bills that have resulted in these types of laws being defeated.
Richard Bartle said on March 28th, 2008 at 8:20 pm:
Derek Licciardi>It does surprise me that the couple of you posting here are essentially in favor of the legislation.

Oh, we’re full of surprises in the UK!

The fact of the matter is that some parents do misunderstand PEGI labels and are clueless about games, and it really would help them if labels were the full BBFC range. It wouldn’t hurt games a great deal as we already have BBFC ratings for 15 and 18; adding in the others would just cement what’s already there.

The reason I’m broadly in favour of this is that although I’m very much in favour of giving game designers the freedom they need to practice their art, this only applies for adults; all bets are off when it comes to children. If we have an 18 rating, that suggests we’re allowed to make games for people aged 18 and above, ie. with adult themes and content.

I was impressed with the BBFC’s attitude until recently; their handling of the Hot Coffee fiasco was exactly how it should have been. However, they made a mistake when they banned Manhunt 2, a decision that the courts overturned; this hurt their credibility. Hopefully, they’ll learn from it.

Richard
Morgan Ramsay said on March 28th, 2008 at 8:42 pm:
Raph wrote:

fines or prison time for selling inappropriate games to underage kids

The Times wrote:

It will also recommend that retailers who sell video games to anyone under the age rating on the box should face a hefty fine or up to five years in prison, The Times has learnt.

Fines I can understand. But incarceration? Incarceration for egregious sales to underage kids would be more reasonable.

Dr. Tanya Byron said:

We have to make child digital safety a priority. If you are under 18, you should not be able to buy an “18″ game and if you are under 12, you should not be able to buy a “12″ game.

I will always have a problem with arbitrary age restrictions. What if you’re 17? Or 11? Or less than a year away from the arbitrary age of right? There has to be a better way to determine whether certain content is appropriate on a case-by-case basis. Age restrictions just seem so… barbaric.
Michael Chui said on March 28th, 2008 at 11:38 pm:
Age restrictions just seem so… barbaric.

The word you’re looking for is “convenient”. Or perhaps… “mass-produced”.
Rick said on March 29th, 2008 at 5:15 am:
Morgan Ramsay wrote:

There has to be a better way to determine whether certain content is appropriate on a case-by-case basis.

I’m sure there is a better way. When it comes making laws for an entire population, though, sometimes you have to choose the simplest and most cost-effective solution. Who’s going to design, administer, evaluate, and update the better method for judging maturity? In a perfect world, I’d say parents, but it’s not a perfect world. It’s easy to tell if a person is 18 or not. And yes, that does mean some mature, thoughtful, people might have to wait a little longer to legally purchase a game, but that seems less onerous than the testing a “better way” would likely require.
Adrian Lopez said on March 29th, 2008 at 8:29 am:
The reason I’m broadly in favour of this is that although I’m very much in favour of giving game designers the freedom they need to practice their art, this only applies for adults; all bets are off when it comes to children. If we have an 18 rating, that suggests we’re allowed to make games for people aged 18 and above, ie. with adult themes and content.

Except that game developers don’t quite have the freedom to practice their art, because their games must be approved by the BBFC before they can be sold in shops. The law is regulating adults in the name of protecting children from what are ultimately imaginary harms.

I can’t stand government censorship, and I think it’s sad that governments can still get away with this sort of thing.
Adrian Lopez said on March 29th, 2008 at 8:32 am:
It’s easy to tell if a person is 18 or not. And yes, that does mean some mature, thoughtful, people might have to wait a little longer to legally purchase a game, but that seems less onerous than the testing a “better way” would likely require.

Why regulate games at all? It’s an overly restrictive solution to false needs.
Derek Licciardi said on March 29th, 2008 at 10:01 am:
Richard,

Does the UK fine and incarcerate movie theater owners for letting someone who is 17 into an 18 plus movie? If so then this is a fundamental difference between how ratings work in the US versus the UK. In the US the system is voluntary and most argue that if you let movies run under a voluntary system then games should not be held to any different of a standard. As I’ve shown in post 6 though, this does not stop politicians from trying to win votes by using games regulation as a talking point. If the UK already criminalizes the offense and your citizens are ok with that then as much as I disagree with the idea, I can’t come out and tell you that your wrong. I would however, explain the acceptance of this style of regulation as a difference in cultures between the US and the UK.

Raph, I typed this from my Treo so the new software works great from a mobile phone.
Michelle D'israeli said on March 29th, 2008 at 11:41 am:
Hopefully most readers here are aware of the cultural differences at play between Europe and United States style systems. Europe has always been more in favour of governmental support and regulation, and less trusting of industry to self-regulate itself effectively. The BBFC within the UK regulates all film and DVD releases, and is a highly understood system. On the other hand, however, it is typically enforced sensibly, and parents are more than willing to make their own judgements.

The Pegi system really is far too similar to the “recommended from” styles, especially since it will say such things as “3+” (sim city 4 rush hour, would you believe…), rather than using the familiar rating systems.

The BBC’s coverage of the report really surprised me. Tanya Byron, in the video interview, seemed to really understand games.

The biggest problem that she identified was educating parents. Due to the unique nature of online environments this was the only possible measure she could suggest for dealing with potential issues in such spaces. Sadly this needs to also go hand in hand with re-educating parents that computers and televisions are not magic entertainment boxes to leave your children alone in front of – something which is a wider spread problem by far, and the primary driving force of parental fears (you can’t fear something as much when it is something you yourself understand).

What does concern me however is the increased importance of the BBFC. Despite their claims that they are able to handle any increase in throughput, it is the BBFC which significantly slows down the UK release of DVDs (in particular material like Japanese animation), and it is a costly process. I would have liked to have seen suggested partnerships with PEGI to speed up the process, ensure uniformity and reduce costs.
Morgan Ramsay said on March 29th, 2008 at 12:53 pm:
Rick wrote:

When it comes making laws for an entire population, though, sometimes you have to choose the simplest and most cost-effective solution. Who’s going to design, administer, evaluate, and update the better method for judging maturity?

In a perfect world, I’d say parents, but it’s not a perfect world.

In a perfect world, parents would always know best. As you said, it’s not a perfect world. I think legally empowering parents to determine whether their children are mature enough as individuals to handle certain content would simply be irresponsible. Parents are people, too, and they have their own agendas, their own good intentions, and own philosophies about life. I disapprove of any third-party controlling influence over developing minds.

No, I was thinking of something more scientific, computerized, and individual-driven. The simplest and most cost-effective solution would actually be to remove age restrictions and let people—because that’s what teens and preteens are!—make their own decisions about what products to purchase, what content to experience. Freedom, however, would be too radical to advocate, so I was thinking more along the lines of some sort of identification/maturity-grading system for teens and below.
Prokofy Neva said on March 29th, 2008 at 10:44 pm:
>that would give the government permission to unload on computer games (which they believe is a vote-winner

What’s wrong with this very biased and cynical and pro-game stance (even with the head-pat on the lady for “doing her job” etc.) is that it makes it seems that a government (a government elected by the people for the people) is somehow only concerned with “getting votes” in some crass way, and is only going to take on the subject of games “to be a crowd pleaser” and “get votes”.

The implication is that it lies, is corrupt, scarifies people, spreads FUD, blah blah.

But…what if a government is in fact basically fulfilling its duty here? Preventing harm from coming to its citizen? And if this is attractive, and finds resonance, it’s not because people are silly gooses who didn’t play games in their youth (!) but because they are concerned about the huge number of hours their kids (and their fellow adults!) spend on games, and worry about what kind of toll it may be making on them.

That’s a legitimate concern, and one you can’t just dismiss away as FUD, craven and corrupt vote-grabbing, blah blah.

See, it’s that sort of tendentious comment that I find discredits the proponents of games every single time. It makes them completely dishonest brokers of any kind of public discussion of their product.
Derek Licciardi said on March 30th, 2008 at 9:15 am:
Except it’s all too recurring for any number of politicians to use figt terrorism and save the children to drum up support for any number of bills. In fact it is the sheer frequency of these occurences that drives many including myself to believe the cries are disingenuous. The child who cried wolf comes to mind only with the secrecy and history of shady dealings in government the child crying wolf can’t be just an innocent child that didn’t know better.
Michelle D'israeli said on March 30th, 2008 at 9:26 pm:
Prokofy,

I have to say, I find all the international discussion of the nature of the investigation and the government’s ‘real’ reasons to be quite silly indeed. I know for a fact that although I can attempt to follow some aspects of the US government via online coverage, I simply don’t have the full background information and knowledge needed to proclaim myself an expert and to have the ‘truth’ about what is happening.

It must be said, of course, that you had a very valid point – that far too many people have been talking about how this was “vote grabbing” and few people mentioned any serious aspects to the work.

Truth be told, even in this country we don’t have a clue as to the real intent of the PM in commissioning the report. The news coverage of the Prime Minister’s request universally focused on the tabloid take of the investigation (“”Computer Games to Get Health Warnings” led The Times, traditionally considered a broadsheet, on its front page).

Gordon Brown is still considered new in office by the British public, and he has yet to actually be approved by a general election. It is strongly believed that Gordon Brown is preparing to announce a general election for when he will have the most support. We are barely out of the era of Tony Blair, a man who had spin doctors working for him, carefully manipulated the press and public, and is widely believed to have spun his way into a war. The whole Dr Kelly affair leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Over a million British people signed a petition against road charges, and the government simply said they didn’t care (I should note that this was an appalling idea for a scheme that would fail to make any real difference aside from an tasty income).

Furthermore, to anyone educated it is clear that the government will happily take action that sounds good on paper but only serves to cause harm in the long run. The NHS is a wonderful idea, but successive governments have repeatedly toyed with it as a vote-grabber that it is now about to collapse according to those doctors and nurses I have spoken with.

The ultimate truth here is that it does not matter if it addressed a serious concern or not, or if it was not intended as first and foremost a publicity exercise. The British public are sceptical of any government action, and the government too savvy to not understand the publicity aspects.

The official launch press event was held at a gaming centre, with children playing computer games spread around for the press to see. Yes, this also helped to reinforce parts of the report, but it also made for a wonderful press opportunity. Was that really by accident, not design? And politicians love to be around children having fun, of course.

The tabloid and commuter papers, however, give us a more sensible point of view. I’ve yet to determine where the Daily Mail placed its coverage, but in general the story was relegated to page two. Only the major broadsheets saw fit to use such highbrow content on the front page, and one even discussed the divide between the tech-savvy children and their parents. Ultimately, it was a slow news day and hence got coverage. Outside of young people, the gaming community, and some parents, it wasn’t of that much importance to most people. Heck, even the report itself is considered to be relatively light and exactly what would have been expected of an unbiased report. It’s pretty dull, really.

The doubts over the government’s true intentions have, as you can see, little to do with ‘dishonesty’ by ‘proponents of games’, but more to do with the current political situation over here.
Rik said on March 30th, 2008 at 11:14 pm:
Either all forms of entertainment/information that a minor might purchase/acquire should be labeled or none of them should, and I see no reason why those labels shouldn’t be consistent. (Well, OK, books aren’t going to say “Online Interactions Not Rated”.) I’m actually against the government (mine, or the one in the UK) being the one doing the labeling.
Andrew Crystall said on March 31st, 2008 at 12:04 pm:
I (at least when I’m working, hi my last employers who still owe me for jan!) am in the games industry in the UK.

The report is, afaik, fair and balanced and has not delivered on the fears of many people of a crackdown. The reporting of increased penalties for sales underage is downright wrong, and the recomendations on age basically mean that 12 will join the existing 15 and 18 ratings.

Current consoles (except some handhelds…) allready *have* parental controls, and including a trial of some parental control software in the software package (again, most allready do) for a PC is hardly a disaster.

Games sold and distributed only online do not fall within the remit of the BBFC, incidentally, and there’s no suggestion that ratings will be applied there – this was the major concern of small online game makers and it looks very much like nothing is going to change there.
Swift Voyager said on April 1st, 2008 at 11:48 am:
Richard B said: “It’s only a transient problem, of course. 20 years from now, the PM will have played computer games in his or her youth and will not regard them as a danger to the country’s morals. If we’re really lucky, they’ll have learned more about the world from them, too.”

If we’re REALLY REALLY lucky then the world leaders will have friends from all around the world. Heck, how cool would it be if it turned out that half the members of the United Nations all play the same MMO?

/me imagines a LAN party after the UN meetings.

Okay, so that seems a little crazy and silly, but you never know. Right now, it’s possible that no single member of the US Senate has ever played an MMO. In 40 years it’s possible that all male US Senators will have active accounts on at least one MMO. Heck, my 12 year old daughter and all her friends play Club Penquin and Webkinz all the time, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the female Senators have MMO accounts in 50 years.
Derek Licciardi said on April 1st, 2008 at 1:02 pm:
Swift Voyager

The gist of what you’re saying is understood but you have to realize that there are is a significantly higher ratio of men to women in MMOs than in other game genres. There’s no need to split politicians into groups regarding gender for the statement to work. Eventually we all hope politicians “get-it”. If this happens as a result of attrition in the ranks of government then so be it. For many of us it can’t happen soon enough.

There’s a here and now solution to it all and that’s to get on board with a PAC that donates heavily to shut politicians up or at least give them pause before they run off on some ill-fated rant about how we’re all going to hell in a handbasket over Grand Theft Auto.

ps I’m preordered. Are you? I even splurged on the handbasket. RMT for the win! The trip to hell came with the preorder as a bundled pack-in and I can’t wait to get on board.
Derek Licciardi said on April 1st, 2008 at 1:03 pm:
damn it I mean women to men and “is are” should be “is”.