BBFC Review of legal age ratings of Video games in the UK

[Ivresse]

Hi everyone.

I was just wondering if GamePolitics and community were aware of this report by the British Board of Film Classification, which is responsible for the classification of legal age ratings of which films and video games can be sold to. BBFC ratings are normally reserved to games which are likely to contain certain content (Such as GTA, Manhunt and Gears of War), and as such if a rating is given, then the game cannot legally be sold to anyone under the age of that rating (e.g. 18, 15, 12), no excuses or exceptions.

Anyway, BBFC are organising a reworking of their rating system on video games later this year, and have published a report concerning video games and their effects on people. The report can be found here:

http://snipurl.com/1kxfy

Just wanted to know what gamers, including those in the UK and worldwide, thought about the topics discussed in this report.

[KN]

This was posted before, but what it really needed was it's own thread.

I still can't really understand why Spyro the Dragon and Crash ****ing Bandicoot were included, but I guess they were in the bargain bin.

[beemoh]

This was posted before, but what it really needed was it's own thread.

I still can't really understand why Spyro the Dragon and Crash ****ing Bandicoot were included, but I guess they were in the bargain bin.

The BBFC will give a rating to anything you give them so long as you pay the appropriate fees. For some obscure reason, the publishers of Spyro and Crash must have paid for a rating when they could have had a PEGI rating for free and get the same effect.

There was an interview with the BBFC in Edge shortly after this report came out, which contained the following gem:

EDGE: The way you look at games rather contrasts with mainstream media.
BBFC Rep: Well yes, that's because we play them.

[Ivresse]

The BBFC will give a rating to anything you give them so long as you pay the appropriate fees. For some obscure reason, the publishers of Spyro and Crash must have paid for a rating when they could have had a PEGI rating for free and get the same effect.



Actually, it wouldn't technically have the same effect. PEGI isn't a fully legal entity, it's more of a guideline that consumers and retailers can follow to display whether a game is suitable for each of the various age groups who play video games. If you sell a game to someone that is below the rating that PEGI states, you're technically not breaking the law and you aren't under any legal constraints because of it.

The BBFC system however IS a legal entity. If you sell a game to someone under the age rating that a BBFC certificate displays, then you ARE breaking the law and are therefore subject to a fine and possible imprisonment. If you have a legal certificate on your game rather than a PEGI one, then I'm guessing that you are displaying your legal and moral values and thus are more protected by the law when parents come along saying 'My 12 year old son played your game and now is a spawn of the devil!'

Besides, PEGI was only introduced in 2003, so some of the Spyro games and Crash didn't have that option available to them. I guess if you've got a BBFC rating already displayed on some of the games in the series, you might as well continue displaying that rating...

[beemoh]

Actually, it wouldn't technically have the same effect.

...

Besides, PEGI was only introduced in 2003, so some of the Spyro games and Crash didn't have that option available to them. I guess if you've got a BBFC rating already displayed on some of the games in the series, you might as well continue displaying that rating...

IIRC, Crash and Spyro both got "U" ratings, which you can sell to anybody, hence "same effect". And before PEGI, games were rated by ELSPA.

[Ivresse]

No-one really paid much attention to ELSPA ratings though, since they weren't considered 'official', and people often bought games regardless of what the ELSPA rating said. That's why the system was changed to PEGI.

[beemoh]

No-one really paid much attention to ELSPA ratings though, since they weren't considered 'official', and people often bought games regardless of what the ELSPA rating said. That's why the system was changed to PEGI.

And people often buy games regardless of what the BBFC or PEGI ratings say, so I'm afraid I'm not seeing your point.

[Ivresse]

My point is, that people grew up with BBFC ratings on videos etc. If they saw a U, or a PG, or an 18, then they knew what it meant, and retailers had to follow it, or risk imprisonment. So the BBFC ratings were more understood by parents than the ELSPA ratings.

Parents didn't really understand what ELSPA ratings said, thinking that if ELSPA said suitable for 3+, it was a game for kids aged 3+ and not for their 12year old, so never followed them, and thus never bought them. And retailers didn't think them official enough, and so sold them no matter what they said (And I worked in video game retail pre-PEGI, so I know some of the quirks of selling those things back then). ELSPA just never worked. BBFC however did work.

I think if anything, it's more a marketing ploy to pay for the BBFC rating rather than get a free PEGI or ELSPA rating. If a game had a big green triangle with 'U' on it, then parents knew that it meant that it was for general viewing, and knew the game was suitable for their kid, so they would buy it. And let's face it, if a kid sees a game and sees a big red 18 on it, of course they're gonna want it to satisfy their curiosity (kids are mentally ill that way...).