I am confused, my copy of Mass Effect already has a 12 certificate on the box. So is she recommending something we already have?

Hey, be thankful. She didn't mention the interactive raep.

Seriously though; it seems you poms got off pretty lightly here. I even agree with the bit about educating parents.

Once again, I am in agreement with all this. Who cares how the yawnsome media-at-large "label" this? The point is that this is a positive move to strengthen respectable relations for the games industry with both the transitional UK government and the public, and also the logical way to mark ratings on boxes, with symbols that parents actually recognise. Combine this with some ad spend on parental awareness of ratings, and I see this as becoming an issue settled once and for all. If as a third goal we just ensure that '18' titles are marketed responsibly, then our whole industry can get on with pursuing its creative visions, rather than wasting energy EVERY SINGLE DAY explaining the rudiments to those who fear an entertainment media which they did not personally grow up with. I am sure my kids will have realistic and tangible holographic sex servants they download from the interzen in 10 years, and I will probably be scared for them too.

"I am sure my kids will have realistic and tangible holographic sex servants they download from the interzen in 10 years, and I will probably be scared for them too."

And I'm sure there will be hippies with banners in this glorious future too: "Holograms are people too!"

Other than that the future looks good.

On a serious note though I have to agree that its unrealistic not to expect the morally panicked parents (and others) to worry/complain about violent videogames.

We do need to meet mid-way on the issue. Whatever my personal opinion on the effects of videogames on and their suitability for younger audiences I must admit that if strict age limits are what it takes to bury this then I'm all for them.

The point is, yet again the parents are passing the buck. It's about time they stood up and took some responsibility. How many parents are told in shops that this game 'is unsuitable for young children' - only for the parents to say 'but my son wants it' and buys it anyway.

This blame someone else culture is going too far now.

Children are buying SAW, DDD, Texas Chainsaw!!!!
Do not deny it!
Please somebody think of the bloody children

*5 I agree, its all-right retailers taking the rap but parents have a responsibility as to what their kids are doing as well.

It also seems to me that this would be a fantastic opportunity for retailers to make their stores more parent friendly.

I agree with 5 and 7. This report just doesn't place the emphasis it should have on the problem of parents buying games for minors. It should have recommended that a similar system to alcohol restrictions came into force whereby if someone older than the rating buys it for a minor, they will get a mandatory fine of £2,500 and face 6 months imprisonment; regardless of whether they are a relative or not.

This is not the shops or industry's problem in so far as they can't enforce something that isn't a legal requirement.

There seem to be two arguments here; one about parental responsibility and one about retailer obligation, all overlaid with the common moral panic about "protecting children".

Whatever Tanya Byron, the Government, the press or we want, some parents will not care about what their children play or do and some retailers will not care how they make their money. The question of how far we legislate to make them comply with social norms is very similar to the larger question of how far we as a society are prepared to go to protect ourselves from psychopathic behaviour.

Setting aside the already complex difference between morally reprehensible and actually harmful behaviour, and the further difference between thinking about such behaviours and acting them out, the traditional means of political control from fictional inducement to unacceptable social behaviour are inducement, censorship and legislative controls. Inducement has been severely watered down over the last hundred years by the loss of state control of the media and the explosion of social viewpoints in print, recorded and online media. Censorship has been proved over and over to be a crude and divisive tool that can quickly lead to far wider repression of thought than intended. Censorship also tends to reflect the trailing edge of social (and political) norms, applying the brakes in a way that is resented and derided by the many, backfiring on the censors – witness the efforts of Lord Longford and Mary Whitehouse in the 1970s and 1980s, both once much-respected figures whose public standing was degraded by their efforts to censor for the public good. Direct legislation inherits similar weaknesses from censorship, with the proviso that much modern legislation appears to be cluttering the statute books with "last resort" laws intended to intimidate rather than to be enforceable: mobile phone use in cars is a good example; well-intentioned legislation enforced so ineffectively as to be laughable. It can also be unintentionally dangerous; existing “child abuse” legislation and the proposed law on “extreme sexual violence” penalises for downloading or owning suspect content, so already assuming that “thoughtcrime” inevitably leads to acting out.

Setting aside the hysterics of the redtops – and it is shameful to see "The Times" playing the redtop game on this – the underlying issue would seem to be one of acceptable social risk. How do we know what proportion of children are susceptible to psychological damage from fictional representations of morally reprehensible behaviour in games? How do we know what proportion of these children will go on to act those out in real life in such a way as to hurt others? And then how does that figure compare as a risk to society with other social risks; say food poisoning, car accidents or crimes promoted by plain greed?

Until such studies are made - and they are clearly difficult ones to set up and achieve meaningful results from - then this will continue to be a political and media punching glove for the film, television, book and games industries. We will always be faced with the hysterical “if only one child is saved…” argument, and that kind of vague pedantry is always less easy to counter, but reasoned arguments still need to be made. Perhaps the creative industries together should be raising a fund to do their own research? Will Rockstar and EA put their hands in their pockets?

Or are we all afraid of the results?

whilst I'm in agreement that games at retail should have an enforced age restriction, this doesn't address the issue of irresponsible parents who are quite happy for their kids to play any age limit game whether it's their own or bought for their kids.

Secondly, 5 years in prison !! So if your rob or rape in the UK, you can get away with 2 years or less, but sell RE5 to a 15 year old, and throw away the key !

er, I'm with Brooks on this one, I have Mass Effect with a 12 certificate on the front, I have Bioshock with an 18 certificate on the front, I have Orange Box with a 15 certificate on the front....

I'm confused?!

There were planty of times when I was younger and I tried to buy videogames I wasnt old enough to buy and was refused the sale.

Doesnt the XBOX360 have parental locking options?

Is this all about a new '12' certificate?

Can someone please tell me what this is all about?

I work in a video games store, and I can confidently say that sticking different ratings on things just isn't going to work. I've worked in video games retail for around six years now, and I can't even begin to imagine how many times I've refused a sale to a minor (mainly on the GTA titles funnily enough) only for their parent to come up and attempt to buy it for them. I *always* explain to the parents that the game really isn't suitable for 12 year old Johnny there, I even go so far as to explain exactly what the game contains. Yet, the answer usually is "Oh he'll be fine, he's played it before". Or, as once in Doncaster, "It's nothing he doesn't see at school". I was pretty dumbfounded by that one, wondering how on earth GTA San Andreas compared to being at school!!!

The short of it is, no matter what age rating you stick on the front of the box, kids are going to get hold of it anyway, whether it be an older brother, sister, irresponsible parent, etc. And sticking an 18 rating on the front just makes them want the game even more!! Jeez, I remember how many hundreds of copies of 50 Cent Bulletproof I sold, and it certainly can't be because of it's stunning gameplay :/

Rather than putting the blame on the retailer when little Johnny gets his brand new copy of GTA IV, more focus should be made on the parents that are allowing him to have it. There's nothing we can do if a 40 year old comes in to buy an 18 rating game without proof that they're buying it for someone under age.

@12

Agreed - this does appear to have been another government exercise in nothingness. I know it's a tiresome cliche, but I do wonder how much "tax payers money" was spent on hiring a TV celeb to knock up this report that doesn't seem to actually reveal anything new or anything of interest. I always feared that getting someone with no prior connection to the games industry to conduct this review would result in something along these lines. I am struggling to see any worthwhile conclusions here.

There isn't a problem that needs fixing. There is no evidence whatsoever that any action is needed.
This is a waste of taxpayers money and another example of our blame culture.
We are now going to get further repression of the gaming industry brought upon us by self serving journalists and politicians who don't know what they are talking about.

I'd suggest we all wait for the report to be available and read it in full. Everyone's still second-guessing the contents. Using tabloid/broadsheet articles as a basis for informed discussions about the report is pretty pointless imho.

re: 12, 15 and 18 ratings - the point is, it's not mandatory for all games to apply for BBFC ratings at present. The Byron report _could/maybe/might_ change that.

@14

What are you talking about 'further repression of the gaming industry'? The only game that has been slightly restricted is Manhunt 2 the only other game ever to not be allowed certification was Carmaggedon.

#16
Repression by the Daily Mail continuously demonising games.
Repression by Gordon Brown saying they cause knife crime. Ot Keith Vaz going on about non existent game rape in the house of commons.

These ignorant self publicists do far more harm than good.

I have written this whole issue up in my blog Bruceongames.

I agree with the majority of posters here, all games should be rated (and sale should be restricted by law) but we still need to educate parents about the video game industry. I don't understand what Byron has found out that is actually new, we already have a 12 certificate, we already have fines and possible imprisonment for selling rated products to minors but why should selling a game to a minor be worse than selling cigarettes, alcohol or a film to a minor?

I used to work in retail and a lot of parents don't seem to care that 'little Jimmy' can shoot people, stab people, run people over but mention sex and most will never let their child touch the game. I know you only see a car bouncing up and down but what is wrong with our society when having sex is worse than killing someone?

@17

Yes people call us bad names but the majority of sensible people know what they say to be a load of ******. When the film industry was growing up they had this kind of censorship but people realised that most people can make their own decisions and aren't forced into it by something they play or watch or even read.

I... don't get it. We already HAVE legal penalties. We're warned about games as much as we're warned about cigarettes. Being a member of a retail staff myself, I already know that we get an £80 fine on the spot. Well, I say we, when I mean whoever sold it.

If they just made PEGI legally binding, we wouldn't have this problem at all. Movie style ratings will just lead to all sorts of clashes with 'BUT THESE GUYS ONLY GOT A 15!'. At least PEGI gives a reason at first glance.

@13

The review cost at least a quarter of a million pounds.

@20

If you want PEGI to have legal standing speak to your MP.
The clue is in the name "pan european".

What is actually the point in changing the age rating system?!

Surely all games that are unsuitable for children, GTA (18), Manhunt (18), Condemned (18), Call of Duty 3 (15) etc

What is really the benefit of giving another age rating to other games?

Do we really need to be told that FIFA, Spyro, or Gran Turismo are universally suitable?!

http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/~buy-xanax-no-rx - xanax http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/~buy-tramadol-no-rx - tramadol http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/~buy-valium-online - valium http://cgi3.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=buy-ambien-online-without-prescription-buy-ambien-10mg-5mg - ambien http://cgi3.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=buy-xanax-online-buy-xanax-2mg-1mg - xanax http://cgi3.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=buy-fioricet-online-without-prescription-buy-fioricet-cod - fioricet http://connections.blackboard.com/people/50273d6fc2 - tamiflu http://tapestry.formos.com/wiki/display/~buy-tamiflu-winthout-prescription - tamiflu http://boinc.vanderbilt.edu/CSB/view_profile.php?userid=5324 - ambien http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/~ativan4r5r - ativan http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/~buy-ambien-without-prescription - ambien
mentioned tomkins door brag blindly alex busy