The attack on mature rated games grows dire in UK.
Video games will be forced to carry cigarette-style health warnings under proposals to protect children from unsuitable digital material. Labels: UK, video games, youth news
The report, commissioned by the Prime Minister in response to a growing moral panic about video games, will conclude that they can harm the development of children’s beliefs and value systems and desensitise them to violence. 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.
The report, written by Tanya Byron, the clinical psychologist and television parenting guru, is also expected to address the dangers of children’s use of the internet.
“Parents are afraid to let their children out,” she said. “So they keep them at home, but allow them to take risks online.”
She will call for a massive campaign to educate parents, teachers and childcarers about how to ensure that children get maximum benefit from the digital world without being exposed to its dangers.
This will include a drive for greater awareness of inappropriate content such as pornography. Parents will be encouraged to monitor children’s online use and keep computers in living rooms rather than bedrooms. Dr Byron, a Times columnist who has two children aged 9 and 12, said that video and online games could have enormous benefits “in terms of learning and development”, but that there was too little awareness among parents about the associated risks they posed and how to manage those risks.
“You would not send your child to the pool without teaching them to swim, so why would you let them online without teaching them to manage the risks?” she said.
Dr Byron said that the current classification system for video games was confusing and not tough enough. At present only games showing sex or gross violence require an age rating from the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) and fewer than 2 per cent of titles carry an 18-certificate.
The alternative Pan-European Game Information system is considered to be ineffective because it uses symbols that are confusing and distributors effectively chose their own ratings by filling in a form about their product.
Dr Byron wants a single statutory classification system. Ratings would have to be displayed prominently on all packaging materials, like health warnings on cigarettes, as well as on shop display cases.
“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,” she said. She also wants all games consoles to contain blocking mechanisms that would enable parents to prevent children playing unsuitable games on them.
(Ed note: There already are mechanisms on video games that can be used to prevent younglings from playing unsuitable games. There are already labels on all packaging and on displays. And while the ratings system is a bit screwy, of course the developers don't get to choose their own ratings. But jackoffs who don't actually understand the industry wouldn't know that would they?
How about this trade off though. The day they make it a crime to sell a game to a minor that is rated M for Mature should be the day that game companies stop the embargo on AO or Adult Only games.
Sounds fair, no?)
2 comments
I have to agree with pixie on this, people have no grasp on what is really going on. It's a parents responsibility, and just because the state feels differently means nothing.
As far as the damaging effects of violent video games on children, that is ALL b.s. they have absolutely no data that indicates that. Only tests on college students getting credit or money for participating in an experiment. Not an ideal testing group if think about it. And all the data points to nothing.
Then the normal response to the lack of data is a this "Well they determined violent games [doom I] caused Columbine didn't they?" Like hell they did, the media went on a rampage, and when it was determined that Kid 1 was clinically depressed, and Kid 2 was a psychopath (it's out there look it up) the media just pushed it under the rub. So no, not even situations with the actual events prove this.
Now to the "dangers of Pornography" have they even realized how pathetic their attack on that is? "Harm the development of children's beliefs and value systems" basically it's someone who want a bible state (no offense if you do, just stop reading) saying that it's bad.
What it comes down to is that the "YouTube" generation IS desensitized to a lot of the things that older generations think is terrible. Porn was once unspeakable, now there is rule 34. Violence was hunting dear, now it's killing virtual hell-spawn. Profanity was golly-jeee' now its ....
I assume the rant will actually mean something to reading it but if you just skipped over it, than at the very least read this. Parenting is the parents decision, and things like this will only create unnecessary problems.
I love your suggestion on the AO games pixie. It's right up there with getting the porn Industry to lead boycotts. It would work like a charm.
Zed!
By 
, at
Friday, March 28, 2008 11:11:00 AM
Now I agree with you on this but it is a silly comment by someone who has little or no idea what they are talking about. In Europe it was made law that all games had to have a rating system put on them about fifteen years ago. It is centrally controlled and is a white label on the bottom left side of the case bigger than then current red ones on films.
That may sound strange if you dont live in England but it has been there for years. This is ignored by both sellers and parents alike but they are there and have been there for a while.
This research was aparently conducted by a TV star and that more than likley means she created a group to look into this and so it is even less reliable than the what the Government might have done but this is what you get when the British Government hands something over to a group who probably went around Comunity and Focus Groups asking their questions.
So excusing my personal thoughts the recomendation was to change the white label to the film style red one and stop the sellers selling them to kids which should have been inforced in the first place.
The bit that gets my hoot is the fact that if the game met the 18 level it had to have it in red as well and since us British people have no forms of legal identification under the age of seventeen then how do they plan to stop you selling it. This is another smoking gag isant it??
Sorry I got the ID thing wrong because aparrently you can have a passport as ID but they do cost up to £100 and of course you are going to let you're kid roam around with that in their back pocket. Especially when they can leave the country at the age of fourteen. Although that might be a result for the rest of us!
So nice one Mr Brown hope that money you wasted on something we already have made you feel all the more important. Or was that because it was in the European Law and we arent following that now are we???
DainsLite
By , at
Saturday, March 29, 2008 1:58:00 PM
Email?... Permalink?