Slashdot Mirror
Australian R18 Games Rating Gets Gov't Support
dotarray writes "Even with the news last week that an Australian Government study found no conclusive link between video games and violence, it's still a little surprising that the federal Labor government has announced today that they support the move for an adult R18+ rating for video games in that country."
New Zealand always gets the censored Australian version of games, yet has the R18 rating for some.
I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
if they dont get the r18 rating in then they have to block anything over MA in the filter
which includes all journalism about any games that dont get ratings approval
its not a bad thing it is a really good thing (and about time).
The R18+ rating requires unanimous support from the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, and the Western Australian government is applying pressure against the move. Here's a story on Perthnow giving the names of some of the MPs to contact and tell them that they need to support this measure.
Who profits the most from banning these? Follow the money, then defenestrate them with a safety spork.
One of the criticisms made against the publicized "tell us if you want this" survey was that the results were swayed by an interested party (gamers). Gee, really, you ask people if people want something, and the people who want it are the ones who answer? And they got a LOT of answers, meaning there are a LOT of interested gamers. But the results were effectively thrown out, on claims of bias. Bias towards the answer the people running the survey didn't want, I say.
The surprise comes from the government actually acting in line with the study, instead of sticking its fingers in its ears, and legislating its preconceived notions anyway.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Summary was trying to be overly melodramatic and fails.
R18+ was blocked by one man, former Attorney General Michael Atkinson. This was incredibly unpopular. Atkinson was removed from his post (resigned is a nice way of saying you're fired in politics, actual resigning is called retirement) when it was politically convenient for the South Australian Labor party (after a major swing against Labor in Atkinson's electorate).
Now no-one is opposing R18+, not even the tool who want to filter the internet. Green's have sway the senate, they've been pushing for R18+ since this whole mess started.
R18+ is going to be passed now the one stumbling block (Atkinson) has been removed. It didn't require guns, revolution or radical action, it was done via patience and rational action.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
And this, is why democracy isn't the 'end all' solution the West seems to think it is. If governments realized that in most to all cases legalizing things would have little benefit except supporting the people who want it legalized.
Give me one good reason on why R-18 games should be banned. There isn't any, you might personally disagree with them, but here is the thing, you don't have to buy them. No one is making you sit down in front of a 360 and shoot zombie after zombie. On the other hand, banning them is effectively forcing people not to even if they want to do so.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Why is this surprising?
The only thing stopping R18 was Michael Atkinson, Atkinson has since lost his position as Attorney General. The other six voted yes last time and the new AG for South Australia has voiced his support for the R18+ argument since his appointment. We are just waiting for the next time the AG's bring this up for debate. Most of Labor's backbenchers supported the introduction of R18+ for games.
The Labor government, in fact both parties lost a lot of votes to minor parties and independents in the last federal election, a fairly clear message that people wanted the major parties to be punished. In Atkinson's electorate of Croydon, there was a 15.6% swing against Atkinson in what was considered one of Labor's safest seats in South Australia, this was almost twice the average swing against Labor in SA (7.8%). Labor leader Mike Rand had the perfect opportunity to "resign" Atkinson from the position of Attorney General at that point.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Some of these adult games are getting distributed as 15+ and some are banned altogether. By adding the 18+ rating, the demographic being "protected" by these adult games are 15-17.
From TFA: “Children and teenagers shouldn’t be exposed to the gratuitous sex, violence and adult themes that are contained in some computer games."
So the concern is high-school age kids, soon to go off to college and live on their own, are being exposed to sex, violence, adult themes, and basically anything reported on in the news on any given day? Is anyone still of the mindset that these kids haven't already been exposed to this content through other channels?
As an Australian, a long time fan of violent video games and as an indie game-developer, I would just like to say that IT'S ABOUT BLOODY TIME!!! Too long has the Australian video game industry suffered under the tyranny of the uninformed do-gooders & 'think-of-the-childrens!' political types. (This all comes a couple of months after outspoken anti porn/violence/video game/whatever crusader the honourable rev. Fred Nile being caught surfing porn from his office 'net account. Totally a coincidence, but fun non the less!)
If i remember correctly, Sony(SCEA) had issues in the past with games that had content that was deemed too much for even a M rating. I understand that Australia isnt America, but i thought maybe these ideas were corporation-wide. A few titles from the top of my head that had people pursuing a AO rating included:Grand Theft Auto, The Guy Game, and Manhunt 2.
Correct me if im wrong, but SCEA seems to be against the AO(equiv. to R18+) rating
Just like any issue... it's extremely frustrating how slow things move in the short term. It's absolutely amazing how much things can change in the long term.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
Probably a redundant post by now but I'd just like to say.. ABOUT FUCKING TIME. The arguments against this classification of games has simply been draconian BULLSHIT since the start. If Atkinson continued having his way, by now we wouldn't be able to buy steak knives without a license, and all electrical powerpoints in a house would have to be a mandatory 8ft from the floor.
I still think nothing will come of it.
It's just a bunch of extremist right nutbars (the Nationals are involved) making sure everyone knows they're thinking of the children. The Greens made huge gains in WA in the last federal election, the Coalition risks losing votes over this.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Is that Wal-mart is against AO. Some other retailers are too, but Wal-mart is the biggest. Basically, some retailers refuse to sell AO rated games, or NC-17 rated movies. I'm not talking just porn, I'm talking anything with it. Remember that in both cases the ratings are just the highest ones. They can be granted for all kinds of reasons.
Well retail sales are still the biggest way you sell games. Online is growing fast, but it is still like 4-5:1 retail to online (don't believe the surveys, they suffer from selection bias, ask a publisher). So publishers have to make sure the games can go on the shelves and THAT means M rating or less. That's why the care. If the stores would start stocking AO, then sure you'd see more AO games.
The movie industry sneaks around that to an extent with "unrated" movies. Remember that currently movie and game ratings are voluntary. They are non-profit orgs that you submit your works to and they rate and then give you a license to print the rating on your product. In the case of movies, they don't have to worry about the government mandating it. They aren't a popular target anymore and they've bought off plenty of congress. However games still have to worry. Government regulation has been proposed numerous times.
So what they can do with movies is just have a cut that they do not submit for ratings. They sell this unrated version then, and retailers will stock it. Any time you see an "unrated" movie, what it means is that version was the version they wanted, but would have gotten a higher rating so they made cuts. Thus in the case of an R rated movie, the unrated version would be NC-17. However they simply don't have it rated and sell it that way.
Now as for Australia. The problem is their ratings are more restrictive. Games that get an M in the US are refused classification in Australia because they don't meet the standard for MA15+. The reasons are of course just different cultures, but also different ratings levels. The ESRB works a lot like the MPAA in that it goes from Teen rating, which is roughly for 13+ like PG-13 to an M rating, which is 17+ and is like an R rating. Australia has MA15+ which is higher than Teen, but nothing above that.
So you find some M titles form the US are ok, they get MA15+, those are often the ones that get 16 from PEGI (the EU group). However others get banned, generally the ones that get 18 from PEGI, and have to be cut down to be sold in Australia. This is a problem as it delays release dates and increases costs.
What it comes down to is currently the US market is what matters the most. It is extremely large and profitable, and also a large number of development houses are US based. So when a game is being rated, US ratings are the ones that matter. If they have to scale it back to get an M rating (or perhaps further, some games are targeted at a wider market) it will be. If the Aussie ratings board doesn't like it, tough shit. May be some time later, if ever, that they get around to making a cut down version for that market. They won't design with it in mind.
So I would imagine this rating will not be a problem, much like the PEGI 18 rating. There are numerous 18 games out there (Bioshock is one that comes to mind).
Part of the trouble is that the summary is poorly attempting to espouse a position on the matter.
Even with no causal link between video games and violence there are parents who may choose for moral or spiritual reasons to keep violent video games out of the home. (It's that parental involvement arguement that Slashdotters put forward every time an internet filter is discussed.) Violence aside, surely there are other "adult themes" that might contribute to the proposed R+18 rating. Thus, the link between a study of games as antecedents to violence is really somewhat superfluous to the issue of an additional rating category.
And a rating, in the end, is primarily a heuristic for buyers (and parents) regarding the intensity of content one might expect.
If you don't find evidence for something, just assume that it's true/false (depending on your beliefs) and ban/censor it for just about everyone even though you found no evidence that it's bad!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Think again.
Germany is in a similar position, though they already got a "mature" rating for games. Games deemed "mature" must not be sold to minors, yaddayadda, you know the drill.
Result? Germany gets butchered versions you wouldn't believe so the games get the all-holy "teen" rating from their BPjM, so they may be advertised and displayed and sold "normally" (read: Not like hardcore porno in a locked away adult section of a store, which does not exist in most game stores because, well, games are for kids, right?). Not because you couldn't make a normal, "mature" game. Rather, studios prefer to sell a watered down version in those markets so they get a "passing grade", may advertise and display the titles.
Because, well, it's not like you could sidestep them anyway. Either you go through the hassle of importing the game (more or less illegally), so they sell a copy abroad. Or you don't and buy the lalaland version you're "allowed" to have, so they sell a domestic copy. Either way, they get money from you. But they may advertise and display.
So don't get your hopes up.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Switzerland isn't alone in this. A lot of conservative parties in Europe are pushing for a ban on "violent games".
But not on guns. Don't worry, you're still safe if you plan to execute revenge on the bullies and teachers in your school. Guns don't kill people. Violent games do.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's better than banning the games altogether, but it's just the fact that even though they found absolutely no evidence that video games lead to violence, they're still using the "protect the children" excuse. Protect them from what? Do you have any evidence that we need to protect them from video games? Oh, that's right, no. If someone was so seriously affected by violent media that they'd go out and kill/hurt someone because of it, chances are they're killers in the first place. Even children know the difference between fiction and reality. If they don't, there's a simple cure: the parents can merely tell them that it isn't real. They don't need to be protected from fictional works, not even their parents need to do that. It's completely pointless.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Think again.
Germany is in a similar position, though they already got a "mature" rating for games. Games deemed "mature" must not be sold to minors, yaddayadda, you know the drill.
Alternatively, there's most other places with a mature rating for games that dictates they can't be sold to minors who still get the mature rated version of games. Just because it happens in Germany doesn't mean it will happen in Australia, especially since Germany has other content laws that usually necessitate censorship any way.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
I am sceptical of the real effect of this change if it comes to pass. What I think is happening is that the establishment of an R18+ category will allow games that currently squeeze into the M15 category to be reclassified into R18+ after adjusting the triggers for various classification levels. Anything that is currently refused classification because it will not fit the current M15 category will continue to be refused classification under revised rules. The politicians get to claim "we listened to the people", the anti- lobby get to claim they are protecting the children, the game manufacturers get to waste the same effort sanitising their games, and ultimately nothing new hits the shelves.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
How about parents just stop their kids from playing age-unsuitable games in the first place? I mean, that's what a rating is for.
TRhe fact that an R18 rating might exist will make it even easier to make that choice.
How about parents just stop their kids from playing age-unsuitable games in the first place?
Why? They just said that they couldn't find any link between violent video games and violence. What's the point of limiting the amount of games they can play for no reason? This is the idiocy I'm talking about. This "protect the children" mentality makes me absolutely sick because more than half the time there's nothing to protect them from.
How about instead of that, they just let them view these works of fiction and treat them as they treat every other 'suitable' work of fiction? 99% of children know that fictional works are fiction, and if they somehow don't, their parents can just, you know, be parents and explain to them that it's fiction. That would make more logical sense than keeping them in a bubble.
I mean, that's what a rating is for.
For people who believe everyone is just a movie away from becoming a killer? Probably.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
The government is using the 'protect the children' line to outflank the Right and minimise electoral damage. Basically having their cake and eating it too.
If you read Brendan O'Conner's comments you'll see that the government is suggesting the purpose of the R18 rating for games is to 'protect teenagers' - and by pushing this line in the media they deny that ground to the conservatives. This way the government gets to implement a sensible policy which the majority of the electorate want, but at the same time they can sell it as 'protecting the children' to make it palatable to the more moderate social conservatives.
This was really the best move, although it's a shame they can't just be honest with the electorate and sell the policy on its own merits. I suspect it has been planned this way since their community consultation backfired so spectacularly. It was just a matter of timing, waiting for the SA attorney-general to leave.
This was really the best move
The best move would be just to let people, regardless of age, buy games. Oh... you meant for them. Right. Probably.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Yeah, best move for them (Labor Party). Sorry should have been clearer.
As for myself - I feel there are a lot of problems with the way censorship is handled in this country, and it's getting worse with the proposed internet filter etc.