Previously, the two ratings organisations operated in parallel; while the majority of games were rated under the voluntary PEGI system, the BBFC had the power to impose legally enforceable age limits on games containing depictions of sex and violence, or to ban games altogether. When the British Government began reviewing recommendations by child psychologist Tanya Byron for the reform of video games classification, both the BBFC and PEGI laid claim to being the best choice for a single UK ratings standard.
With the Government's decision, the PEGI age limits will be given statutory effect by the Video Standards Council. Since much of the Europen game industry already uses PEGI ratings, trade bodies like the Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association (ELSPA) have been advocating strongly for its use in the UK. General Director of ELSPA, Mike Rawlinson, has said: "The Government has made absolutely the right decision for child safety. By choosing PEGI as the single classification system in the UK, British children will now get the best possible protection when playing video games either on a console or on the internet. Parents can be assured that they will have access to clear, uniform ratings on games and an accurate understanding of game content."
Nintendo has also responded favorably to the Government's decision. David Yarnton, UK General Manager, said: "The Government has made the right decision. The PEGI age rating system is right for the protection of children as it is designed specifically for games and interactive content.
"As a global company we welcome the decision as mature and intelligent as it works across some 30 international territories."
I think ESRB should learn and change it's labels to the MPAA ratings ( G, PG, PG-13, R )
We grew up with those ESRB stuff but still a huge % of population has no clue what it means.
The ESRB system is a better system than the MPAA system, they just need to do a better job of making sure people know it.
Understanding of the ESRB (or MPAA) ratings is not the problem. What everyone should be concerned about is the high level of ambiguity, variability, and subjectivity in the ratings process for both of these American ratings systems. If people don't understand the ratings, it's probably because the labels seem so inconsistent from one game to another.
There's no way Melee would've gotten an E with Captain Falcon realistically portrayed in it. He's just too intense for 12 and under.
These days Street Fighter games get 'T' ratings while Mario games get 'E'. But on the SNES did anyone see any difference between Street Fighter II and Super Mario World in terms of how appropriate they were for children? No. Both games were considered appropriate and there was no real perceived difference between them.
Are you seriously suggesting that a game named "Street Fighter" was perceived the same as Mario? If that's the attitude your family had, then it's no wonder the ESRB has become what it is. I can assure you my mother did not permit the 8 yr old me to rent the game, and that was based on the title alone.
They were all kids games. It was just went you started having games like Mortal Kombat with all the blood and gore and Doom with all the blood and gore and satanic themes and suddenly there were games that clearly were NOT for children.
I honestly feel the Australian system, government regulated, is better than all you other countries clown ****. The same board; the Classification Board, rate every movie, dvd, video game, book and the ratings are standard across everything. Well nearly. Games still don't have R (or X but you know) and until they do, anything that would be rated R gets banned. Luckily though, not a single game I give a **** about has been banned yet.
I honestly feel the Australian system, government regulated, is better than all you other countries clown ****. The same board; the Classification Board, rate every movie, dvd, video game, book and the ratings are standard across everything. Well nearly. Games still don't have R (or X but you know) and until they do, anything that would be rated R gets banned. Luckily though, not a single game I give a **** about has been banned yet.
No offense, but any rating system that lets the government interfere in consumers rights to choose what they want by banning games is NOT a good system, it's a crappy system that should be abolished. Say what you want about the ESRB, at least it's independent of the government and we don't have to worry about our government deciding what we can and cannot play (which borders on communism).
While I agree with you, the fact that all three console makers don't allow AO rated games and neither do any major retailers means we have a private organization that answers to no one that has the power to ban games, which some would say is worse.
The buying public would never demand AO rated games because no game will ever get AO as its final rating because the publisher will tone down the game to get an M rating because that's what's allowed. It's a catch-22, the public won't demand something that doesn't exist and it not allowed to exist because the public doesn't demand it.
The buying public would never demand AO rated games because no game will ever get AO as its final rating because the publisher will tone down the game to get an M rating because that's what's allowed. It's a catch-22, the public won't demand something that doesn't exist and it not allowed to exist because the public doesn't demand it.
QuoteThe buying public would never demand AO rated games because no game will ever get AO as its final rating because the publisher will tone down the game to get an M rating because that's what's allowed. It's a catch-22, the public won't demand something that doesn't exist and it not allowed to exist because the public doesn't demand it.
Someone could make an AO PC game that is only sold online. It becomes a phenomenon. Anticipation is high for a sequel and one of the console makers decides to allow it on their console so as to cash-in, with the exception being granted in exchange for exclusivity. We're not in a situation where AO games are truly banned someone, in theory, could always create an AO cash cow. They probably won't but it COULD happen. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas almost had a situation in place where there would have been high demand for an AO title, if Rockstar stood firm about the hot coffee thing.
I recall Singles being rated AO in the US, it was rated 16 here...
