Topic: UK Government Chooses PEGI Ratings

[Ian Sane]

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.

They do answer to someone though: the buying public.  If the buying public demanded AO games then retailers and the console makers would give in.  You don't even truly need a majority to change their mind, just enough of a minority that the companies involved feel they will profit off it.  In comparison an elected government can say one thing, get elected, and then go back on it and not have to truly answer about it until the next election.  And even then they could still win the election by being the lesser of two evils or based on an issue that is of considerable more importance to voters.  In business there is competition too and there is really no such thing in government.  There are elections but only one government at a time.  The only reason AO games are self-banned is because the money isn't there.  There's no agenda to push specific morals or anything which there would be with government regulation.

[NWR_insanolord]

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.

[vudu]

We would have demanded an AO Manhunt 2 is the game was any good.

[KDR_11k]

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.

In America maybe.

[Ian Sane]

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.

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.

[Stratos]

I thought the BBFC were a pain in the butt regarding ratings? Didn't they flat out refuse to rate certain games because they didn't fit into their views of games being for children? I recall some issue with a fairly popular game in the UK that wasn't terribly bad (not Manhunt 2) being classified because of their narrow and stiff view of games. I believe it was Fallout 3. Having PEGI rate games now sounds like a step up for UK gamers.

[NWR_insanolord]

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.

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.

Fine, if you want to split hairs, the ESRB can't truly ban a game, they can only make it virtually impossible for it to be commercially successful. It could theoretically work if the company made it only for PC and only sold it themselves through their own site (which, funny enough, would be a situation where the game wouldn't have to be rated at all because there would be no console maker or retailer that would require it), but they wouldn't, because they'd censor themselves and scale it back to get an M rating because it would put them in an overwhelmingly better financial position.

[Stratos]

Haven't there been a few games that went the online only PC route?

[NWR_insanolord]

Plenty of games do that, but they're generally planned that way and budgeted for it.

[Stratos]

I seem to recall the more recent Leisure Suit Larry games were either online only or had an unrated version online you could buy.

[KDR_11k]

I recall Singles being rated AO in the US, it was rated 16 here...

[TJ Spyke]

I recall Singles being rated AO in the US, it was rated 16 here...

The PEGI rating was 18, the BBFC rating was 18.

There were 2 versions of "Singles: Flirt Up Your Life" released here in the US. There was a censored version that was rated M and released at retail, then there was a uncut version that was rated AO and only sold online.

[KDR_11k]

Well, we still use the USK here.