Just in case you missed any of these, here's a quick round-up of official responses to today's Byron review publication. They're broadly welcoming with a few provisos here and there.
First up, ELSPA (the Entertainment & Leisure Software Publishers Association) supported Dr Byron's advice. "We believe in one legally enforceable system for classification of video games and to build increased public awareness of both the age ratings system and the long-standing availability and use of parental controls on all games consoles," said Director General, Paul Jackson.
But the association expressed fears about the BBFC's ability to deliver on Byron's suggestions:
We are concerned that the proposals as they stand may struggle to keep up with the public's increasing desire to buy and play on-line.
The games industry would need to be re-assured that the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) would be capable of delivering against any new remit, or whether PEGI may be more appropriate.
Unsurprisingly, the Interactive Software Federation of Europe, the body responsible for the voluntary PEGI age rating system, concurred. Although a press release backing the aims of the report was issued today, with Secretary General, Patrice Chazerand, calling it "a thoughtful and open review", there was implicit concern about losing the classification impetus to the BBFC:
PEGI is a rating system designed specifically for interactive content by people who best understand that medium. As the European age rating system of reference, PEGI has been serving about 30 European countries including the UK, for the last five years already.
For its part, the BBFC was unremittingly supportive. "I warmly welcome Dr Byron's report. She has listened very carefully to all the arguments, and exercised her independent and expert judgement," gushed the board's director, David Cooke. Seemingly addressing ELSPA's fears he added:
The BBFC has been able to handle a major expansion of the DVD market over the last few years, and we are ready and able to take on the extra work envisaged by Dr Byron.
One element of the BBFC's self-congratulatory press release may have raised a few wry smiles in certain sectors of the games industry, however:
Unlike PEGI, the BBFC has the power, in exceptional cases, to reject films, DVDs and games which have the potential to pose real harm risk.
A 'power', you'll recall, that was so effectively exercised on Manhunt 2...
Finally, game developer representative, TIGA, chimed in. Again, there was broad backing for the propositions of the Byron review, but TIGA expressed concerns that the industry itself would be expected to foot the bill for, 'waging an information campaign about the ratings systems for games'. CEO Richard Wilson points out to the government that the operating climate is hard enough for European publishers without the huge costs this will inevitably involve.
Unquestionably, the Byron review is a useful document, especially in its sound analysis of research methods used to gauge the effects of violent imagery on children. But there's a general feeling that, although a clearer ratings system can only help willing parents make decisions about what their children play, the government can't force anyone into making these decisions - and probably shouldn't even try. There will always be those who'll buy violent videogames for their children regardless of the clarity of the classification signage.
This isn't necessarily a judgemental conclusion. Hey, some parents just trust their kids - a perfectly valid position. Plus, in the modern era, we've become adept at filtering out the signs and symbols of official intervention, from health warnings on ciggie packets to emergency advice cards in planes and trains, it's all semiotic sludge floating along on the collective stream of consciousness.
What this comes down to is, are parents prepared to take an active, time-consuming interest in what their children are doing with technology? If they are, great. If they're not, no ratings system or advertising campaign on Earth will protect their offspring. Some people just don't want to know that games are adult entertainment these days. Some people don't want to know what it is that teenagers do every night on their broadband-linked PCs. It's just more information static, more looming shadows in the peripheral vision.
But do we really want a government that feels it must step in at this juncture?
