Things are becoming increasingly complex in the aftermath of Tanya Byron's review of the effects of inappropriate digital media and online content on kids, released in March this year. The Byron Review set out several recommendations to the UK government, suggesting in no small voice that it should a) regulate the content and b) educate and inform the purchasing units (aka 'parents') of what ratings actually mean.
To wit, things are moving forward, but not without the characteristic bitching and moaning political filibustering between the parties involved.
The proposed government actions start this month, according to MCV. In short,
* DCMS will launch a four month public consultation on reforming the video games classification system in July 2008;
*DCMS will publish its proposals for reforming the classification system byll early 2009; and
*DCMS will work with the games regulators to agree a way forward for classifying online gaming. This will be included in the overall classification consultation to enable the results to feed into the UKCCIS sub-group which will be set up in autumn 2008.
* DCMS will work with key stakeholders on raising awareness about the importance of video games classification by autumn 2008
* DCMS and BERR will take forward, with industry and regulators, proposals for a comprehensive awareness campaign of the new classification system and parental controls in early 2009
* DCMS and BERR will work with the retail industry to work towards an agreed set of standards for in-store information with the aim of raising awareness of consumers and reduce access of video games to people below recommended ages by November 2008
In terms of the latter points, this is good timing as there were several high-profile incidents in which kids were able to buy age-inappropriate titles from both high street and online retailers late last month.
In terms of the former, this is where things between the industry (i.e. PEGI) and the government (i.e. BBFC) have got interesting.
From MCV:
The UK Government has published its official action plan for video games classification changes following the recommendations made in March's Byron Review.
It pledges a four-month public consultation period will take place from July, in which publishers keen to argue the toss for a pan-European classification system will have their say.
However, it is looking increasingly likely that Whitehall will push through Byron's proposal that the British Board Of Film Classification increases its powers in the UK.
To which several game publishers have suggested that the BBFC and the UK government don't have the interests of the games industry at heart. In particular, there's suggestions that the BBFC isn't up for the task. Miaow. A BBFC press release landed in my inbox this morning countering such attacks:
We are disappointed and concerned about attempts by one or two video games publishers to pre-empt, through recent press statements, the forthcoming public consultation on video games classification...
The games industry really does have nothing to fear from a set of proposals which would provide more robust, and fully independent, decisions, and detailed content advice, for the British public, and especially parents. The Byron proposals, far from envisaging the collapse of PEGI, specifically provide for a continuing PEGI presence in UK games classification. They also provide significant opportunities to reduce duplication of effort and costs. And they would make wider use of a system, the BBFC's, which British parents recognize, trust and have confidence in.
Another bone of contention in this arena is where the cash will come from for the ratings reviews and action points. According to news sources, there is an assumption that the games industry will fund its own child safety advertising.
Centralising regulations and ratings will have several desired effects, including, as the BBFC press release states, providing a well-understood system for those people who aren't au fait with the content of interactive media. Yet there is a fear by the industry that they're losing control over their products. However, it has historically struggled to maintain control in the face of public opinion, and any support external reviewers can offer should be welcomed rather than rejected.
