The Federal Government has this afternoon released a discussion paper on the merits of an R18+ classification for video games. The move is part of a round of public consultation on the issue that will continue until the end of February next year.
The paper contains a brief overview of the National Classification Scheme and outlines the arguments both for and against the introduction of an R18+ rating for video games. It also describes how the Australian public may make a submission and let their voices be heard in the debate.
Briefly, the key arguments against are:
* Computer games should be treated differently from films given the specific, negative effects of interactivity on players, particularly their participation in violent and aggressive content.
* It would be difficult for parents to enforce age restrictions for computer games.
* Minors would be more likely to be exposed to computer games that are unsuitable for them.
* An R 18+ for computer games would exacerbate problems associated with access to high level material in Indigenous communities and by other non-English speaking people
* There is no demonstrated need to change existing restrictions.
And, the key arguments for are:
* The R 18+ classification category sends a clear, unambiguous message to parents that the game material is unsuitable for minors
* Consistent classification categories for films and computer games are easier to understand
* A new classification will supplement technological controls on minors’ access to age inappropriate computer games
* Adults should not be prevented from playing R 18+ level computer games simply because they are unsuitable for minors
* Comparable international classification systems have an adult rating for computer games – international parity is desirable
* Consumers access games which would be R 18+ illegally – it would be better if they were legally available with appropriate restrictions
Please download the full discussion paper at the link below, along with the instructions on how to make a submission.
An R18+ Classification for Computer Games – Public Consultation [Attorney-General's Dept]
swe
Monday, December 14, 2009 at 8:40 PMGreat to see everyone getting ampted up for this
Can we keep this news item pinned for awhile please kotaku? :)
Tori
Monday, December 14, 2009 at 10:14 PMI agree with swe, can we keep this pinned Kotaku Aus?
Will be typing my submission soon.
Jeff
Monday, December 14, 2009 at 10:24 PM“Dear Government,
I’m a bad parent. I can’t control my kid or even stop them from playing R18 games etc, please do my job.”
is this what the country is about? people can’t look after their children so everyone suffers? pretty sure the big R18+ and red symbol is fairly well known to what it stands for. if not show some tv ads, I’ve seen enough about responsible drinking, how about responsible gambling
Michael
Monday, December 14, 2009 at 11:27 PMIve sent mine:
My argument is for the implementation of an R18 classification for video games. Being an adult video game player in Australia; I have to go without many video games I am interested in because they are refused classification and am forced to import them possibly breaking laws or guidelines. As an adult I shouldn’t have to go to this extent to buy the videogames I should legally be able to play at my age. Regarding exposure to children, I certainly would not let R18 rated video games to be played or viewed by children in my family. As with any other media, current and appropriate identification would be needed to purchase R18 rated video games stopping minors accessing them. I also believe parents understand the rating, as they know R18 is stricly for adults only and not to be played or viewed by minors. Adults of Australia are missing out on some excellent pieces of interactive entertainment they want to play simply because the video game rating system in Australia is currently rated for children and teenagers only. Most other countries in the world have an adult rating for video games, so should Australia. The time to implement one is now.
Michael Barnes -Adelaide, South Australia.
HotDamn!
Monday, December 14, 2009 at 11:42 PMGive peace a chance.
Tori
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 12:04 AMSent mine:
The Australian National Classification Scheme should include an R18+ rating for games both to clarify standards of content in games to protect minors and to bring the Australian classification of games onto a level that is no longer sub-standard to that of international markets.
Though the lack of an R18+ classification is intended to protect minors from adult content, it can also cause the OFLC to rate games that should fit in an R18+ category into the MA15+ category. An example of this is the 2008 bestselling game Fallout 3, which received an 18+ rating in all overseas markets for the exact same content (except America and NZ with 17+ and 16+ ratings respectively) but in Australia receiving a MA15+ classification, lower than that of all other markets. An R18+ rating would remove this issue of clarity and protect minors from inappropriate content that should be classified R18+ rather than MA15+.
Australian adults should have the ability to obtain products that are available in most other parts of the world but have been refused classification due to lack of an R18+ rating. Lack of freedom of purchase domestically encourages illegal purchase of these games from overseas, where they are widely available to those over 18, affecting Australian retailers negatively due to lack of profit from a game that could have been purchased domestically with an R18+ classification. This lack of classification declines adult Australians the ability to purchase this content legally, something that most other worldwide markets entrust their adults.
Ryan
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 12:45 AMDavid, is it possible to leave this at the top of the main kotaku.au website for a week or two? Also I’m going to print this out and fill it out tomorrow.
StudiodeKadent
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 12:53 AMDealing with the arguments “against”…
1) Please cite more than one peer-reviewed academic study that demonstrates content X in a video game is any more impactful than content X in a movie. And make sure that this study is not funded by any socially-conservative advocacy groups. Additionally, please look at evidence on the other side, i.e. whether or not video games are a “catharsis” for darker impulses rather than an “exacerbater” of them.
2) Games are as easy to procure as DVD’s are. DVD’s actually are easier to procure than games since games are sold in fewer places. If a child can get ahold of an R-rated game they certainly can get ahold of an R-rated DVD much more easily. If parents can be responsible enough to prevent kids from watching the DVD of “Basic Instinct” then they are responsible enough to prevent kids from playing Super Ultra Gory Death Chainsaw Rampage 4000.
3) Would they? An R18+ rating by definition means minors are legally not allowed to buy it or gain access to it publically. Additionally, less adult content would be placed in the MA15+ category in the first place. And most importantly, why should adult liberty be sacrificed for the children?
4) Cannot indigenous Australians and non-English-Speaking Australians deal with more violence, blood and gore? Is it seriously being suggested that their minds are less capable than English-speaking white Australians and as such we need to protect them? This is a very patronizing and racist attitude.
5) No demonstrated need to change restrictions? This assumes the system is working fine. And it quite clearly is not. For one, the MA15+ category is being stretched to accomodate content that is probably excessive for it. For two, several games are being refused classification, even when adults want these games (and as the OFLC’s own act states, individual adults have the right to access the content they wish). For three, the job of a classification system is to INFORM potential consumers that the content may disturb them. Classification is meant to be ADVISORY rather than AUTHORITATIVE intervention; it simply tells the consumer what they can expect in terms of the content and is meant to leave the decision up to them. If it were properly called a “censorship” system, then this problem would exist, but it is NOT meant to be a “censorship” system. It is meant to CLASSIFY, not CENSOR.
Joseph
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 8:02 AMDid you send that in? If not, I will. I like how your arguments are all perfect and not made of lies.
Dean
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 10:35 AMBe careful, a few of those responses seems to indicate you only read the headline of the arguments and not the arguments themselves. For example, the argument related to Indigenous and non-English-Speaking Australians was related to the fact that they can’t speak English and therefore can’t understand the rating system. Apparently, there was a study where it was shown that in many Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, pornographic material is kept in many homes and watched by children/minors. Now, whether that’s an argument for censorship or whether it’s an argument for better education is something that can be debated. But I don’t think it’s especially patronizing or racist. Personally, I think the solution is to provide classification guidelines in multiple languages. Regardless of whether you can speak English or not, you can still distiguish between the “MA15+” and “R18+” symbols on the package so as long as you know what they mean, you don’t have to speak English to be able to understand them.
Also, I don’t really like the idea of requiring that studies not be funded by “Group X” with “Agenda Y”. The idea is that a study should be impartial REGARDLESS of who commissioned it. For example, the Bond University study that found the average age of gamers is 30 and that 98% of respondents support an R18+ classification was disparaged by Atkinson precisely BECAUSE it was commissioned by the IGEA. We don’t want to look to be doing the same thing here, do we?
DeeK
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 9:48 PMInteresting. I didn’t know that.
Anyway, games are probably an exception to this. Anyone who has a console or a computer should be relatively well educated. Certainly well enough to understand the rating system.
Stephen Alexander
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 3:47 AMI opted to fill mine out by hand and faxed it off earlier this evening.
Jonathon Tree
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 5:11 AMPin this to the top until the submissions are closed!!!
Fem G
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 5:54 AMMake sure your voice is heard. Send your own submission to:
classificationreview@ag.gov.au
Unless you clearly request confidentiality, submissions are public documents and may
be accessed by any member of the public.
mount-eerie
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 6:59 AMI knew I had seen a review of a paper on video games reducing aggression on Scienceblogs earlier this year.
Just found it: http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/04/a_video_game_to_reduce_aggress.php
There are a some better ones somewhere that I can’t find at the moment, hope this helps though.
Thomas Cho
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 8:23 AMThe simple fact is many user-created content raise games above the rating they’ve already been given(See: Both Oblivion and Fallout 3 have ‘Sex’ modifications which have been downloaded by so many people that trying to search for Mods based on popularity or rating on the main modification sites yield at least a page of related sex mods). R18+ games unavailable in Australia are pirated illegally by those who want them but are unable to obtain them, just as discontiuned or unreleased games are.
Finally, games have been released in Australia where the sex-related content has been removed, yet the violence or drug-related content has remained. Wouldn’t an R18+ be precisely for that drug and violence-related content which is already permissable under an unsatisfactory system of classification?
Most importantly, it might stop those goddamned twelve year olds from playing online games so I don’t have to listen to their squeals while blasting zombies.
jarrard
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 8:43 AMPLEASE POST COMMENTS HERE
“To participate in this consultation, you need to answer the question:
Should the Australian National Classification Scheme include an R 18+ classification category for computer games?
Submission forms are here http://www.ag.gov.au/gamesclassification
Submissions can be sent by email in Word format without embedded images.
Submissions can also be posted or faxed.
You are also encouraged to keep any commentary short and succinct.
Unless you clearly request confidentiality, submissions are public documents and may be accessed by any member of the public, may be published on a website and quoted in further review papers. If you do not want your submission to be published, or you would like to request anonymity, you must clearly request this in your submission.
Submissions must be received by 28 February 2010. Submissions received after this date may not be able to be considered.
Submissions should be sent to:
Email: classificationreview@ag.gov.au
Fax: 02 6141 3488
Post: Classification Review
Attorney-General’s Department
3 -5 National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600″
Todd
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 9:20 AMThe really sad part is the process the government use for submissions.
Why on Earth do we have to complete an Ms Word file or printed file to mail/fax back.
Where is the leveraging of technology by use of a government website to automatically receive/store and collate input/results for this public data.
What a complete waste of time in motion and it makes me furious to know my taxes are paying for a group of lackies to collate all these submissions manually.
The real reason they chose this method is to stop the enormous tidal wave of submissions they would receive online in favour of R18+ rating.
I thought we lived in a democracy, why a unanimous vote and not a majority vote?
Choc
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 9:34 AMIt’s to stop ‘bots’ filling out the form over and over and over again
As well as this, by law, every submission must be placed into a report and publicly made available. Much easier to collate a report in word documents then an SQL database….
Todd
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 10:12 AMHi Choc,
Tell me you are not serious. Bots are easy to defend against. Forms validated correctly will halt bots in their tracks and keep the data clean.
You seriously cannot be suggesting that collating a report in Ms Word is easier than a SQL database.
I don’t want to rain on your parade but you are grossly misinformed and your lack of skills should have stopped you posting at all mate.
I don’t mean to attack you but your points are the same old garbage technologically ignorant persons perpetuate this fallacy of bots, poor time in motion and less beneficial methods for logical processes.
I’ll even volunteer my company to develop, host and maintain the submission website for free. The goal being to actually provide and demonstrate an up to date technology streamlining the submissions and collation of data as it should be used by government agencies Australia and issue wide.
Choc
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 12:06 PMbefore you go off on a little tirade and making assumptions i am completely aware that it is easy to do
It’s the government who chooses not to realise this and that is their excuse.
Jack Webster
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 10:16 AMOut of this, there will be an R18+ Rating implementation before the next election. It’s going to be interesting what groups such as Gamers4Croydon do when this happens – It’s no longer a question of will.
greg
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 1:00 PMid image theyd dissolve and the money raised for it would be donated to childs play just as they said
Chris Prior
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 2:50 PMGiven that the submissions close less than a month before the SA election, I doubt there will be time to implement an R rating prior to the election. What the discussion paper will do is raise public awareness, and put internal pressure on Mr Atkinson. With the external pressure of G4C on Mick and Labor, we will get somewhere, but I do not think it will be so soon.
I cannot say definitively what would happen if we were to get an R rating before the election, but given that the party has a much wider policy base than just R18+, I doubt dissolution would be the result.
The donation to Child’s Play will happen regardless of the outcome of this submission process or the election.
Chris Prior
Gamers4Croydon Councillor
I game, I vote.
Dean
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 10:28 AMIt’s interesting that the discussion paper didn’t include any of those “examples of content that would be rated R18+” like Atkinson wanted…
greg
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 12:59 PMwell after what 2 years of constant hate mail and a couple of death threats (or so i heard) youd capitulate
Chris Prior
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 2:54 PMFrom what I understand, the federal Attorney-General’s department decided to unilaterally release the discussion paper. Given that the classification guidelines require context to be taken into account, there was always going to be very little support for providing images of R18 material out of context. It is also likely that the kind of content Mr Atkinson wanted to include is content that would not be allowed under an R18+, given his previous comments about Rapelay and other such games.
Chris Prior
Gamers4Croydon Councillor
I game, I vote.
Dean
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 3:28 PMI also noticed, actually, that the paper explicitly mentioned that “Rapelay” would still be RC even with an R18+ classification. Looks like some calmer heads are prevailing over at the Attorney-General’s department :)
Chris Prior
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 5:29 PMCalmer? I think you mean “less irrational” =p
Dean
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 10:06 PMI just listened to that Radio National interview with Atkinson, and they were speaking about this discussion paper (obviously this was before it was released). The interviewer asked him why it had been delayed and he basically said that he had objected to the original SCAG’s discussion paper because “it struck [him] as plain advocacy” and “it didn’t contain any examples of these extremely violent and depraved games, so I insisted that such examples be included. They are included in the commonwealth discussion paper and I cleared it for publication in April.” So I just wonder what happened between then and now…
Chris Prior
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM“Because there was no unanimous agreement amongst all states and territories about the release of the discussion paper, the commonwealth is circumventing our requirements for unanimous agreement and will release the discussion paper under their own name.”
That’s from ACT A-G Simon Corbell after the April SCAG meeting.
The reason it took so long is because there was a reshuffle of cabinet at the commonwealth level, and the guy who had been in charge (Bob Debus) no longer was.
Kerber
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 10:59 AMCan you people stop commenting on Kotaku and rather, make a submission. Talking about the issue here isn’t doing anything for the cause.
Just make your point, make sure you don’t sound like a a*sehat and let them see that lots of people do care.
Again, complaining about it on a forum isn’t a submission. So don’t bother!
Make this count :-)
Dean
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 11:23 AMI already submitted my submission. What’s wrong with commenting here as well?
Kerber
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 1:31 PMThe submission matters more :-)
Juggernautz
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 11:30 AMGuys, remember that the responses need to be short and succinct (they say 250 words), so if they see a wall of text they are immediately going to discount the submission.
Here’s what I submitted:
I will put forth here the most contentious arguments.
Firstly, cited directly in this discussion paper, “[...] the Byron Review concluded that ‘it would not be accurate to say that there is no evidence of harm but equally it is not appropriate to conclude that there is evidence of harm.” Considering this is a key argument against R18+, if there is no agreeable evidence, then this cannot be used to support censorship of free speech. Also, Dr. Anderson’s work is across multiple forms of media which are not suffering the same level of censorship, such as film and books.
Moreover, the point that Minors would be more likely to be exposed to computer games that are unsuitable for them is actually exacerbated due to not having the R18+ rating; as some games which have been classified for 17+ or AO by the US ESRB have been classified as MA15+ in Australia such as: Fallout 3, Grand Theft Auto series, Resident Evil and the Call of Duty series just to name a few. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Software_Rating_Board
Parental controls on consoles and parental responsibilities should be handled by the parents themselves, exactly as DVDs and movies are. Console parental locks are extremely effective, and DVDs/books have no such controls. It is actually easier to prevent kids from accessing adult material.
Lastly, There is no demonstrated need to change existing restrictions, is blatantly false as can be witnessed by Facebook groups numbering in the tens of thousands and the IEAA/Bond Interactive Entertainment study. This ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ mentality is not a valid argument, especially in light of a better system.
DONAR
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 11:43 AM“Computer games should be treated differently from films given the specific, negative effects of interactivity on players, particularly their participation in violent and aggressive content.”
I’ve always found this argument entirely flawed. Ninja Turtles and Transformers cartoons used to cop the flak for making kids violent and aggressive. You can make the same argument for genuinely scary movies (Paranormal Activity, Day of the Dead, et al) making you jumpy in a dark house three days later.
Whether or not you’re directly controlling an avatar or not has no relevance to your level of participation. If you’re engaged in any form of entertainment on an emotional level, you’re a participant.
Chris
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 12:20 PMI’ve submitted mine:
I strongly support any moves to create an R 18+ classification category for computer games in Australia.
As an avid gamer for essentially the large proportion of my life (I am now 36 and have been gaming since I was given my first Vic 20 personal computer at the age of about 9 or 10) and as a responsible and reasonably intelligent individual, I feel that, I am able to make informed decisions as to what is acceptable for my consumption within the bounds of Australian law.
As a father to a young boy (only 8 months old at the time of writing), I know that I will face these issues in the coming years and am not immune to the concerns that many parents would have on this subject. However I would much rather have MORE information from the Australian government in the form of a more complete and functional classification system and one that includes and R18+ rating than LESS.
Parenting decisions aside, as a proud Australian I find it ludicrous and embarrassing that we, as nation that is considered to be a progressive member of the global community, are so blatantly out of step with our international counterparts all of whom have some sort of system that includes an R18+ classification or its equivalent.
This issue is as much a matter of principle as a matter of economics and the perceived need for the government to protect our children and potentially more vulnerable members of our society from the “evils of gaming”.
Do we as a country find it acceptable to allow a small yet vocal and politically powerful minority dictate to the entire adult population of Australia what games are to be played on PCs and consoles in our own homes?
I personally do not find this acceptable and thus am submitting this in the hope that I can help make some positive change for parents and gamers around the country.
GaaaaaH
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 12:41 PM“* An R 18+ for computer games would exacerbate problems associated with access to high level material in Indigenous communities and by other non-English speaking people”
This point means that because of the banning of alcohol in certain areas of Australia and because of the effects of drunkenness in public, it would be best to ban alcohol.
See what happens when the same argument is applied to a different object?
greg
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 1:09 PMhow does requesting anonymity work do they still make your submission public.
i ask because i dont care about my submission or anwers being public however i do not want my name and or home adress dloating around freely availible to the public or international people via the internet
Reoh
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 1:57 PMThe more media coverage of this failing in our system the better. I urge every Australian gamer to submit a commentary. It takes no more than a few minutes.
Kyall
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 2:06 PMRead those questions carefully Fella’s, if you find yourself answering “3) Do Not Know” do some research on the topic and then choose. Do not Know is the answer the right-wingers who added these questions want