Outlast 2 Has Been Re-Rated R18+ In Australia [Update]

Image: Outlast 2

After initially being refused classification, Outlast 2 will be released in Australia next month with an R18+ rating.

Update: The Classification Board has confirmed to Kotaku Australia that a modified version of the game, which was submitted for review, received an R18+ rating - not the original version of the game. More details are below.

Australians Won't Be Getting The Original Version Of Outlast 2 After All

Despite earlier reports, the Classification Board has confirmed that a modified version of Outlast 2 was submitted for review, rather than the original version of the game.

Read more

In a statement provided to Press Start, developer Red Barrels confirmed that the Classification Board has opted to give Outlast 2 an R18+ rating following a review of its original decision.

Image: Classification Board

The statement says that "there will only be one version of Outlast 2 available worldwide", indicating that Red Barrels did not submit a modified version of the game to censors. The game will go on sale from April 26, matching its international release in Europe and the United States. The Classification Board's listing, however, lists "modified" on the version of the game, possibly indicating otherwise.

Outlast 2 was originally refused classification over content that censors described as "implied sexual violence". One scene in particular involved the player's character being forced into a hallucination, while they were subject to a demonic ritual.

Here's Why Outlast 2 Was Refused Classification In Australia

Kotaku Australia has learned that Outlast 2 has been refused classification in Australia, predominately for the depiction of implied sexual violence.

Read more

Kotaku Australia has reached out to Red Barrels, the game's maker, and the Classification Board for comment.


    Outlast looks a lot like titan fall in the video clip at the end

    Common sense wins out in the end.

      Maybe a watered down rating but at least we have a proper place to keep games like this.

        Exactly, while it can be argued I accept to some degree some games got bumped into the category, we're seeing it being applied properly now.

          Not to go too far off topic but is I may share.

          Back in the day I had a local Game store and the staff there were good to me. One day I came in and the guy looked incredibly tried so I asked him what happened.

          The day before was the release of GTA4 and I think you can easily guess where this is going.

          The game came out and he and his co-workers spent a phenomial amount of time that day trying to drill it into the parent's heads the game was not mean for their 12 year olds (or even younger!).

          According to him one kid came in after the game and when he refused the kid life and said kid's father can in and had a go at the clerk.

          Now, I'm no lawyer but last I checked it is out right illegal to sell a MA 15+ game to a minor. The clerk was going job and (again, according to him) got chewed out for it.

          Like you, I think the R18 rating should be more real and more consistent with what is used for our movies but at least it covers a lot of the inconsistencies the shouldn't happen now as they did in the past.

          Games that should be R rated are no longer getting shoe-horned into MA 15+ which still get into the hands of kids because many don't see the difference between M and MA.

    Fantastic news. A win for commonsense and freedom! Great job devs, for not censoring the game and instead standing up to the board! Now abolish the ACB and implement the PEGI system instead. Us adults can decide for ourselves what's acceptable!

      Surely this demonstrates that the system works as intended and that our system doesn't need changing (the system, not necessarily the classifications). The devs disagreed with the Board's decision, appealed in the usual way, and had the Board's decision varied. How is that justification for abolishing the whole system?

    Wait... it contains implied sexual violence. It was BANNED because of it's depiction of sexual violence... and has not been changed.

    Glad it's available to all those who were really looking forward to it, but that sort of inconsistency will only continue to confuse laymen and prove the classification system's ultimate ineffectiveness.


      Actually, what it does is set a precedent. The 'sexual violence' was offscreen and not seen, which is likely how they got around it.

        I think that same loop hole also exists with movies. If there is sexualised violence in a movie, it gets banned unless it is off frame.

        That aside, I think a lot of the problems we have is just how we have two separate layers. The classification code which has to be interpreted to decide if something is allowed or banned and the rating system which based on said interpretation is used to decide which rating best fits based on the parameters of said rating.

        Sadly these elements might as well be locked and chained to separate rooms and rating is being done by a person with Alzimenrs going between each room for each piece of content.

      Meanwhile, the film Irreversible contains a graphic 9-minute rape scene. Nothing implied. It got an R18+ despite the Christian lobby appealing the classification board's decision.

      Confusing is right. Somehow video-games are treated differently to films.

        It's a graphic 9 minute rape scene that is quite possibly the most potent anti sexual violence tool I've ever seen. Graphic, yes. Glorified, no. Comparing the sequence in Noe's film and its intentions, to a demonic rape scene in a videogame, isn't really a like for like.

          Yeah ok count_doogula, so a depiction of an actually possible rape scene isn't as bad as a fictional demonic rape scene ???

          What plane of existence does your mind reside in ?

        The argument can be made that films have total control over authorial content. The victim in films such as Irreversible have no chance of getting up, spinning around for fun and tea bagging the antagonist. In a game you have the ability to ignore and undermine the effects of sexual assault.

        I believe that games should be treated differently to films, as they are different mediums. I just don't believe that they should be treated as a more juvenile medium.

          The scene in question in the game was a scene that you didn't have any control over though.

            Oh, for sure. But, assuming that's not the last scene in the game, you then have the ability to control how the character acts after sexual assault. Showing the repercussions of trauma should be taken into account when games are made, or else they shouldn't use sexual violence because then it's just gratuitous.

      However, (the board) added that the scenes described were not "an exhaustive list of the content that caused" Outlast 2 to be refused classification.

    ... point conceded, actually. That is a fair and reasonable conclusion.

    Hah explicit rape is definitely not banned in movies. Ever seen Visitor Q, Ichi The Killer, irreversible, I Spit on Your Grave (original) and many others? Plenty of in your face rape and sexual violence. All uncut in Australia.

    You should see just how far movies can go....Its insane compared to games.

    Good. I will not play it, but I'm glad that those who did want to will now be able to legally. :)

    Pleased enough that there was a review, regardless of the outcome.

    Still grumpy about all the drama and shit of last week from people who should have known that not all of the information was available and the possibility of a review was still open.

      Tune in next week!

      Same Freedom time!

      Same Change All the Laws Because Muh Video Games Channel!

    Man, you can't buy this kind of publicity. Their marketing department must be cracking the champers.

    The Auz classification board is also scared by the liberal democrats.

    So was it or wasn't it a modified version? Classification board says yes. Red Barrels says no.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now