Australia Could Finally Get R18+ Games 143
angry tapir writes "Australia may finally get an adults only, R18+ classification for computer games, with the federal government releasing a discussion paper summarizing the key arguments for and against an R18+ classification. Submissions are currently being sought from the community on whether the Australian National Classification Scheme should include an R18+ category for computer and video games. In the past the board responsible for classifying games and movies has banned some titles outright because of the lack of an adults only classification — Aliens Vs. Predator is just the most recent in a long line. The Attorney-General's report on the issue is available online."
Banning doesn't do what they think it does (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside from the usual arguments surrounding the average age of game players and my right to choose my entertainment (within reason), and shoehorning games into less restricted categories (GTA-IV, anyone?), I believe outright banning R18+ games probably increasing the availability of these games to minors.
For games that are available in stores, children are the least likely to be able to afford the games. Relative to adults, your average minor is probably going to pirate a game rather than buy it (regardless of legality and classification).
If you ban R18+ games, then adults are going to pirate the game too - if I want to play a game I can't buy in the store, I know I will. In the day of BitTorrent, more people downloading an item in a geographic area, the more accessible that item becomes in that area.
All they're doing by banning R18+ games, is giving minors more seeders when they go ahead and download it anyway.
Games are not just for kids anymore! (Score:3, Insightful)
One argument that doesn't quite sit well with me (Score:2, Insightful)
The same day we lose internet access... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a good trade in my opinion.
PS: If you don't know what I'm talking about, see the next Australia story coming soon on Slashdot (except maybe for Australian users).
Re:I don't think Michael Atkinson will stand for t (Score:2, Insightful)
Correct - public level consultation won't change anything.
The commonwealth still needs to get the unanimous approval of all states and territories and Atkinson has already started that he will never support the introduction of an R18+ classification.
He's made it an election promise and unfortunately it's almost certain that he will be re-elected (The seat of croydon is overwhelming in it's support for labor).
http://www.gamers4croydon.org/ [gamers4croydon.org] are a group starting a party specifically to campaign on this issue - give them your support!
I wrote this on the issue, before the AvP case (Score:2, Insightful)
Probably the most shocking revelation about Australia for your average international Media Studies student is the deep reach censorship has in this country. I had heard news of an overregulated Australia before travelling to Melbourne, but those reports seemed like exaggeration. Having lived for a few months down under, overwhelming evidence defeats disbelief and sheer astonishment settles in. Why does a society that praises itself so highly for its openness, progressive achievements and multiculturalism allow crippling censorship legislation to evolve into such a pervasive and ubiquitous fog?
The latest case of ridiculous censorship in Australia is the banning and later un-banning of “Left 4 Dead 2”, a video game published by Electronic Arts. My concern about the banning of a game characterised as ‘violent’ is more about the value of freedom than a matter of personal interest. For the record, I don’t own a video game console, and, for the record, I would probably prefer spending my time and money in one of Melbourne’s many fine dining venues than playing video games. But the issue lies precisely in the importance of that choice. Should censors consider that sophisticated cuisine is wasteful, they couldn’t prevent me from enjoying it. Why can they then limit someone’s choice when it comes to videogames? It is the role of adult citizens, not the government, to decide whether they spend an evening beheading zombies or having seafood and wine. This choice has to be reclaimed as a citizen right beyond the reach of moral entrepreneurs.
Chronicles of this issue include episodes that are simultaneously sad and funny, like the classic movie “Salo” by Pier Paolo Passolini which was banned in Australia twice, or the video game “Marc Ecko” which was never sold here because of its depictions of the criminal horrors of graffiti art.
In September 15 2009, the Classification Board issued a report explaining that in this game “attacks cause copious amounts of blood spray and splatter, decapitations and limb dismemberment as well as locational damage where contact is made to the enemy which may reveal skeletal bits and gore”. According to current legislation if the Board determines that a video game is unsuitable for persons under fifteen years old, it can not be sold in Australian territory.
In contrast to legislation regarding film, video games lack an R18+ classification. Why? Unbelievable as it may sound, this policy affecting all of Australian adult population is the decision of one individual. I am talking, of course, of Mr. Michael Atkinson, South Australian Attorney-General. Australian censorship parameters can only be modified by unanimous decisions taken by all Attorneys General, and Mr Atkinson alone has for years been blocking the creation of an R18+ category for video games.
Mr Atkinson argues that “an R18+ rating for electronic games will greatly increase the risk of children and vulnerable adults being exposed to damaging images and messages”.
What Mr Atkinson means by this so called ‘risk’ is that video game discs with violent content, belonging to the adults in the family, might be found in their houses by children who could then play these games. This is the argument used to support the need to ban all games with content considered unsuitable for children. The implication is that adults are not to be trusted, and the contradiction is that when it comes to pornographic DVDs the same consideration somehow does not apply. According to Atkinson’s logic kids are able to find games around the house, but not movies.
There is also an underlying problem with his argument: the way he presents the problem, in function of the ‘risk’, cleverly plants the assumption that video games are ‘damaging’ in a way that makes it seem beyond debate. A proper dissection of the idea that videogames are somehow negative to kids would fill the whole newspaper for yea
Denying sexual maturity (Score:5, Insightful)
When does this shit stop?
Most human beings reach sexual maturity - that is, the age where their hormones are in full swing - somewhere between the ages of 8 and 14 as measured by earth's orbit around the sun.
At that point they are capable of producing offspring. At that point, their bodies have entered into the physical stages where producing offspring is a *physical imperative* - ie, the hormones that produce the desire to mate are in full swing.
Now this seems to have worked for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. After all, we are still around as a species. This is all very well established scientific biological, and realistic, fact.
So... this whole concept of offspring not being able to view other members of their species sans clothing, or in sexual congress, or to engage in said sexual congress themselves, surely must be a societal influence. Am I correct so far?
If so, then if one takes the view of many of those who feel that those members of society younger than a certain age (it differs in various societies, but let's take 18 orbits of the earth about it's star as the number here, because it's what's being bandied about) aren't "ready" to procreate, aren't "ready" to raise those offspring to be productive members of said society, where does the fault lie? Does it lie with the offspring having offspring, or a failure of the society to teach those humans how to raise their own offspring before and during the time when they become physically capable, indeed even when their bodies demand, that they produce offspring?
Put more simply, maybe instead of telling kids they can't have sex, maybe we as a society should be teaching them *before* puberty what it all means, that they will experience it, and when they do, to guide them thru the process, rather than telling them "Sorry, no, you can't do that. Because we say so."
Now, wait a minute. One of the driving beliefs amongst many of those in many societies which restrict the ages at which young human beings can procreate is a belief in a supernatural deity who, in the words of their own creed, once said "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth". Yet the same holders of that belief also tend to be in the forefront of those who tell young human beings that they cannot procreate, until they have reached some arbitrarily decided "age of reason"; which with some of them seems to be any age younger than they are, regardless of the age they have reached.
Not only that, but many members of that society seem to have reached the conclusion that viewing an unclothed member of their own species seems to fall within some concept called "evil" - which is apparently bad - and which makes one wonder how those members of the species seem to reproduce themselves in such great numbers. Perhaps they do it in the dark. ...
Does anyone else ever wonder whether or not human society is becoming more and more irrational? Nevermind, redundant question ;)
SB
Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside from the usual arguments surrounding the average age of game players and my right to choose my entertainment (within reason), and shoehorning games into less restricted categories (GTA-IV, anyone?), I believe outright banning R18+ games probably increasing the availability of these games to minors.
For games that are available in stores, children are the least likely to be able to afford the games. Relative to adults, your average minor is probably going to pirate a game rather than buy it (regardless of legality and classification).
If you ban R18+ games, then adults are going to pirate the game too - if I want to play a game I can't buy in the store, I know I will. In the day of BitTorrent, more people downloading an item in a geographic area, the more accessible that item becomes in that area.
All they're doing by banning R18+ games, is giving minors more seeders when they go ahead and download it anyway.
Evidence, please.
The empirical evidence from the current regime is that where a game is refused classification, the publisher will almost always make the necessary alterations (toning down certain amounts of gore etc) in order to achieve an MA15+ rating. The current system has thus been reasonably effective -- ensuring that games are made suitable for a 15+ audience, and given that anyone in the 15-18 category is unlikely to be prevented from accessing a title simply by its having a higher rating that is a defensible approach (by which I mean "there is an argument for it" not "it is the correct approach").
To respond to your specific comments -
Children in Australia are very easily able to afford to purchase computer games -- at current prices, a game is likely to be around one to two months' pocket money (not counting additional money from a part-time job, which many 15-18 year olds have).
Regarding BitTorrent, the speed with which a title can be downloaded (ie, the number of active downloaders) isn't actually relevant to availability. There's no part of classification law that says "it's better if you have to leave the download going overnight". The speed of the download isn't difficulty-to-obtain, it's just latency-to-obtain, and I doubt anyone would consider a few extra hours of waiting significant.
In reality, the vast majority of items made illegally available to minors are purchased from shops in defiance of 18+ ratings: cigarettes and alcohol. The number of 16 year-olds who can get a PS3 to play an illegally downloaded game, while large, is much fewer than the number who can get cigarettes illegally from the local store. From an evidence-based perspective, if you want to prevent illegal access by minors, it really is physical availability from shops that should be targeted.
yes, video games are damaging (Score:2, Insightful)
There is also an underlying problem with his argument: the way he presents the problem, in function of the ‘risk’, cleverly plants the assumption that video games are ‘damaging’ in a way that makes it seem beyond debate.
Yes, video games are damaging.
One of the problems with studies of the matter is that people often confuse the issue. They compare violent video games against non-violent ones, or they compare violent video games against a lack of video games, and then they try to make some conclusion related to game content.
It's not the content!
When you spend every free moment of your teen years on a video game addiction, you're messing up your mind. You're missing out on real face-to-face human interaction, from which you might learn social skills. You're coming to expect instant gratification and constant entertainment, but the real world isn't going to live up to such expectations.
Ever hear the term "EverCrack"? Games destroy lives. Relationships and jobs are lost or never found to begin with. People skip classes and even skip sleep so that they can satisfy their addiction.
Ever try to pull a game addict (maybe a loved one) away from his game? If you try, you'll find that they are completely irrational about the issue.
I pretty much lost a brother to this shit. He'd mod me down for pointing out the obvious, except he can't because he's surely playing a game right this very moment.
Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does (Score:5, Insightful)
He has however stated that if the public consultation results in overwhelming support in favour of it, he might reconsider.
If you're in .au - consider downloading and filling in the feedback template and email it back. It'll take 10 minutes of your time. The think-about-the-children zombie horde will obviously spend their individual 10 minutes piping up against it, so if we want to have a chance at getting some sanity, we the .au geeks, nerds, gamers and other sensible people need to do our part. I already have.
Eheh (Score:3, Insightful)
Because people in Holland stopped speeding when the speed limit was raised to 120. Or people never speed in Germany where is parts where is makes sense, there is no speed limit.
Pot is legal in Holland, so people don't do hard-drugs.
People will break whatever laws there are, even the law of no-laws (which would be a law therefor against its own law).
I see many arguments against this idiotic ban, but respect for the law ain't one of them.
Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does (Score:1, Insightful)
It is not the same.
The "not voting" vote is ignored.
A dedicated "vote ron" (1) option would not be ignored.
1) Re Open Nominations