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."
This is encouraging (Score:5, Interesting)
Well I'm in two minds about this:
1. No amount of public support and public consultation is going to change Michael Atkinson's mind over this issue. Even very strong public support (91% of Australian adults support an R18+ rating for games, according to polling). Since Mr. Atkinson holds the power of veto for changing this law, even if the Federal Government STRONGLY URGES the introduction of an R18+ rating, he doesn't actually HAVE to give in to their demands (although there may be political consequences if he doesn't).
On the other hand...
2. It is great that this issue is finally being taken seriously by the general public, and is being given headlines in the major newspapers around the country today. This lends legitimacy to what gamers have been saying for ages - that game classification IS a serious issue and gamers are not kids. It's been pushed from a niche topic, to the mainstream, and that is how laws will get changed. So I'm quite encouraged by this. Michael Atkinson is unlikely to continue vetoing a change to the law if 90% of the public are behind it AND the Federal Government strongly recommends a R18+ rating in an official report ... like any other poltician, there is a point at which Mr. Atkinson will just have to bite the bullet and tow the party line. Woot :)
Mind you, the existing 'ban' (more accurately a lack of a classification preventing the sale of certain games ... you can still purchase them online and legally own and play them), isn't really a huge deal anyway. Ebay/overseas retailers are your friend.
Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the more amusing arguments against... (Score:2, Interesting)
From the discussion paper [ag.gov.au]: "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."
Apparently classification is racially insensitive, but only for computer games.
Re:One of the more amusing arguments against... (Score:2, Interesting)
I think they're just trying to push racial sensitivity buttons, in their crazy clumsy way. Sad that it's working.
As a gamer, I really can't stand being beaten by Helen Lovejoy.
Re:The same day we lose internet access... (Score:3, Interesting)
Even Mr. 2% has gone cold on the idea since the web sites of his anti-abortion financiers somehow made it on to the propsed blacklist. In other words Mr 2% has been nicely shot down by a classical ad-absurdium argument. However that won't stop some other idiot doing the same thing when he believes he holds the balance of power in the senate and it won't help educate people who still take the game seriously.
If you doubt me then point to where Conroy has said a compulsory filter is a good idea. I've been asking that question on slasdot since the current round of trials began and the only quotes I ever get are where he is saying the trial is a good thing.
"Yes Minister" is a documentry that just happens to be funny.
PS: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Denying sexual maturity (Score:3, Interesting)
In case anyone wonders when it was I last made love, it was about half an hour ago, and the above was posted mostly from her comments about the silly hypocrisy of society's, particularly religious society's, ideas about kids looking at naked bodies, whether directly or thru pictures. As she says "we aren't test tube babies, let's drop the stupid bullshit and get on with the business of making kids who think for themselves." She is much more eloquent than I.
Middle age does sometimes confer some wisdom. Not all the time, but sometimes. The hard part is finding a partner who shares it; but if you do, it makes something greater than the sum of the two parts...
SB
Re:I don't think Michael Atkinson will stand for t (Score:4, Interesting)
It doesn't matter if Michael Atkinson wins his seat of Croydon. It has to be a Labor government in South Australia or he will no longer be Attorney General.
It will be a Liberal party member who becomes Attorney General, so I'd be lobbying them.
Oh God , Buddha various Deities etc
you think
no gay marriage , lock up the boat people Liberal party
(Australia's right wing version of the Torys , Republicans )
is going to to be any better?
Liberal party really means no to fun.
Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does (Score:1, Interesting)
Censoring the game to bring it down to an MA15+ rating doesn't really help, in my opinion.
Just about everyone I know, for instance, is purchasing gray-market overseas copies or downloading pirate versions of Left 4 Dead 2, because none of them want to settle for the content-reduced version deemed 'suitable' for Australian audiences.
As the OP noted, this leads to more piracy and hurts sales.
Also, you must be giving your kids a lot of pocket money... Australia's markup on computer games is pretty significant. So much so that just about anyone with sense over here is purchasing via Steam or Direct2Drive (at roughly half the price) wherever possible. Many of my friends own US-region consoles, for the express purpose of importing games from the US (thus bypassing both the price-markup and censorship issues).
Your argument is well thought out, but the OP makes a solid point nonetheless: censorship hurts sales, and given that the most popular games kids are asking for right now are mostly 'mature' titles (as noted in another recent Slashdot thread), it's better to give people the option to purchase the game legitimately (and with all the content intact) rather than driving sales overseas or simply losing them to piracy.
Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does (Score:2, Interesting)
No it isn't. It gives the exact same result as staying at home. That's not a vote against anything.
A none of the above vote should in some way result in less power to "the above". My solution is to have the "none of the above" votes result in the same number of empty seats, as they would result in seats for the party if those votes were for a party. At the same time, I would not change the number of MPs needed to vote for a new law.
So, if we manage to vote 49% "none of the above", every party would have to cooperate to get anything done. The result of this would be that if we get 51% none of the above, they can't do anything, apart from having a new election. However, it would likely never get that far. At some point, someone has to say "Look at all those empty seats. They could be ours, if we started listening to voters".
Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does (Score:4, Interesting)
The "none of the above" option is called turning up at a voting station, getting your name crossed off, and not voting; last I checked, this was legal.
And failing that, take your voting slip, leave it blank, and put it in the voting booth. You've fulfilled your obligation to vote, without voting for any candidate. While I think this is incredibly stupid, you can do it, so what are you complaining about?
What you describe is simply voting "present" instead of casting an actual vote or abstaining. It is not a vote for or against any of the candidates. This is not the same as voting for "none of the above". A vote for "none of the above" is explicitly a vote against all of the candidates listed on the ballot. If "none of the above" were to get sufficient votes to be elected, then either the seat should remain empty, or the election should be re-held with the proviso that none of the same candidates should be able to stand, having all been actively rejected.
Note the ambiguity between whether voters wish the position to remain unoccupied, or to be given a different slate of candidates to vote for. To eliminate this, it would be preferable to have a "nobody" vs "new slate" tickbox associated with the "none of the above" option. Alternatively, "nobody" could be listed as a separate option; this would be less confusing to those who are easily confused, but at the risk of splitting the vote against all candidates.
A simple abstention or its equivalent (spoiled or blank ballot) does not provide these options.
Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't have the R18+ rating yet. Instead the games are refused classification, and those games that are refused classification (RC) are banned.
But so what if they introduce an R18+ rating? How is that going to differ from being banned?
Compare the US's ESRB's "Ao" rating. Not only will vendors not carry it, all the current console makers say they won't allow them to be played on their systems. And so the publishers edit the games to get an M rating.
Add a R18+ rating to Australia? There will be no net effect compared to being RC.