The Age Debate: Part 1

Last week GamesIndustry.biz reported on an evidence session for the CMS Select Committee hearing looking into internet and videogame violence in which Microsoft's head of corporate affairs in the UK, Matt Lambert, expressed his preference for the PEGI ratings system over the BBFC.

The BBFC responded to GamesIndustry.biz later the same day, criticising the PEGI system for its tick-box methodology and unclear iconography.

To unpack more of the issues around the age ratings debate in the UK in the run-up to the release of the Byron Report later this month, we spent some time with Neil Thompson, senior regional director for the UK and Ireland at Microsoft's Entertainment and Devices division.

In part one of this two-part interview, he looks at the PEGI vs BBFC issue, and whether or not the industry is doing enough to make content appropriate for its audiences.

Neil Thompson: Of course I do. We made it very clear to the Byron Report team, both as an industry and as Microsoft, that we strongly believe that PEGI has a lot more benefits for customers, parents and for everyone involved in the industry really.

If Byron does decide that one ratings system is the right way to go - and we're still waiting to hear what her views are going to be on that - our recommendation would be, as it would simplify things for consumers, retailers, parents and everyone else, that PEGI is our preferred route.

There are a number of reasons really. PEGI has been established for quite a few years now as the industry standard, so the industry has got behind it and invested a lot of time and effort in it, and it offers a level of in-depth information as well as a level of expertise to be honest, that the BBFC doesn't.

You've just got to look at the fact that through the PEGI system last year something approaching 2000 games were rated, while through the BBFC I think it was about 100 or so*. There's just a scale difference in terms of industry knowledge and industry insight that goes into these things, and the industry is pretty passionate - as Microsoft is - that the appropriate ratings do get set to content, and parents and everybody can be sure about what is mature content for mature people, what is teen content for teens, and what is more junior and broad content for everyone.

We're all gunning for the right thing I think, it's just that PEGI is the right way to do that.

One of the things that we discussed for the evidence in this process [for Byron], and just what we've discussed as an industry as well, is around the requirement to educate parents more around the ratings systems and what symbols, words or age ratings refer to - and I think the role for industry and government is clear, that we need to continue to do what we're doing, because we're doing quite a lot and potentially there's a role for us to increase that attention.

But when you look at PEGI I do think there is a broader range of identification for people. The BBFC rates at two levels, while PEGI rates at a much broader range of levels, and it seems to me in the evidence that I've seen that parents look at the age caps on the products and make reasonably clear decisions and understand what the age rating means - it's a game that is appropriate in its content for people of that age.

And then I think the iconography that PEGI uses to try to help quickly ascertain as to what is in that game that makes it appropriate for that age.

So I personally think that it's just a better way, a more thorough way, for us to go - and because the industry is behind it, it'll get a lot more momentum. It's becoming the European standard and whenever you have something of that magnitude where you're getting more countries evolving to that standard I think you're going to see a lot more progression in terms of education and the way that technology can evolve, because it's much easier to move when you've got one clear standard like that.

I think all of the publishers that use the system, which is really all of the main publishers, take it incredibly seriously, and apply a lot of effort.

When people say "it's just a tick-box exercise", people actually apply a lot of effort in evaluating the content, and I think it's fair to say that in most cases the publishers will tend to err on the conservative side, possibly even more conservative than historically what we have seen with the content as rated by the BBFC.

I think the industry does take this issue incredibly seriously, for obvious reasons, and we do apply a lot of diligence and a lot of thought about how we approach it. We are an industry that spends its life doing this - we spend our lives looking at games, evaluating games, understanding what content we're putting into games, what market we're trying to appeal to with those games, and hence I don't think there's anyone in a better place to judge.

If I look at the Xbox 360, the majority of our user base is over the age of 18, so most content that's coming out is actually valid for people that own consoles. But it is important to protect minors that are under-18, and that's why we take that process incredibly seriously.

I think the first thing we have to do is really understand what the Byron review finds and recommends in terms of its approach. I think it would be inappropriate to guess now what might come through that review on a broad scale, and I think we should respect the review for being wide-ranging and broad-engaging review, and I'd commend it on the experience of it I've had to date.

It has done a good job of listening to a variety of views and getting extensive span of information from the industry and all stakeholders in this area.

So we need to look at the comments that come out of the review, understand the context of those comments, and then we can come up with a more informed opinion of how we should move forward, both as a company and as an industry.

I think, broadly, all the responsible members of the industry would say that something like mature content, that is aimed at mature audiences, is labeled appropriately. Whether there is some cultural and taste arbiter that needs to say whether certain content is inappropriate for society - I'm not sure I'm the right person to comment on that.

There are routes today that certain content can be banned under law, so the law actually already provides guidance as to what is seen as offensive, etc, irrespective of what ratings system get applied.

I think what we really have to look at is content in the main that is judged at certain age ratings and is judged for mature content, and ensure that we're labeling that acceptable content appropriately for the right ages.

And I think that's where the people that develop the games, in association with the PEGI process, can do a good job.

I don't know what the exact percentage is these days, but I think it's about 5 or 6 per cent of titles that come out on all gaming formats is of a mature content rating. We seem to get very focused on two or three products in a year that exercise a lot of people's angst, in an industry that is much, much bigger than those two or three products.

I think as long as those two or three products are within the law and rated and sold appropriately to people of the correct age - if we live within those contexts then I think we need to move on and understand that a lot of adults really enjoy videogaming, as they enjoy horror movies, as they enjoy war films, as they enjoy all sorts of other adult content.

We need to allow creative people to be able to produce products in those genres. I think it would be inappropriate for us to be saying that we should have some sort of moral code that can't apply.

The law is there to say when something isn't acceptable to society, and can be applied - other than that it's a matter of taste as to whether or not adults choose to consume content of an adult nature.

The really important thing in all of this discussion is ensuring that everybody involved in the industry, government, retail, and so on, makes sure people are getting the right product, and that we educate everyone - including parents - that everyone has to take responsibility in ensuring that our children are only exposed to appropriate kinds of content, that everybody has a role to play, and we can no longer allow people to just dismiss videogames as some sort of toy pastime that we won't take an active role in understanding.

This is a form of entertainment that spans 6 year-olds to 60 year-olds, and within that context we have to ensure that we're doing the right thing for children.

* The BBFC actually classified 258 titles in that time.