NZ Chief Censor on Games Avoiding Classification

NZ Chief Censor on Games Avoiding Classification

Andrew Jack, New Zealand's chief censor, has spoken against game publishers digitally distributing games that haven't gone through the country's classification process.

New Zealand law requires games that have been given a restricted rating in Australia or the UK to go be classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification before they can be sold in New Zealand. Games with a G, PG, or M rating in Australia or the UK do not need to be locally rated.

In order to get a game classified, publishers are responsible for submitting them to the OFLC, a process that incurs a $1,400 fee. However, the rise of digital game distribution through services like Steam, the iTunes App Store, and Google Play has seen some publishers selling games in New Zealand without first having them classified. 

"As chief censor I have previously expressed the view that games, in the legislation, should be treated the same as films," said Jack. "This would see all games distributed in New Zealand carry New Zealand classification labels, and allow New Zealanders to make informed choices about what they and their children watch and play."

Jack wondered "it is perhaps time to consider" whether the game industry can continue to be trusted. 

However, Ron Curry, chief executive of the Interactive Gaming and Entertainment Association, said that Jack's idea of classifying every game is "crazy," and that government organisations should work with the industry to find a solution.

"There hasn’t been an attempt to adapt to the modern video game industry. It’s impossible to enforce classification of games so a principle scheme is the best alternative," Curry said.

Am initiative called the International Age Rating Coalition has been launched overseas, in an effort to streamline and automate the classification process. The Australian Government has approved a 12-month test of the IARC tool under the supervision of the Australian Classification Board, and Jack says he is watching the rollout "with interest."

Source: NBR



 

Relevant Articles

 

Comments Comments (12)

 
Posted by drunk_monk
On Friday 14 Nov 2014 6:02 PM
-
I assumed everything had to go through them but that's cool that it's only for games R rated over seas.

And what the hell? When did Australia start embracing the future instead of being bogged down by old ways.
 
 
 
Posted by jtbthatsme
On Friday 14 Nov 2014 6:22 PM
1
Good for Australia to jump onboard with something like that as their ratings system is pretty bad. As for the comment about not trusting the games industry...we shouldn't they generally shaft us with media campaigns that involve us believing this game is going to be the next big thing and / or awesome we then go off and buy said game at release or earlier and find out it's not a finished polished product, full of bugs, lag and frame rate drops.

I too also agree that there's no need to rate every game as that would increase the price of games what are already overpriced here in NZ.
 
 
 
Posted by MonkeyMan
On Friday 14 Nov 2014 7:15 PM
-
How can people complain about colour catch not being rated?
 
 
 
snooze321
Posted by snooze321
On Friday 14 Nov 2014 9:16 PM
1
Well it would at least be amusing to see the OFLC attempt to censor Steam. The profits that EU and NA developers see from the NZ games industry is so few that i doubt they would give Mr. Jack the time of day let alone $1400.
 
 
 
Posted by Antmannz
On Saturday 15 Nov 2014 8:45 AM
5
Sounds like the Chief Censor is trying to drum up business. Is he worried about his job, I wonder?
 
 
 
Posted by ReaperCrew
On Saturday 15 Nov 2014 11:46 AM
-
I think the current classification process no longer fits the games industry. Films in contrast do not have their content changing once released. Games, however have patches and DLC's, which could change their rating and digital distribution for games and films is going to become more common. Ultimately we the consumer are paying for games to be rated and I think there is room for improvement. The OFLC need to adapt rather than complain.
 
 
 
Posted by Scuba_Steve
On Saturday 15 Nov 2014 1:35 PM
-
Best idea I've heard to keep up with the new age of games can be heard here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoV3_gEvqA0
 
 
 
Posted by SpawnSeekSlay
On Sunday 16 Nov 2014 9:06 PM
1
A label that achieves nothing. A money making scheme, that is all.
 
 
 
Posted by MonkeyMan
On Sunday 16 Nov 2014 9:55 PM
-
I do agree with what he is trying to get at. But the current system needs more change then just getting everyone on board.
 
 
 
Posted by reavers
On Sunday 16 Nov 2014 11:04 PM
1
Pretty big hefty fee especially for smaller companies
 
 
 
Posted by ninja
On Sunday 16 Nov 2014 11:25 PM
-
Some rating system that is streamlined and internationally used would be ideal once proper testing has been done for results to determine it's usefulless.

Current and historical classification is serevrly limited when being used with digital distribution
 
 
 
Ginsu
Posted by Ginsu
On Monday 17 Nov 2014 10:44 AM
1
This would be a mistake, It's already expensive enough for publishers to release here; in what is a very small market - especially for indie games where the margins are tighter.

One thing not mentioned here is that individuals can apply to get games classified independent of the publisher - this is a minor cost ($35 or so) assuming the censor gives leave for the application. I did this for Hotline Miami - which was available via steam but couldn't be accessed via the PSN (SONYs store is deemed to be local) - it was released on the PSN a week after being classified.