In this the third and final part of our feature we'll take a step back from the government red tape and look instead at those impacted most by our game classification system--the people making games, the companies who distribute them, retailers, and the last line of vocal defence, you the consumer.
While Australians who believe they have been wronged are quite vocal about the changes they believe are required to better classify video game content in this country, those that feel the financial strain of any game ban--retailers, developers, and distributors--remain surprisingly silent.
Many companies approached by GameSpot AU for comment refused to do so (although it's not uncommon for companies to choose not to offer an opinion on the record to media, particularly where sensitive financial data or the jeopardy of established business relationships are concerned). The recurring theme appeared not to be that they agreed with the existing regime and how it works, but rather that no company wants to be responsible for dishing the dirt normally reserved for discussion behind closed doors, and potentially issuing the challenge of further crackdown on our already over-policed censorship system.
Many interviewees, particularly those working in game companies, offered to speak to us on the condition of anonymity, and each brought with them a unique insight into the process of game classification down under. Many identified the emerging trend of consumers seeking "uncut" versions of games as a legitimate cause of concern, with international import potentially leading to a significant dent in the number of dollars being spent on our shores.
When asked their thoughts on the current classification system, most publisher contacts indicated their support and understanding for current law, but also acknowledged the need for an R18+ restricted game category to help provide a more holistic approach to entertainment censorship and education.
One company who was willing to go on the record to discuss the burning issues was AFA Interactive. Adam Zweck, sales and product manager for AFA Interactive, the Australian distributor of the recently refused classification title Dark Sector is no stranger to the system. He cites the lack of feedback from the Classification Board and expensive legal appeals process as major stumbling blocks for Australian game distributors, making it prohibitive to getting games to market. "For 90 to 95 percent of the stuff that comes through, I think the classification system is more than fine," Zweck said. "When it comes to these R18+ ratings, the biggest issue for me is the lack of info we're given by the OFLC when it comes to their decision. I don't know if you're aware of how the system works, but once a game gets refused classification (RCed), we are given a time period in which we can appeal that decision. From what I can tell, and from my studies, I'm not sure if any games have ever won that appeals process unchanged.
"It's A$2000 to submit from day one. For the OFLC to sit down and have another look at the game costs money again. So your initial outlay is A$2000. From there, if you want to appeal it it’s A$10,000. For a small distributor like us, that's a huge amount of money to spend on a gamble. In no other area of our business do we sit down and say 'let's spend A$12,000 in the vain hope that something might come of this'. It's not good business sense," Zweck said.
What effect do game bans and content cuts have on consumer interest and their spending habits, and are our comparatively antiquated laws and the weak US dollar having an adverse consequence on our local industry in what is quickly becoming a global retail space? As we explored in the first and second parts of our feature, Australia has a bum rap globally when it comes to censorship, and while it may not be entirely justified with only two non-AAA titles banned in 2007 and three the year before, it's a metaphorical bad smell we don't seem to be able to shake. The recent announcement that Australia would receive a watered down version of Grand Theft Auto IV to fit our maximum MA15+ age rating for games caused a virtual meltdown both from Aussie gamers fed up with feeling like second citizens and gamer sympathisers from North American and European nations--both of which feature an adult rating for games. Rockstar Games local PR arm has as yet chosen not to release a statement outlining what was cut from the Australian release. This further prompts some users to take advantage of Europe's version as an ally in the PAL broadcast format, and Sony's region-free PlayStation 3 console to import the game. What percentage of the Aussie gaming population will pony up extra cash (or in most cases save considerably by importing) remains a mystery, but it does pose an interesting question.
It's impossible to determine what kind of long term consequences this may have on our retail industry, but our industry insider, who doesn't speak for retailers, was quick to point out that "... we want consumers to buy their games here, not overseas. If we start getting people to buy games overseas because they can't get the game here, I just feel they're going to start doing that with all our games."
Additional development costs such as modification of content by the development team, and in Dark Sector's case, potentially even going as far as to localise a Japanese build of the game to submit for classification obviously has a huge associated cost. We asked AFA's Adam Zweck at what point you call it a day and can the project. "We have invested so much into this it would be such a shame for it to go nowhere. So we're going to keep on trying to push as much as possible. I guess that's our biggest frustration--that we can do so much work and push so hard, and yet at the end of the day it comes down to the ruling of a single individual. In a democratic society, it astounds me again that this decision ultimately falls on one person," he said.
Zweck's sentiments about the rating process were echoed by a publisher who wished not to be identified for this feature. We'll refer to them from here on in as an industry insider. They went as far as to say that in some cases the classification submitters from the company they represent were forced to use "sneaky" tactics to pass contentious content through the censors. "The current classification system is good. The only issue we've had is with [game title], and I was quite scared that it would be refused," they said in an interview. "We have to be really clever in ensuring we prove to them that it didn't encourage violence. We had to be really sneaky in a way to make sure it passed the [MA15+] rating."
Ron Curry, CEO of the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia (IEAA), downplayed the business impact on Australian businesses, suggesting it was only a diminutive concern given the small number of titles banned here last year, but stressed the need to secure the industry moving forward "Today there's very little [effect on the local industry], over the last financial year there were only two games that were refused classification and three the year before, so there's not a huge commercial impact on us, what we're doing, and what our members are saying is we need to future proof. We need to work now towards what happens next year and the years beyond, not wait until we get there," Curry said.
Greg Bondar, CEO of the Game Developers' Association of Australia (GDAA), a body representing the interests of local game creators says that while the current lack of an R18+ rating for games was not restricting the artistic freedom of Aussie game developers, it "certainly is not conducive to the development of a wider range of games. That's not to say they're all going to go out and make R rated games. What it's saying is we should have the same broad classification [as film] available to us to enable us to produce games as we see fit."
Censory Overload: An in-depth look at Australian video game classification
GameSpot AU's in-depth look at Australian video game classification.
198 Comments