Explained

That’s… significant

Yeah, it’s quite the big move. Because age ratings are currently based on the suitability of the game for different age groups on the basis of content, rather than functionality, interest, or skill, it’s pretty common to find 3 or 7 rated games with loot boxes. Although the PEGI system had descriptors for in-game purchasing, player contact, and ‘random-item purchasing’ (snappy), this didn’t used to affect the age rating itself. Now, however, it will factor into their assessment of what age a game is suitable for – e.g. if it’s got loot boxes, it’s automatically a 16. The PEGI 18 rating for unrestricted comms is pretty aligned with UK Online Safety Act, meaning that this adds another layer of regulation.

In the UK (different countries have different approaches, so we’ll stick at home for this bit), games supplied in physical formats are legally required to have a rating, and it’s illegal to sell them to kids who are younger than the rated age. So, no matter how anodyne the content, if it’s got a PEGI 16 rating and you’re younger than that, you can’t pop along to Smyths and buy it.

The rating will also be applied across listings in many app stores and online games marketplaces, since PEGI forms part of the IARC system that partner platforms use to display region-relevant age ratings to their users. The UK law underpinning the ratings requirement relates to games supplied in physical formats (not sure how future proof that will continue to be…), but when it comes to expectations for compliance that’s pretty much just a technicality.

It also makes things interesting for UK TV advertising. Under BCAP Code rule 32.4.8, PEGI 16 and 18 rated games can’t be advertised “in or adjacent to programmes commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal particularly to audiences below the age of 18.” This made total sense when the rating reflected the content (since an ad for Resident Evil will always be a bit dicey for a 4 year old), but is that still the case when it comes to game functions that don’t have to be used to play the game?

Isn’t this getting ahead of things a bit?

You could say that.

While there is a lot of regulatory chatter about minimum ages for loot boxes and addictive design features etc, and the European Parliament called for it in their recent report, so far there’s been no real action. The Digital Services Act gets the closest by making some requirements for very large online platforms, but that’s fairly limited.

In the UK, PEGI ratings for games supplied in physical formats are legally enforceable (see above), so rating games with loot boxes as PEGI 16 effectively creates something pretty close to a ban. That’s particularly the case with in-game purchasing. This will get you a PEGI 12 rating, but they’re looking at lowering it to PEGI 7 if there are adequate parental controls – this aligns with the DFA consultation proposal that games should only contain in-game purchasing if it can be switched off for younger players.

PEGI is well aware that they are ahead of legislation here, with the Director of PEGI stating:

"It's not unthinkable that in the next few months, some companies will go like, 'This is outrageous.' But I would also ask them to read the room, and see where we are these days in terms of regulatory pressure on the one hand, responsibilities [of] the industry on the other hand, and how to move forward in between those."

It’s a generally accepted regulatory trope that strong self-regulation can be an effective means of avoiding blunt, disproportionate regulation. However, in this instance there’s a risk that changes like this will serve to reinforce the EC and UK’s desire to act by treating it as an admission that something’s wrong. In other words, it may be too late.

Is it relevant to the UK children’s online activities consultation?

Glad you asked – yes it is.

These changes affect the environment in which kids will be interacting with services that are in the scope of the current consultation. In particular, the restrictions on certain types of engagement mechanisms feeds into the consultation’s questions around ‘addictive’ design and the suggestions that certain features should be off limited to younger players. It also gives games companies an additional impetus to improve their communications safeguarding and inherently lessens the likelihood that children will have access to unrestricted in-game chat.

Vitally, this creates distance between traditional social media and video games – although both may have features that look similar on the outside, they operate in very different ways, which is reflected in the games industry’s adherence to a highly-regarded age classification system. This inbuilt set of guardrails is something that social media doesn’t have. This could therefore be a helpful commitment for setting out why games should not be caught under blanket social media bans.

(If you need to know more about the consultation, check out our explanation)

What’s next?

From June, newly submitted games will be classified according to the new criteria, although publishers introducing the relevant features into an existing video game will need to submit information as well, allowing PEGI to consider whether this may affect its age rating. As games can be submitted to PEGI prior to announcement/release, the first games classified under these new criteria may well be announced this summer.