What’s in scope? Player comms functions
If your players can communicate with each other beyond just pre-set phrases, you could be caught by future age restrictions. In fact, it’s probably inevitable to some degree. This means that the ongoing “Growing up in the online world” consultation (closing 26 May) is directly relevant to you.
The strictest version of a proposed social media ban is an automatic prohibition on allowing under-16s to make accounts, with ‘regulated user-to-user services’ (i.e. those under the Online Safety Act) as the initial remit.
The more flexible version of age restriction regulations (the most likely outcome) will have a scope set from the ground up, but it’s highly unlikely that video games comms will remain unscathed.
Of particular concern is anything relating to ‘stranger pairing’, with the current draft legislation requiring providers to restrict (notably, not ‘prevent’) access to a service or feature through which:
A player could receive unsolicited contact from a stranger;
A player could encounter live speech or live video generated (on the service or uploaded) by a stranger;
A stranger could encounter live speech or live video generated (on the service or uploaded) by a player
A stranger could identify the actual or approximate location of a player.
This directly reflects several points raised in the ongoing consultation. We already know from the consultation that there are concerns about stranger interaction, particularly in video games because there are fears that playing alongside strangers normalises this.
These categories could potentially be used to cover text chat (‘unsolicited contact from a stranger’) and voice chat (‘live speech’ between a stranger and a player), but are also clearly designed to encompass live streaming as well.
The fact that this is about ‘restricting’ rather than ‘preventing’ access means that there’s potentially scope for providers to use approaches that allow limited types of access, or where features are low-risk and ancillary. It could also be a flag that regulations will be more focused on dealing with the feature of a service rather than banning a whole service because of a single feature.
The key here for video games companies that player-to-player comms is fundamentally different to other forms of ‘stranger’ contact. Where in-game chat is time-limited, ephemeral, and exists solely to support multiplayer functions, this is a specific and unique context that should be treated on its own merits.
As such, while in-game comms functions are being considered as part of the consultation, there is nonetheless the case to be made that the eventual regulations should account for circumstances where the nature of the feature means it is low risk.
If this is something you think is relevant to you and you want to know a bit more, drop us a line and we’ll have a chat.
You might also want to check out our handy tracker page and our overview of what else could land games companies in scope of the regulations and consultation.