Pointless but good to spread awareness. But I hardly think it is going to have an impact if the parrents doesn’t care…
maayybe games with addictive elements shouldd be higher rated. Does nothing, but nice, though !
Pointless
Does the means that interplayer communication like in Minecraft or other games would push it to PEGI18?
Minecraft has chat moderation/reporting by default and always on in Bedrock, so unless pressed about unmoderated servers it looks good from outside. More of hassle for smaller devs, for whom the line is not clear between adding the just block/report/disable chat options or 1984 surveillance to pass it
Unfiltered communication gets an 18 rating, but loot boxes get a
1216 😮💨Lottery tickets are usually 16+ too. It’s probably kicked after that
In app purchases are 12, loot boxes are 16 or 18.
You’re right. I shouldn’t be reading articles that early.
I’d imagine that very few games would be given an 18 due to the unfiltered chat.
Surely they all have a block and a report function at the very least (even if they do nothing about reports).
If its the actual content theyre worried about they all should. It doesnt matter what game youre playing there will eventually be a 6 year old shouting Nr and Ft at the top of his voice.
That’s the right direction I think.
Making an informed choice is important. If you do it anyway, who the hell are we to be everybodys parents.
But maybe that’s wrong of me to think that?
who the hell are we to be everybodys parents
In Italy it’s illegal to sell PEGI 18 media to minors. I wish it was enforced.
I think that’s another discussion altogether. Making the decision possible at all is a fundamental win to start with. I’m for it. 👌
Original article by PEGI: https://pegi.info/news/pegi-expands-age-rating-criteria-interactive-risk-categories
Purchases of in-game content: games with time-limited or quantity-limited offers will be classified with a PEGI 12, games with NFTs or blockchain-related mechanisms will be PEGI 18.
Paid random items: the default rating will be PEGI 16 if the game contains paid random items (and in some cases they can be a PEGI 18).
Play-by-appointment: mechanisms that reward returning to the game (e.g. daily quests) will get a PEGI 7. If these mechanisms punish players for not returning (e.g. by losing content or reducing progress) they will become PEGI 12.
Safe online gameplay: if games contain entirely unrestricted communication features (e.g. no blocking or reporting), they will be PEGI 18.
That wording sounds really unspecific. I wonder how the first two poins will be interpreted with regard to games where the paying for gambling tokens involves multiple steps of conversion. In particular, Genshin Impact and similar games, where the paid currency first has to be converted (at a 1:1 rate) to a general currency that can be earned by engaging with the completely free progression systems.
the default rating will be PEGI 16 if the game contains paid random items
So if Pokémon Pocket was released after this revision, would it be labelled PEGI 16?
Play-by-appointment is the gateway to all the other anti features, and not being about to focus on studying because you’re worried about your dailies shouldn’t be something 12 year olds (or anyone, really) are exposed to
See, I have a real issue with the “12 year olds (or anyone, really)” bit there in juxtaposition to all the pushback on OS age verification.
The gaming community has spent the past decade and change doing the exact same moral panic routine that anti-game violence crusaders did in the 90s and are in the process of finding out why it’s a bad idea.
Age ratings and content warnings? Awesome. Gating content and design concepts on moral grounds? Not that.
You think that identifying dark patterns that are literally designed by psychologists to be as addictive as possible is moral panic?
Yes.
I mean, for one thing, that’s a misrepresentation. You don’t need a behavioral scientist to figure out that “come back tomorrow for another reward” is a good engagement tool. For another, it’s a misnomer, because that’s not a dark pattern, it’s a deliberate, out-in-the-open design that is transparent about how it works.
But do I think that people freaking out about engagement tools they don’t like while giving functionally similar ones they do like a pass is a moral panic?
100%, absolutely yes.
There’s a reason why the PEGI rep talking to Eurogamer clarifies that this specific wording would absolutely have unintended consequences and they’re limiting the age ratings impact and leaning on content descriptors instead:
“There was some discussion here,” he added. “Some people pointed out that these are features that make the game engaging and fun - this is enriching the game experience similar to a cliffhanger in a Netflix series. So we mostly want to inform parents about this, because there’s no reason why we should give Animal Crossing a very high rating. So this is going to stick to a PEGI 7 but it will have a descriptor that explains this. The exact language of the descriptors still needs to be figured out.”
So yes. Slippery slope, moral panic, will somebody thing of the children stuff.
As a third side to the discussion, I do have my reservations about age verification, but then I don’t mind such mechanics being banned completely. PEGI, to my mind, severely underplays the issues involved.
It’s extremely easy to cross the line between “oh, you’re back! Here’s something small and nice to set you for a good gaming session” and “oh no, you didn’t come to the game, now your weekly/monthly streak is gone and the main reward you wanted and all your friends have is now forever unattainable”.
Most games, unfortunately, opt for the latter, focusing on FOMO and driving anxiety as the key factor to force people to play. Games should be something unimportant, something that is there and waits for you to finish with what matters. Not a second job that it became for many.
…and yes, battle pass is also an engagement mechanic of a similar kind and needs to be eliminated for much the same reasons.
Patterns don’t have to be dark to be problematic.
Well, we will see what they do in practice. I think it’s a step in te right direction.
It doesn’t need to be too specific, in that PEGI actually reviews the products it rates. You get to send them a preview and then talk to them about the rating.
I also think some of the stuff Eurogamer is reporting is weird, or maybe PEGI is just not aware of some tools? For instance, null
A game will be able to reduce this PEGI rating to 7 if it contains in-game controls that allow you to turn spending off by default. As Bosmans noted, these systems don’t really exist yet, but the hope is this change will incentivise them to be developed.
Is not actually true. Many games do include turning spending off based on the user’s reported age or whether they’re on a child account (Nintendo and Sony both support this as a feature, I believe).
So there is some confusing stuff going on here, but it all seems mostly reasonable to me.
My trust in PEGI’s ability to properly review games has decreased significantly after Balatro got a PEGI-18 rating for some real horseshit reasons. This is a good direction, my concern is with the execution.
Isn’t the issue here that fifa fc should also be 18?
Myeh. I think they mostly do fine, but they’re certainly not perfect. These are reasonable, but some of the stuff they’re saying about it is factually incorrect, too (like I said, there ARE age-based commerce lockouts in games already despite their statements).
All they need to do to be functional is have a modicum of consistency and at least be reactive to feedback. The Balatro thing sucked, but they did correct it. Some of these changes seem to be specifically a reaction to the Balatro thing, in fact.
deleted by creator
A great step in the right direction if you ask me.
Elements of addictive design
So, like… Every single game? I can’t think of a single game made after the 90s that doesn’t have some elements of addictiveness designed into the game. Like every time you are shown an XP reward for doing a thing? That’s an addictive element designed to hook you.
By that logic everything is addictive and people indulging in it should be considered addicts. And I mean everything, for example: playing sports, singing, painting minis, fantasizing about muscular men, and even cleaning your house.
But that would be kind of meaningless, and would add nothing to the discussion. Luckily the discussion is not about that, it is around games with elements specifically designed to be much more addictive.
Good example would be Bloons TD 6. Is the game itself addictive? I wouldn’t say so, it’s just and ordinary (though well made) game. Again, you can still get addicted to just the play loop of it, but that’s not the point. Are the daily rewards and daily challenges in this game addictive? Yes, their purpose is literally to get you to think you have something do in that game and log in every day to do them. Think about how much less addictive that game would be if those mechanics would be removed. Would people still log in every day to play? Some people yes (third time now, everything can be an addiction), but a lot of people would play much less, and possibly in much more focused sessions (as in not half an hour everyday, but two hours every weekend).
By that logic, everything is addictive
Everything can be addictive. That doesn’t mean everything is designed that way. The key words here are intentionally designed. And nearly all modern games have intentionally addictive design elements, from how the UI is presented, down to how the game feels. Most major game studios literally have psychologists on staff for this very purpose, while smaller studios copy a lot of the same ideas and elements into their games without even necessarily knowing the things they are copying to be like The Current Big Hit were originally designed to be addiction machines (aka Skinner boxes).
You’re right, so what really matters is WHY it’s designed that way. Is it because it’s meant to be fun? That’s okay. Is it to somehow get more money from you? Not okay.
The Long Dark?
The way loot and looting work in most survival games generally are designed to be addictive, yes.
With the long dark, that’s like saying free camping in the wilderness is addictive 😅
Also, now I’m thinking of other games too. I am Toast, Human Fall Flat. Kaizo Mario maybe even?
I dare you tell me an addictive element in Terraria.
“Being Terraria.”
Basically the whole game lol. But off the top of my head a specific example is fishing crates are loot boxes. I don’t think it falls under the same category as being addictive as a core design choice or for money though it’s just legit an amazing game with a gameplay loop that draws you in
Show me a rating system that actually makes sense.
Weirdly enough probably the old pre-pg13 movie ratings system. It wasn’t perfect but it did make sense, mostly because it was generally a good bit looser on a lot of things allowing more wiggle room for context. Fun fact if memory serves right the first two Indiana Jones films are PG.
A detailed rating system is prone to fail. I know 7 y/o who are more mature than 16y/o. This is an extreme case. But development differences +/-1 year are very common. So maybe we should stick to “child”, “adolescent”, “adult”.
The rating system isn’t meant to be taken literally though. It’s expected that parents make an informed choice based on the maturity of their child. The ratings are recommendations and as far as I know only actually enforced by stores/sellers and cinemas.
No
:(
