The PEGI family of selfregulation

1
The PEGI family of self-regulation
2
Interactive software

• Off line stable content susceptible to
  classification
• Online ever changing content makes
  classification
• almost irrelevant

3
Meet the PEGI family

• The Pan-European Game Information (PEGI) system
  was born in May 2002 and launched formally in
  April 2003
• In 2005, the fast uptake of online gaming
  made it imperative to take on the challenge of
  continuing to help parenst with meaningful
  guidance beyond the self-contained, predictable
  off-line environment
• PEGI Online started in June 2007
• In June 2008, Commissioner Viviane Reding
  launched PEGI Plus.

4
The PEGI story (1)

• February 2001 Swedish presidency suggests
  harmonized protection of minors from unsuitable
  content.
• May 2001 government-industry meeting sets out
  to build upon this goal through self-regulation.
• May 2002 Ad-hoc working group proclaims project
  feasible.
• April 2003 the first ever pan-European system
  for harmonized ratings of digital content is
  launched voluntary, i.e. not government
  enforced, flexible, i.e. open to continuing
  improvement.

5
The PEGI story (2) How does it look to
consumers in 30 European countries ?

• 5 logos
• 7 descriptors documenting logos, if needed

Sexual Content
Drugs
Discrimination
Gambling
Violence
Bad Language
Fear
6
Number of ratings in each different age category
The PEGI story (3) How is PEGI faring with
consumers ? 12050 games rated
7
The PEGI story (4) How is PEGI faring with
consumers recognition

• Nielsen 2004 2007 2008
• Spontaneous recognition 60
  60 62
• Assisted recognition 72 94
  94
• PEGI deemed helpful 49 65
  68
• Descriptors deemed clear 44
  46 57

8
The PEGI story (5) The main engines behind PEGI

• NICAM, founded in 2000, running Kijkwijzer since
  February 2001 .
• VSC, established in 1989 to promote high
  standards within the UK video industry, expanded
  in 1993 to computer games.
• Advisory, Complaints Boards.

9
ADVISORY BOARD
10
COMPLAINTS BOARD
11
PEGI Boards are intended to

• Secure PEGIs independence
• Allow for PEGIs continuing adjustment to the
  broader environment
• Reflect European diversity

12
The PEGI story (6) A publishers perspective

• PEGI participants
• sign a binding agreement including a Code of
  conduct with ISFE
• Register with NICAM
• Complete online product assessment form via a
  user-friendly Internet application featuring
  central data storage
• The checking piece reflects the risk assessment
  made by the ad-hoc working group of 2001
• all assessment forms are controlled
• all products are thoroughly screened
• Independent dispute resolution via PCB.

13
The PEGI story (7)The carrot vs stick debate

• Publishers participating in the PEGI system
  liable for mistaken ratings.
• Government-run systems tend to take full
  responsibility for possible missteps.
• By giving full responsibility to those who know a
  game inside out and whose revenues depend on it,
  self-regulation makes mistakes more costly and
  less likely.

14
Why PEGI Online ?

• Online gaming is a rapidly growing phenomenon.

15
Edward Castronova Synthetic worlds (online
games) are not games at all but rather forums for
communications what he calls avatar-mediated
communication.
16
The content of online games breaks down into two
main components

• Original core may fit a PEGI classification
• Content added by (2.1) the original publisher
  (add-ons) or by (2.2) users as they play does not
  lend itself to practicable PEGI classification.
• Item 2.1. eludes classification as NICAM would
  be swamped by hundreds of mini-applications
  daily.
• Item 2.2. cannot possibly be rated, only
  contained within a certain bandwidth as
  regards the protection of minors.

17
The PEGI Online approach

• (2.1) class content publishers of the original
  content are already committed by the PEGI code to
  apply for another PEGI rating as soon as the
  additional content would send the original
  content into a different PEGI age class.
• (2.2) class content while impossible to rate
  as it goes, this content may nonetheless be
  contained within a limited bandwidth which
  makes it appropriate for minors at all times.
• On checking with consumers, we realized that
  this combination, however imperfect, was
  nonetheless likely to address the needs of
  European parents.

18
How does this work ?

• By way of a combination of committed providers
  of online games on the one hand and vigilant
  consumers on the other hand
• PO label holders make a binding pledge to protect
  minors, whatever the means contemplated to uphold
  their commitments.
• The PEGI Online safety Code (POSC) fleshes out
  these commitments, thereby providing consumers
  with a tool to take PO label holders to their
  word.
• Independent administration checks applicants
  ability to live up to POSC standards.
• Sophisticated complaints mechanism adds
  independent resolution of disputes to procedures
  enforced by applicants.
• For the PO system to work effectively, consumers
  have to act as ruthless watchdogs.

19
Consumers as watchdogs

• Consumers have to come to terms with this major
  difference between PO labeling and PEGI rating
• a PEGI rating results from a filing deliberately
  made by a publisher and the subsequent screening
  and granting of a license by the PEGI
  Administrator. Whether parents would take this
  recommendation or decide to ignore it, they are
  not expected to play an active role in making
  PEGI sustainable.
• In contrast, a PO label results from a license
  granted by the PO Administrator for one year -
  with no continuing check within the next 12
  months to an operator thereby held to a set of
  binding commitments.

20
This defining difference actually poses a steep
challenge to PEGIs communication with consumers

• PEGI says trust this logo it certifies that
  the content concerned is suitable to minors in
  excess of X years of age.
• PO says this quality seal reflects commitments
  made by holders to make their best efforts to
  maintain the content concerned within a
   bandwidth  that is suitable for minors at all
  times.

21
Education holds the key to effective consumer
empowerment

• PEGI misses its goal if 18-rated games end up in
  the hands of 12-year olds.
• Parental control is worthless until activated
• Most carefully crafted recommendations and most
  sophisticated control tools alike will prove
  pointless until consumers come to terms with the
  risks and rewards of content accessible online.
• Governments around the world would fail in their
  duty if they would not take their share of
  addressing this public policy challenge.

22
Room for improvement

• The uptake of PO has been slow
• Commissioner Reding on June 2008  The speed of
  development of online gaming is not accompanied
  by a speedy development of PO. 17 signatories for
  PO vs 230 for PEGI this is not satisfactory! 

23
Room for improvement

• EC Communication of 22 April 2008  calls upon
  the videogames and consoles industry to further
  improve the PEGI and PO systems and in particular
  increase the list of signatories 
• What is the critical mass upon which to build
  consumer trust in PO?
• How do you catch UGC in this net?

24
PEGIs friendly godfather

• Recommendation 4  recognizes that online
  videogames bring new challenges such as effective
  age verification systems and possible dangers for
  young consumers related to chat rooms associated
  with the games and calls upon MS and stakeholders
  to work together on innovative solutions

25
PEGIs friendly godfather

• Recommendation 8 advocates cross-media rating
  system.
•  The Commission intends in particular to
  organize meetings of classification bodies to
  exchange best practices in this field 

26
Monitoring, compliance

• PO leaves it up to users to monitor how PO
  license holders will behave
• This does not cut ice with consumers or policy
  makers, hence the  red button  uproar

27
Exclusive and global dont mix

• PO is made contingent upon established regional
  systems
• See POSC Article 7.2.1  include only game
  content rated under the regular PEGI system or
  other recognized European systems 
• The ideal global system would be pegged to
  existing systems, not contingent on a particular
  one.

28
Other pointers given by EU policy makers

• Item 33 in EP Resolution of 12.03.09 on
  VG   calls on the EC and MS to work with
  authorities in other parts of the world to
  encourage the adoption of international
  guidelines, labelling systems and codes of
  conduct to promote global classification systems
  for videogames and online games 

29
Additional pointers

• Item (ae) in EP Recommendation of 26.03.09 on
  strengthening security and fundamental freedoms
  on the internet
• calls for EC and MS to take the initiative for
  the drawing up of standards for data protection,
  security and freedom of speech
• welcomes the Resolution on the urgent need for
  protecting privacy in a borderless world.

30
And from beyond the EU

• CoE working on a Recommendation on  measures to
  protect children against harmful content and
  behaviour and to promote their active
  participation in the new information and
  communications environment 
• Neutral labelling to enable both children and
  adults to make their own value judgments

31
CoE Reco

• Promoting the further development and voluntary
  use of labels and trustmarks to contribute to
  the development of safe and secure spaces for
  childre
• To be effective, labelling systems must hold
  their operators accountable
• To be trustworthy, they must be interoperable.

32
Conclusion

• European policymakers have spelt out their dream
  loud and clear
• It will take coalitions of government-industry-civ
  il society around the world to make this dream
  come true
• Not out of reach isnt PEGI the tale of EU
  policymakers dreams of 2001 made true in 2003?

33
(No Transcript)