MMOGs rated in Australia. Warcraft a bit late, no sign of Conan, Warhammer
by Tateru Nino 
Oct 10th 2009 at 4:00PM
Filed under: MMO industry, News items, Legal
Back at the end of January, after we spent months investigating, talking to the Australian Classification Board, and both State and Federal Australian Attorneys General offices, it became clear that an apparent discrepancy in Australian games ratings was no discrepancy.
MMOGs were being sold on store shelves in Australia without the mandatory classification required by law. The whole thing was a tangle of confusing and contradictory information and statements from publishers, developers, industry associations, retailers and government departments. The government departments involved ultimately passed the buck back and forth between State and Federal jurisdictions, until their press-offices simply refused to talk.
Now, at last, the government seems to have gotten its message straight. In the wake of the coverage most MMOGs applied for and received a rating. Even Blizzard's World of Warcraft (a bit of a johnny-come-lately) has a proper rating this month and only Funcom's Age of Conan and Mythic's Warhammer Online seem to be holdouts, as far as we can tell.
For those of you who came in late, Australia (like a number of other countries) requires classification of various materials (including computer and console games) before they may be sold in the country. Noting, of course that 'sold' is distinct from 'purchased'. A purchase doesn't always take place in the same legal jurisdiction as a sale. That's one of the tasty and interesting parts of interjurisdictional law.
Gamespot Australia quotes a Blizzard representative as saying "Blizzard Entertainment has always worked closely with the Classification Board for all its titles. However, back in 2004, we were advised by the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) that the online-only nature of World of Warcraft was unclassifiable under its definition of computer games at that time. Recent changes at the Classification Board have led to their ability to classify online-only games such as World of Warcraft."
Of course the Australian Classification Board (no longer called the OFLC) maintains, as per their previous statements to us, that nothing has changed during the lifespan of World of Warcraft and that it (and other games like it) were always subject to mandatory classification.
After all, by 2004 when World of Warcraft came out, the Classification Board had already rated more than one MMOG.
After we broke the story, and it hit the national newspapers and gaming media there seems to have been a bit of a shakeup. In May this year there appears to have been something of a stampede of MMOG classification submissions from the publishers whom we had previously contacted, with Blizzard apparently hanging back an additional several months before getting World of Warcraft and its expansions classified (being granted an "M" rating, just two days ago).
World of Warcraft's classification is still new enough that stores don't have ratings stickers on the boxes yet (which is a bit of a no-no, but given the unusual circumstances probably not a huge issue). Funcom's Age of Conan and Mythic's Warhammer Online are still on Australian store shelves without any sign of classification however. We suppose that you could phone your local police-station and report those should you see them, if you're feeling so inclined.
One thing that bothers us about the whole affair (other than how such a daft situation could have developed in the first place) is that there are classification entries that we can no longer locate, and others that we can locate, but that appear to be under different (later) dates than they were listed with at the beginning of the year.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jed said on 4:37PM 10-10-2009
All i can say is that im glad i dont live there for that reason. They almost seem as bad as the chinese gaming regulation people. And games are really expensive there.
Reply
Quin said on 6:37PM 10-10-2009
Lol, what an absolute rubbish reason to base your decision upon. Notice they're still on the shelves. No-one cares about this except Massively. And nothing would've happpened if they hadn't gone all 60 Minutes about it...
Ben said on 6:37PM 10-10-2009
Do you actully know what your talking about?
the OFLC are nothing like chinese gaming regulators, the only issuse we have here is that there is no 18+ classification for games.
None of the games mentioned above were ever stoped form being sold here in australia, and they did not make any publisher jump tho the hoops that the chinese goverment has with blizz recently!
Infact its quite the opposite, they never inforced the law on any of these games, as acording to australian law anything without a classifcation is not aloud to be sold.
This is nothing more then an intresting law qurik.
and as for them being exprensive, we pay just as much as you in the states (less most of the time if you factor in exchange rates)
So save yourself looking stupid and think befor opening your mouth next time
Snowyjoe said on 7:47PM 10-10-2009
The reason why most games are expensive are because of exchange rates and shipping fees.
But I have to say that their rating on games are a bit over the top. Like I remember the Sims being rated Teenager in Europe, was rated M in Australia.
Then again, the same can go for movie ratings there too.....
But I really don't know how they "rate" MMOs. It's oddly pointless. This game is rated M, but game experience may change during online play......
Colonel Kurtz said on 11:47PM 10-10-2009
Idiot.
Izzy said on 9:54AM 10-13-2009
Not move to Australia for that reason? sheesh. I'd move there in a second. If I knew I could get a job.
davie_90 said on 8:25PM 10-10-2009
Umm.. ben? Do you live in Australia?
I agree with all your post bar the statement we pay the same price as the US. We get games later, and pay more for them. Sometimes ridiculously more.
Reply
GaaaaaH said on 9:28PM 10-10-2009
Maybe the ratings are only on the new boxes, which haven't hit the shelves due to lower demand.
Reply
Jed said on 4:07AM 10-11-2009
screw you colonel kurtz! AMURICA F*** YA!
Reply
Colonel Kurtz said on 4:13AM 10-11-2009
I rest my case.
Jed said on 5:21AM 10-11-2009
haha come on now.. i was only playing =P
Reply
mpdivo said on 10:14AM 10-11-2009
All the youtube videos on the subject has made it seem like the end of the world in Australia. These videos are made from activisit in Australia...so I don't see how blaming Massively is completely accurate.
Are there any games that you can't buy now in Australia? What are done with the 18+ games. Can you still download Second Life?
Is this really a non-issue Quin? Is this government censorship or simply a rating system?
Reply
Tateru Nino said on 11:57AM 10-11-2009
>> Is this really a non-issue Quin? Is this government censorship or simply a rating system?
It's a mandated ratings system. Some think that's censorship and some don't. Some aren't sure quite what to think.
>> Are there any games that you can't buy now in Australia?
Yes. Any game that doesn't meet the content standards for a fifteen year old.
>> What are done with the 18+ games
They are "Refused Classification" (RC) and cannot be sold, rented, or traded in Australia, nor can they be legally stored on any premises that sells non-RC titles. They *can* however be imported (to a point), as the Classifications Enforcement Act does not control purchases. The particular point that I'm referring to is that Customs can and does intercept some material that would be RC.
>> Can you still download Second Life?
Yes, as it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Classifications Enforcement Act. It is not sold in Australia. It is not sold at all, in fact. However, the proposed Internet filtering system may impact it significantly.
Darky said on 9:08AM 10-13-2009
the filter wont happen, as it reduces the net speed by a ridiculous amount and that would simply cause an uproar as the net speeds suck already in australia and if they do, proxies are usable and easily makable
Tateru Nino said on 9:44AM 10-13-2009
Really? I read in the papers that the trial of the system was considered 'a success' (actually, I believe they used the term 'a huge success'), mostly apparently based on some result that indicated that the system did not slow things down very much.
Either way, though, I don't quite see what practicality, usability and effectiveness have to do with what legislation actually passes -- I mean, they haven't before right? ;)