Australian classification law is notoriously tough on video games, with fickle rules determining how risky content can be depicted. If a film or television show available in Australia depicts drug use, that’s completely fine. If a video games includes drug use, its depiction is strictly controlled. It can’t be tied to benefits or rewards in gameplay at all, and if there is even a suggestion of drugs being useful, games are likely to be refused classification, and not legally able to be sold within Australia.
These laws are the reason why Fallout players now use “Med-X” instead of “Morphine” – because the Australian Classification Board was set to ban the game for its use of real-world drugs, before Bethesda Game Studios agreed to implement changes. These laws are the reason why RimWorld was temporarily pulled from digital storefronts in 2022. Again, this was down to depictions of drug use in the game, and their ties to in-game rewards.
During SXSW Sydney 2024, a panel of experts discussed exactly why this issue keeps popping for games released in Australia – largely as a result of an archaic and outdated classification system built on unsteady ground.
As explained by Margaret Anderson, former director of the Australian Classification Board, the current classification system in Australia is essentially determined by a gentleman’s agreement between every state, rather than being baked into the constitution. With multiple signatories of equal power required to make any changes or amendments to this law, progress to modernise classification is incredibly slow – or it doesn’t happen at all.
Read: RimWorld has been removed from Steam in Australia
This system has led to a stagnation for classification of new media, as well as the continued proliferation of conservative beliefs about video games, and who plays them. According to Jeff Brand, Professor of Communication and Media at Bond University and Australia’s leading games researcher, one of the core issues with Australia’s classification system is the pervasive assumption that “only kids play games” and “we have to protect the children.”
Yet as statistics reveal, the average age of video game players is 32. And still, under Australia’s classification law, adults are not able to expose themselves to fictional drug use that is tied in any way to incentives. That’s even after Australia introduced an R18+ rating restricting the sale of high impact video games to minors.
According to Brand, the reason for this difference is that video games are still being treated as if they’re “special” forms of media by those in charge of classification. While games do differ, specifically in their interactivity, multiple studies have confirmed no active link between interactivity and violence or delinquent behaviour.
In 2021, a study commissioned by Australia’s Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications and carried out by The Behavioural Insights Team found definitively that violent video games have “little to no meaningful impact on real-world aggressive behaviour.” Again and again, intensive global research has come to this same conclusion.
Yet with each amendment made to Australia’s classification law, restrictions only seem to get tighter. Very recently, we have seen the game classifications guidelines updated – but specifically to prevent children from being exposed to loot boxes and simulated gambling in games.
This is undoubtedly a good practice to reduce predatory mechanics in games for kids – but it does reveal something core to Australia’s classification system: it is wrapped around concerns about kids, and not about adults being able to access complex or challenging content freely.
Read: Video games with loot boxes will now get minimum M-rating in Australia
As Anderson stated, you can watch cocaine being blown up an arsehole in The Wolf of Wall Street – but any game featuring a note-for-note scene will be banned immediately, on the assumption that games are just different, and have more of a psychological impact.
“Adults should be able to read, hear, see, play what they want,” Anderson said. “I will die defending that statement, because I absolutely believe that’s correct. You then have to say, ‘Does the games guidelines restrict capacity for that in an unreasonable way?’ And the answer is yes, it does.”
The conclusion of the panel at SXSW Sydney 2024 was that classification law around video games needs a significant overhaul – and not just amendments. A fresh start, with an understanding of the core audience of video games, free of fearmongering and assumption, is needed to create a more holistic system that treats the medium fairly.
While there have been significant changes to game classification over the last few years, it’s clear that it must change again in future, to better serve the medium’s true audience.
