THE sequel to a popular video game has been banned in Australia after failing to receive a rating of MA15+.
Left 4 Dead 2 was refused classification by the Classifications Board this week, meaning it will be banned from sale.
In its report the board said the game, due to be released in November, contained "realistic, frenetic and unrelenting violence".
"The game contains violence that is high in impact and is therefore unsuitable for persons under 18 years to play," the report said.
Related story Click here to read the Classification Board's report (PDF, 600k)
There is no adult rating for video games in Australia. Any game that fails to meet the criteria for MA15+ is refused classification.
Gametraders national marketing manager Chad Polley said the decision was "hugely disappointing".
"Left 4 Dead 2 was expected to be even bigger than the original version," he said.
"We had huge predictions of sales."
At least one member of the Classifications Board disagreed with the decision.
"A minority of the board is of the opinion that the violence is strong in playing impact and therefore warrants an MA15+ classification," the report said.
Such a classification would have allowed the game to be sold in Australia.
Mr Polley said the decision highlighted the need to reform the rating system for games.
"We would love to see an R18+ rating introduced for more transparency around games," he said.
Earlier today distributor Electronic Arts told gaming blog Kotaku it was in discussions with the Office of Film and Literature Classification.
"(We) are still working through the submission process with the OFLC and want to explore all opportunities before making any comment," the company said.
Left 4 Dead 2 is the fourth title to be banned in Australia this year after strip poker game Sexy Poker, shooter Necrovision and role-playing game Risen.
Edited versions of Sexy Poker and Necrovision were both rated M after resubmission.
The plot of the original Left 4 Dead followed four survivors of a medical pandemic as they battled zombie-like victims. It received several end-of-year awards from gaming publications.
Michael Atkinson sucks. One man blocking the reforms. That's it. All the other A-Gs are on board except for him. I guess that's what you get though when your choice of politicians is between Fundamentalist Christian Loonies, one issue Gambling Loonies and whoever the Fundamentalist Christian Anti-Gambling Pro-Family Right-Wing-Wannabe Labor candidate is.
So... will it be possible to gift L4D2 to someone in Australia via Steam?
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest "Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
Stofsk wrote:This is all South Australia's fault because of their dipshit A-G refusing to get onboard a change in the classification system.
South Australia sucks (waits for Lus to see this post and go ballistic...)
Dude, you're talking about someone who's voluntarily in China. But yes, SA's A-G is a dipshit. Actually, everyone in SA politics is a dipshit, except for the Lord Mayor, who is cool.
"I would say that the above post is off-topic, except that I'm not sure what the topic of this thread is, and I don't think anybody else is sure either."
- Darth Wong Free Durian - Last updated 27 Dec
"Why does it look like you are in China or something?" - havokeff
weemadando wrote:Nope, because Steam will go: "sorry bud, but your account is in Australia." Same as if I was to buy a disc copy and install it.
Are you sure? Its one thing for Australia to refuse classification. Its another for Valve to censor the customer directly.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Stark wrote:Refused classifcation makes it illegal to sell here. Why would Valve want to be legally liable in this way for such a tiny market?
Does that mean it would be legal to gift the game to someone from Australia?
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Since that is almost certainly 'importing', why wouldn't it be?
Why can't people understand this? If I tried to bring a Japanese rape simulator through customs, it'd be seized because it's illegal. If they sold it on steam, it's STILL ILLEGAL. Valve can't claim they don't know where their customers are or local laws (especially with lol regional pricing).
Why would someone SENDING me something illegal be less illegal? Send me some cocaine please, it's banned here!
The act of receiving the gift doesn't appear to be illegal, but the process of Valve sending it would be importing, or the process of mailing it would be importing. OK, that makes sense. Valve would still be liable because they do business in Australia and have holdings in Australia.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Knowing Steam, even trying to import the game could be fruitless. Even if you get a copy from say America, who is to say it will even work on your account?
I wonder how Valve handles that. Lets say I own Left 4 Dead 2 and have it installed on my laptop. I travel to Australia. Does it block me for downloading it? Does it block me from playing it?
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
