This really has to stop. While it's not censorship in the strictest sense of the word, the result is the same. This sort of nanny state behavior isn't that effective and, if anything, harms the local economy. I know many Aussie gamers who simply import these titles from overseas, which keeps their money out of the hands of local retailers.

It's censorship, pure and simple. ANY edits to one's material for distribution approval is state-sponsored censorship. And Australia is one of the developed world's worst offenders. I sometimes wonder how governments who engage in these practices can call themselves democracies. That said, sorry Aussies. :(

Just establish a fuckin' 17+ rating, Australia.

@Joshua - really? not a democracy? What if the voice of the people voted for the censorship? Democracy doesn't mean the ability to do anything you want, it means the majority of public opinion decides the rules, whether that is censorship or not.

And there is always a solution for the problem if an Aussie has a problem with it. Move. or as developers, don't worry about publishing it in Australia if you don't want to play by their rules.

@Adam - My understanding of the situation is that there are one or two holdouts in the Australian government who are blocking a vote on the establishment of a 17+ rating. That doesn't sound democratic to me, that sounds like abuse of a democratic system to further one's own agenda.

@Mark - That's pretty much why I said what I said. Though to Adam's point, I believe most Germans are content with their government censoring content. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that. As for my view on selling games in such countries... Games are a business. It would be silly not to dummy down content and miss out on sales in such countries. However, that doesn't mean I have to like it.

That said, I suppose that to be fair I should consider myself biased. I have very strong feelings when it comes to censorship. I suppose I drink my country's (US) Kool-Aid when it comes to this subject.

@Mark - don't the aussies vote? or are these two people kings and the people have to wait to for them to die? I will admit, I'm not attune with the situation, but it seems until they vote them out, the aussies (well, mostly the parents) are still saying ok to the censorship it seems. Or maybe the other candidates have too much other baggage to have to sell if the voters put someone else in. I wouldn't throw away my country either if the only benefit was a 17+ rating and it came with a lot of negatives.

At least valve have provided a solution so the game can move forward. and wish them luck with the release. I think it will be huge. Now if only I could get Steam to run out through my office network...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the people doing the holdups in this case are appointed, not elected, officials.

@Adam - The one person who is blocking any change to the ratings is the South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson. This is an appointed position, so no, the Australian people do not get to vote him out of this position. He has consistently refused to open this to discussion with the public and seems intent on his belief that parents are not responsible enough to restrict innapropriate games from their children.

Tell me where he lives and I'll settle this. But seriously, as no doubt someone must have afore-mentioned, the writing is on the wall and the days of such dinosaurs are of the numerical persuasion says this peeved aussie.

@Joshua
"It would be silly not to dummy down content and miss out on sales in such countries"

Well actually, they'd make an approximately similar number of sales if they didn't release the game in country than they would if it was actually rated at R18+. Simply because most people chasing the game are more than able to simply purchase from overseas and import the game. There is a minor chance that the import will be blocked as it arrives in WA, but that hasn't happened yet *crosses fingers*.

The only people this will stop is actually the impulse buyers (whose numbers I don't know, maybe considerable?). So in truth this isn't really about the individual titles making it to our shores, it's more just the principle that frustrates us, along with our inability to do anything about it.

@Adam Flutie
I'm sure I responded to you in previous threads about this topic explaining the situation, yet you still seem to believe that the entirety of Australia is at fault. Even if we vote out the current party in power that doesn't change who our governor general or attorney governor generals are.

Who appoints the Attorney General? The responsibility for censorship and the repression of adult Australian gamers is on that person. Also, maybe legislation can change the "unanimous" requirement for changes to law. Some people don't seem to take this seriously and I think this is because it does not affect them personally. I would appeal to them to reconsider their stance. Imagine having no adult movies, no adult content at all.....such an eventuality is the dream of religious people who want religious values in law. Millions of Australian adults are not being represented. So much for democracy. The people want it. The Australian government is not doing it. They have several options available to them.

The Attorney General is an elected official in the state of South Australia. Because, like in the US, the states have a certain amount of sovereignty, the Attorney Generals have veto power over certain federal actions, changes to the classification scheme being one of them. (Minor correction: the OFLC had its name changed recently, and is now called the Classification Board partly because they're responsible for games as well.)

There are two double standards, both of which have been pushed to be eliminated and both have been vetoed by Atkinson. The first is that questionable content in games is automatically rated higher because it is interactive. The second is that the rating levels are the same across all media except for games, where the R18+ rating was removed when game ratings were brought in line with other media.

But I digress: Michael Atkinson comes up for re-election in early 2010, and as Australia works under a British-style parliamentary system, if Michael Atkinson loses the small geographic area he represents, he's out of government for good. Apparently he's a bit of an embarrassment to the South Australian government, but he's got political power so he gets appeased. There's plenty of ammo there for someone to mount a campaign to get him, and I for one would chip some money their way. Unfortunately, if the 2006 elections are any indication, that seat is extremely safe, and so it'd have to be a hell of a campaign, and a hell of an opposition candidate, to force him out.