EA, however, contends that the new system will be too costly and difficult an endeavor. UK Vice President of EA Keith Ramsdale claimed that the BBFC would need “a building with the size of Milton Keynes” in order to process and review new games — not to mention re-rate games already on the market. Meanwhile, the extra time required to review could end up pushing back releases and driving game prices higher. Instead, Ramsdale wants to make the PEGI ratings the only legally binding system, as the industry has already adjusted to these standards.

The BBFC has replied that EA’s remarks were gross exaggerations, and that it has the resources and organization required to cope with the proposed changes. They claim that, “The BBFC’s current average turnaround time for games classifications is eight calendar days. In terms of international comparisons, this is notably quick.”

Each side seems outraged with the other, but both need to understand that they must reach some sort of middle ground. The BBFC needs to have straightforward and consistent guidelines that the industry can readily comply with, while EA needs to understand that with proper planning the transition can be smooth. Guides are useful tools for parents, and when ratings meet the expectations of the market’s sensibilities, it can even be beneficial for the industry. But unless the two sides reach an agreement, expect more name-calling and less progress in the future.