The bloodbaths of the computer game’s virtual world are as nothing against the real battle being waged over how the industry should be regulated.

A dispute has blown up as ministers discuss Tanya Byron’s review, which suggested that a film censor take on the task of reviewing games rated 12 and up, extending a job previously undertaken only for 18-rated games.

As the consultation ends, the result is a row that pits the computer games business against the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), with both sides hurling criticism about the other’s ability to rate games and, hence, protect children.

Holding the first set of controls in this shootout is Mike Rawlinson, the managing director of ELSPA, the trade body for the software business. Mr Rawlinson wants “a reduction in the BBFC’s status” – code for saying the film censor should back out entirely and the games business should rely on its own pan-European PEGI system alone.

Dr Byron said that PEGI was poorly understood by parents, who often believed that labels such as 3+ referred to a difficulty level – and that parents often liked to think that their children were advanced for their age. She also criticised PEGI for being a tick box-based system, with little human input; at the BBFC a small team of people play violent games to see whether they are worthy of the familiar round, red 18 label. BBFC research suggests that three quarters of the public prefer its system, although such a conclusion may not necessarily be surprising.

Mr Rawlinson, though, is quick to defend PEGI, saying the games rating system has been misunderstood. “It starts with self-disclosure by the games provider but it is then checked by people playing the game,” he said. The players-cum-regulators, it turns out, are two “very experienced” people based in Borehamwood who, Mr Rawlinson argues, are stricter than the film censor’s team.

“There were 50 games that PEGI rated 18+ and the BBFC downgraded 22 of them, while there is only one game that went the other way,” Mr Rawlinson said.

That assertion leaves David Cooke, director of the BBFC, unimpressed. “For example, PEGI rated the two sex games Singles - Flirt Up Your Life and Singles 2 - Triple Trouble, 16+,” Mr Cooke said, pointing out that both games “feature strong interactive sexual activity”. Unsurprisingly, given the nature of the content, the BBFC rated both titles 18 – a ruling that would strike many members of the public as reasonable. “Similarly, PEGI awarded 12+ to the first Destroy All Humans! game, where the player is an alien who tortures and kills.”

PEGI is a self-regulatory system, but the games industry has at least dropped some of the weaker arguments against statutory regulation, voiced this year by Electronic Arts, the leading developer, saying that worries voiced about the cost of submitting to the BBFC were not important. What Mr Rawlinson does want is “legal enforcement”. At present it is not illegal to sell a child a game that the rating suggests they are not old enough to play.

Yet Mr Cooke is unmoved. He said: “PEGI is owned by the industry and the bulk of its process is a questionnaire completed by the games industry. The main aim of the industry is to make money. This suggests that it is not the best body to decide whether to limit the distribution of a game because it contains material harmful to children.”

Such comments leave little room for compromise between the two approaches, which in the Byron model are intended to work together.

No answers are expected until January at the earliest, although it is likely that a final decision will be taken in March by the Department for Children. What is clear is that Ed Balls, the Children’s Secretary, will have to weave his way through the crossfire and decide one way or the other.

Times Recommends

• Minister in talks with Saudis to protect creditors
• Premier Inn hits back in £29-a-room row
• Bankers hit back at 'populist' bonus supertax