Australian attorneys-general are considering changes to the national computer game classification scheme but have not yet made a decision on whether an R-18+ rating will be introduced.

Game developers and enthusiasts have been lobbying for changes to the current scheme, which has seen some violent titles banned from Australian shelves and others censored to meet MA-15+ standards before release.

The Department of Home Affairs received more than 55,000 submissions during its public consultation on the issue and handed a report to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General on Friday.

Minister for Home Affairs Brendan O'Connor says about 98 per cent of submissions supported an R-18+ classification for games.

But he said the ministers needed to consider more than just the weight of numbers.

"It is also the strength of the arguments on each side," he said.

"That is why ministers today agreed that further work needs to be done before a decision can be made.

"Censorship ministers have not yet made a decision on whether or not an R-18+ classification for computer games should be introduced and have requested further analysis of community and expert views."

Heated debate

Video game publishing giant Electronic Arts (EA) weighed into the debate before the meeting, throwing its support behind calls for an R-18+ classification.

EA president Frank Gibeau distributed an open letter that argued the current system is a form of censorship.

"Government policies that don't allow for the rating of mature content in video games effectively censor entertainment choices for adults," he said.

"Adult gamers want their governments to treat them with the same respect they get as movie goers and book readers.

"Adult Australians should be allowed to choose the games they play, including those with mature themes."

The Commonwealth, states and territories all need to agree to an R-18+ classification for it to become a reality.

South Australian MP Michael Atkinson was understood to have vetoed the change at earlier meetings. He has since been replaced as the state's attorney-general by John Rau.

Mr Rau has been reported as saying he had no preconceptions about the issue and would listen to arguments from both sides of the debate.

Twitter users insisted the R-18+ rating had widespread support despite opposition from groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL).

"Government and media need to remember that the ACL do not represent more than a handful of Australians," @grumpymojo tweeted.

"Support of the classification is overwhelming. Exactly how afraid should govt be of fringe group ACL?" wrote @Monkeytypist.

@hyarare wrote: "Surely the Att-Gens won't oppose it now, what kind of logical argument do they have against it? Not that Atkinson ever had one."

Melbourne's @dkeeghan said an R-18+ rating would prevent the miscategorisation of adult games into the MA-15+ rating.

"I think parents would think more carefully about getting R18+ games for their kids (or at least I hope they would)," he wrote.

In its submission the ACL argued that the discussion paper was geared "strongly in favour of gaming interests" and that there is no widespread community support for an R-18+ rating.

It said there was little doubt that a new classification would allow more violent games to be sold and despite the best attempts of parents, children would be able to access them.

"The solution to incorrect classification is stronger application of existing standards, not to introduce a softer standard altogether," it said.

Editor's note (July 1, 2010): The original version of this story did not include the views of the Australian Christian Lobby, although they had been included in earlier stories. They have been added following an upheld complaint in relation to a lack of balance.