Tag: ESRB

Videogames Can Educate About Violence, Public Needs to Be Educated About Them

Violence is an inescapable element of human existence. Violent crimes, especially those involving firearms, are an inescapable fact of modern life. Videogames are becoming one of the most popular forms of entertainment of those who life this modern life. And there are plenty of people who see a direct link between titles like Call of Duty or The Evil Within and people who pick up a gun and decide to kill.

We can and we should work to reduce their impact and the incidence of violent acts in our societies but we cannot do that by finding scapegoats or by working against entire industries because of links that have not been conclusively proven by science.

The so called Videogame Summit that president Donald J. Trump conducted last week was, as reported by the Washington Post, a solid if limited attempt to see how video games developers and the people who represent their interests can interact with the political establishment in order to maybe reduce the propensity towards violence that exists in society. The meeting might have kicked off with a montage of context free shocking moments from modern titles but it’s a good sign that there was no tone of incrimination that emerged from the main participants.

There are no solid studies that show causation between violence videogames and violence in the real world but there are some, disputed but used by certain groups, showing some correlation between the two. Banning sales of titles and limiting access has already been tried and seems like a non-starter on legal grounds but the ESA, the ESRB and governments can work in order to find a way to make it easier to educate individuals about what they play, how they approach their experiences and monitor how their understanding of the world and even behavior is affected.

Panic and recrimination are not the responses that can solve a crisis but they can help stakeholders find ways to reconcile positions and find new ways to work together. In the case of violent videogames and violent acts the best idea is to educate those who create them, those who market them and those who consume them.

On its own Call of Duty (to use a name that means something even to non-gamers) will not drive someone to acquire a weapon and do something criminal. But the game coupled with conspiracy theories, limited support networks, ideologies that degrade fellow humans, unrestricted access to firepower and other factors can lead to very different and violent outcomes.

The videogame industry cannot on its own work to make sure that every player is grounded and understands that virtual violence should not be translated to the real world. But it can share information and data with the government and other groups to try and make sure that information and education is available to players and that they can make a clear distinction between what they do in Call of Duty and how they go about their lives once their exit their favorite shooter or horror title.

The Loot Box Issue Needs More Information, Not Regulation

I hate the concept of loot boxes, even if they have so far failed to make their way to the kinds of video games that I enjoy (grand strategy, role-playing and sports simulations) but I still believe that they are a valid concept to use for the industry. This is why the ESRB and other regulatory bodies should move as quickly as possible to make sure that gamers are better informed about them, so that the video games universe is not targeted for further regulation by various governments.

Maggie Hassan, a Democratic Senator, is the most recent elected official to question the way loot boxes are presented to players, in a letter to the ESRB that Forbes quotes in full, and it comes after a number of other governments have expressed their interest in introducing regulation, including banning sale of video games powered by loot boxes to those under 21.

The argument, a solid if not perfect one, is that the mechanic is almost impossible to distinguish from gambling and should be treated as such. There are bans on the mechanic in China, which companies like Blizzard have worked around (the regulatory landscape might change and developers might be required to once again tweak the way “loot boxes” are delivered to players).

The easy response from the video game industry is to simply push back against the idea that politicians or bureaucracies have the power to regulate mechanics in their titles (some gamers might also join in, saying that how they use their money inside various titles is their own choice and should not be restricted).

But the more coherent long term position would be to accept that players (and parents, when it comes to users who are under the age of 18) should have information about loot boxes (and other microtransactions associated with video games) to inform their choice. Self-regulation, driven by the ESRB and other associated bodies, is the best way to make sure that the government stays away and that there’s a solid collaboration between developers, publishers and players for the good of the video game ecosystem.