Gamers Of The U.S., Unite!
CBSNews.com's Scott Conroy writes for GameCore, the Web site's gaming section.
GameCore has fielded a lot of indignant responses to the recent "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" firestorm. A typical approach has been to fire off a flurry of four-letter words, to question our nation's priorities and to take solace in the conviction that politicians "just don't understand." This reaction may be cathartic, but it is counterproductive.
Most gamers are familiar with the story. It was discovered that hidden sexual material in GTA could be unlocked and viewed with a simple code. Soon after, a handful of politicians became publicly incensed and jockeyed for position to out-family-values one another. At the forefront was Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who immediately requested the Entertainment Software Rating Board rating change that the board eventually instilled. In a Q & A with CBS News, Senator Clinton said through a spokesman that she's not done yet.
"I am developing legislation that would put some teeth into the ratings system by restricting the sale of M and AO-rated games to minors," she said. "The industry has already decided these games are not appropriate for minors and I want to make sure retailers take the rating system seriously."
Taking steps to keep excessively violent games out of the hands of minors seems like a reasonable step. But adult gamers are concerned that censorship begets more censorship and that their ability to buy and play the games they want might become compromised.
Sen. Clinton and others point to studies that link violent video games to aggressive behaviors. But some experts aren't so sure about the connection. In an interview with GameCore Dr. Jerald Block, a physician involved in the video game-violence debate, said it's too soon to tell whether a direct correlation can be made.
"While I believe it is the government's job to regulate dangerous products, I think we are nowhere near being able to say that about computer games. We need loads and loads of more research."
There is a serious culture clash here. Gamers' heads blew out a collective spout of steam when the American Academy of Pediatrics compared adolescent video game-playing to tobacco-smoking, an analogy that Senator Clinton cited in laying out her argument.
"This isn't about offending our sensibilities -- it is about protecting our children," Clinton said.
Perhaps gamers are justified in thinking that to get politicians to open a real dialogue with them would be akin to a mouse attempting to persuade a python to come to a mutual understanding. But they have to try. If they care about the future of the industry, and if they want to be listened to rather than ignored, gamers are going to have to pull up a chair at the long table known as Capitol Hill.
Last week, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Miss., sponsored a House resolution to request that the Federal Trade Commission investigate whether the publishers of Grand Theft Auto deliberately evaded the ratings board so that it could avoid an Adults Only rating. Gamers' responses varied in language but were consistent in tone:
"That's censorship ...what about the First Amendment? ... how can video games lead to violence when crime rates are declining ... Upton's probably never played a video game in his life!"
Before I interviewed Rep. Upton, I found myself anticipating the persona of the man with whom I was about to speak. I expected him to be a snarling, bitter, old fogey, who would decry the "kids these days" and their brain-shriveling, culture-ruining amusements that they call video games. But when I spoke with him, I found him affable and low-key – and he mentioned right of the bat that there's an Xbox in his house.
"I like playing games," Upton said. "I'm terribly disappointed when my 13-year-old beats me in some of these games, I take it very seriously."
Surely it will surprise many that a congressman at the forefront of the "anti-video game crusade" has laid hands on a console newer then the venerable Atari. Even if the majority of our representatives don't play video games – which I assume to be the case – that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to legislate on the subject matter. Imagine if owning a gun was a prerequisite to being taken seriously on gun control issues.
Speaking of gun control, gamers can learn a thing or two from the National Rifle Association about the benefits an interest group can reap when it becomes politically involved. Last week the Senate approved a bill that would shield gun manufacturers and distributors from having to face lawsuits filed as a result of the misuse of their products. The passage of the bill represents one of the biggest victories in the NRA's history. And it reinforced yet again the magnitude of the power which the gun lobby enjoys in this country. Here is what the Baltimore Sun said about the NRA's ability to nudge a not-so-subtle elbow into the Congressional rib cage:
"This proposal was brought to the Senate floor this week when far more pressing business – including the defense authorization bill – was deferred. Such is the absolute hold the NRA has on Congress."
According to the Brady Campaign, there are about 192 million privately-owned firearms in the United States. And with 39% of American households owning a gun, the gun lobby is backed by a sizable portion of the population that is concerned with their perceived right to own a firearm. But a quick glance at a couple of key statistics begs the question: Why gamers don't enjoy that same kind of leverage? More than 248 million computer and video games were sold in 2004 alone; the average video game player is 30 years old – and therefore has been of voting age for over a decade.
"I would concur that gamers represent a serious voting contingency, and that their needs as a group are growing as well," said Halpin, president of the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association. "But politicians see placating soccer moms as the easier 'get,' and this is an issue in which they can garner fast support from that demographic without having to educate them seriously on the matter and its complexities."
Perhaps the average gamer is not as passionate about the right to play whatever game he or she wants as the average gun owner is about the right to pack heat. Gun owners cry "Second Amendment!" at the slightest hint that the government might employ restrictive gun policies. But Constitutional scholars have yet to find anything in that famed document that deals with a fundamental right to run Super Mario through his paces. I guess the founding fathers couldn't think of everything. For that reason, gamers might be expected to have a harder time settling on a rallying cry.
But video game blogs and industry publications have found their savior in the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and has been applied to a broad range of issues throughout American history. There is indeed a large contingent of gamers who are vocal and dedicated to the cause of espousing their right to play the games they love. But for now, they are preaching to the choir and have not mounted an effective campaign to voice their concerns to the non-gaming world.
The first thing that concerned gamers should do to gain legitimacy is to acknowledge that the issue of violence in video games is a complex one. Even someone like Fred Upton, who would appear to be the natural enemy of the gaming community, espouses some unexpected views. For instance, many gamers protest that parents should be the most accountable for screening content to their children. Rep. Upton agrees.
"We know that parents are the most responsible parties here in terms of whether they should be responsible or whether they should be involved or not," he said.
Gamers often argue that the ratings board should be enough to classify which games are appropriate for children and which are not. But Rep. Upton is quick to remind them that the distributors of Grand Theft Auto are facing accusations of trying to get around the limits of that very board.
"When they deceive the rating board, I mean that's what's irritated the Congress to the degree that it has," Upton said. He continued that as a First Amendment supporter, he has no ambitions to attempt to ban the sale of violent video games and simply wants to see that the existing rules are enforced.
Gamers will inevitably find areas of disagreement with Rep. Upton. But that is exactly why they need to organize into a body that can voice their concerns to Washington. Halpin, the IEMA president, said the problem will eventually resolve itself.
"As politicians age and are replaced by younger Generation X and Y representatives, who have grown up with games as a part of their entertainment diet, they'll appreciate gamers as a burgeoning constituent group," he said.
That may indeed happen sometime in the future, but "the future" can be a long time to wait. Until then, gamers should be proactive in making their voices heard while maintaining a capacity to listen and an avoidance of knee jerk reactions. If you think that the politicians are overstepping their bounds, write your local representative an email and tell him or her that you're a voter, and you want your concerns to be addressed. Better yet, organize a gamers' letter-writing campaign. It's a small step, but even the NRA had to start somewhere.
CBSNews.com's William Vitka contributed to this piece.
By Scott Conroy
