Lots of attention is being given to the American Medical Association’s push to have “video game addiction” recognized as a formal diagnostic disorder. Refreshingly, the media coverage has been pretty balanced and not nearly as sensationalistic as when it comes to concerns over media violence - one paper even strongly blaming poor parenting.
I was called in to do an interview for MSNBC. I was a bit concerned given the overly negative piece that ran as their cover story on the web site. Sadly, I can’t yet find a online version of the video or transcript. Overall the interview went well, though I was anxious/nervous at the start and kinda fumbled on my words a bit (having sat in the video booth for 40 minutes during technical difficulties didn’t help ease my nerves any).
I was also called by CNBC for another interview/debate later that evening. Unfortunately, I had a schedule conflict and wasn’t able to do it. Instead, I referred them to Hal Halpin of the Entertainment Consumers Association, who did a fine job considering he stepped in at the last moment…
Anyway, a few somewhat random thoughts come to mind on this issue:
- there’s no denying the concern for someone that does something on an extremely excessive basis (be it gaming, watching TV, doing exercise, working, etc). In most cases, this has more to do with the person than the thing: mental stability, depression, social anxieties, low self-esteem, whatever. Let’s find better ways to help the people and worry less about the “things”.
- the usage of the term “addiction” is tricky given the clinical definition (ie, physiological dependency of a given substance, etc) is way different than the casual/lay use of the word (ie, obsessed, passionate, etc)…
- Americans average approx 28 hours of TV watching a week. Stereotypical gamers do about 7 hours of gaming a week. That’s 4x more for TV. I don’t see any calls to declare TV watching as a formal disorder (though, I’d speculate that someone probably tried a few decades back). FYI, in the AMA report, 2 hours or more a day is considered heavy game use.
- the overly negative framing of the AMA report only works to further alienate parents and non-gamers. You get the sense that parents are being told to take out the Purel and disinfect anything that comes in contact with games/gamers. Instead, we should be educating parents to make them more media literate and help them to engage with their children via their pop culture.
- moderation is a good thing. Related to the first point, no one is suggesting that playing games incessantly is wise. Having a diverse media diet coupled with other activities along with rules/boundaries (whether self imposed for adults, or by parents) is fine.
- a formal declaration is a precursor to further legislation and censorship by the government. And, as an expressive medium, video games should be given the same level of respect and protection as other forms of art and entertainment
- more research is welcome. But please, do it in an unbiased manner. Don’t assign it to the Center for Disease Control! What kind of message/assumption does that indicate?
Hmm, well, those are all my thoughts for now. Gotta go get my fix of gaming in for today!
Update: The AMA has backed off, citing the need for more research. Of course, they still hold that reducing screen time for children is a good thing. Sure. Though, to what degree does this quote reflect a dated view of what games are and/or how people play?
The more time kids spend on video games, the less time they will have socializing, the less time they will have with their families, the less time they will have exercising.
DDR? WoW? Wii? …
In honor of Father’s Day, Gamasutra has a series of interviews with game industry dads. The piece explores how being a dad affects their work, how/what the play with the kids, etc. I was interviewed as well (bottom of page 4), and my two gremlins were pictured: Gabriel, 4.5, and Eva, 2.
This reminds me of Erin Hoffman’s excellent parents-as-great-developers article from a few months back. Also, makes me think about how far ahead the curve we are, as gaming parents, compared to the “average” parent out their embracing games (as some so impressively share the value of gaming in their relationship with their kids).
Just finished reading the dense Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. While the bulk of the book is somewhat dated, exploring mostly the media’s treatment of the war in Vietnam, and conflicts in South America, the evergreen nugget is the framework for analyzing the mass media’s role in forwarding propaganda. Or, more formally known as the Propaganda Model.
(Personal tip:skip the book and just read the Wikipedia entry on the model. Or, get one of Chomsky’s more recent books that explore contemporary conflicts/issues.)
Two half-formed thoughts come to mind:
- Based on the ownership filter, to what extent do games get so much negative treatment in the mass media due to the fact that, for the most part, the game industry is not owned by the mass media (or rather, not owned by the multinational conglomerates that also own the mass media)? I believe some academics (my brain is telling me Henry Jenkins) have posited this in the past, in so much that games are competing with the mass media and their sister media for eyeballs and audience, etc, and because the parent companies of the mass media are not generally invested in games, they have no motivation to treat the game industry fairly or in an unbiased manner. Or, as the theory suggests, “maximizing profit means sacrificing news objectivity”.
- On the other hand, the funding filter (ie, interests of advertisers come before reporting the news) and sourcing filter (ie, being spoon fed “news” by industry) help us better understand why the dedicated gaming press is broken in many ways…
Anyway, not that these thoughts are particularly insightful or new. More just interesting to see them bundled up in a cohesive framework/model.
A few interesting work/career related items have recently caught my attention:
- Clint speculates that Eidos is producing the next Deus Ex game in their Montreal studio as a tactic to lure experienced talent out of the existing major Montreal studios (eg, Ubi, EA, A2M, etc). I have no basis to evaluate the validity of his claim, but I am certainly intrigued at the idea of using developer-loved IP as bait.
- The ever colorful American McGee exposes his new funding model. In short, in trying to recruit for his Shanghai-based studio, entrenched studios - Ubisoft in particular - are doing all they can to thwart poaching (eg, providing bonuses and raises when staff present a letter of offer from a competing studio). So, McGee is offering to write any Ubi staff an offer letter if they agree to split the difference of bonus/raise money. Fun exercise, but does beg the question of why talent is not properly compensated to begin with…
- Researcher Mark Deuze wrote up a condensed version of his study/paper on the professional identity and working lives of game developers, for the IGDA web site. Admittedly, I am fascinated by ethnographic/anthropological style studies that look at game developers “in the wild”. Sadly, there aren’t many of them. I can’t wait for Mark’s “media work” book to hit shelves.
- The fine folks at Digital Artists Management explore the pros and cons of project-based contractual employment (much like Michael John has been evangelizing).
- The June issue of Game Developer magazine has a cover story on quality of life within the game industry, which, sadly, I have not had the chance to read yet…
- Pac-Man creator, Toru Iwatani, retires from Namco at age 52 to teach game design at Tokyo Polytechnic Institute. Nice to see such a famous developer survive until retirement (and, this can only mean good things for the education challenge noted previously).
- We’re not alone: the Canadian Globe & Mail ran a piece on the rise of unpaid overtime in Canada and a recent class-action lawsuit in the banking sector. Gaming is listed as a “long-hour industry’ along with retail, insurance, fast food, telecom, etc.
