Poll of the Day > If video games killed 13,000 lives each year, would you support regulations?

(+) Yeah! (+)

or an outright ban on video games?

I'm not gonna lie, I don't think I would be willing to part with how video games, or part with how they're made today. I like being able to shoot people in Call of Duty and going on shooting sprees in Grand Theft Auto. I also like role playing as a follower of the Daedric Lord Namira and as a member of the Dark Brotherhood, because I think playing as a murderer in roleplaying games is fun.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/7/6/AAXnbtAACxiI.png

Unless the video games themselves gain sentience and go on killing sprees, Im not gonna care about all the claims that video games are the supposed cause of deaths each year.

Alpha_MaIe posted...

Unless the video games themselves gain sentience and go on killing sprees, Im not gonna care about all the claims that video games are the supposed cause of deaths each year.

Neither are guns, yet despite that we blame guns instead of people and mental health.

Due to lower fitness levels, higher obesity, heart conditions and other health factors, I highly suspect video games account for far more than 13k deaths per year.....and i wouldn't restrict them if they account for 10x that many (which is quite likely).

TitanusGodzilla posted...

Neither are guns, yet despite that we blame guns instead of people and mental health.

Do people kill people with video games?

TitanusGodzilla posted...

Neither are guns, yet despite that we blame guns instead of people and mental health.

Nice false equivalency

wolfy42 posted...

Due to lower fitness levels, higher obesity, heart conditions and other health factors, I highly suspect video games account for far more than 13k deaths per year.....and i wouldn't restrict them if they account for 10x that many (which is quite likely).

Right? It's absolutely silly we're wanting to put in regulations and a potential ban on guns due to such a ridiculously low amount of deaths per year.

Whose shitty alt is this

adjl posted...

Do people kill people with video games?

No.

But even if they did, I still wouldn't want any limitations on them.

TitanusGodzilla posted...

or an outright ban on video games?

nah, that's like only (400/13, rounded up to 15) - 26.6x fewer deaths than tobacco and it has age restrictions on its adult content as well

Dihydrogen Monoxide kills millions of people a year and we still haven't banned that.

Disingenuous.arguments are disingenuous.

This is a very weird thought experiment, but I supposed I'd want studies to isolate the problem and then regulate it based off of the results of those studies.

Did somebody steal my idea and use it to make a topic

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Dihydrogen Monoxide kills millions of people a year and we still haven't banned that.

Disingenuous.arguments are disingenuous.

Disingendeez nouts

Yes because then only Nintendo would be left and we will never another piece of trash garbage from Sony and Microsoft ever again

adjl posted...

Do people kill people with video games?

I say we lock someone in a room with a video game cartridge. When the cartridge eventually kills that person, we can then ban video games.

It's not the games. I have played every genre of video games and not once did I attempt to emulate what was portrayed in a game.

The fact is that America has a lot of people with untreated mental illness and we have a certain faction that stokes the fire of people who may already feel as if they're an outcast and when you add that to idle time, that's a recipe for disaster.

The_tall_midget posted...

I say we lock someone in a room with a video game cartridge. When the cartridge eventually kills that person, we can then ban video games.

That still wouldn't be the game, though. We could expect the same result from a cartridge with no data on it, and the data is what constitutes a "video game."

TitanusGodzilla posted...

No.

Then your analogy is fundamentally broken and you're back to square one as far as making a compelling argument goes. Please try again.

adjl posted...

Then your analogy is fundamentally broken and you're back to square one as far as making a compelling argument goes. Please try again.

How so?

Please explain.

BUMPED2002 posted...

It's not the games. I have played every genre of video games and not once did I attempt to emulate what was portrayed in a game.

I have.

I've also emulated behavior I saw in movies or TV shows - and even books. Kids emulate pretty much everything - it's part of how they model the world around them. And it's not like that behavior necessarily ends as children grow up (which is why cosplay is a thing).

The problem isn't really whether or not one individual anecdotally exhibited a specific behavior, as much as whether or not the general pattern of behavior proves or disproves the argument.

no

TitanusGodzilla posted...

How so?

Please explain.

Because guns are tools that enable people to kill, which is not at all analogous to media that might inspire them to. The false equivalency should be pretty obvious.

adjl posted...

Because guns are tools that enable people to kill, which is not at all analogous to media that might inspire them to. The false equivalency should be pretty obvious.

I know.

I'm just saying, if video games contributed to the same amount of deaths as guns(and you csn add the wounded on top of that), I would not want my games to be regulated or banned.

I love games far too much to give them up, especially in the name of saving lives.

If the death toll was say: 40,000 deaths, then I might consider it.

But not for 13,000.

I chose video games over that many lives.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

This- as that one other poster said- a thought experiment.

TitanusGodzilla posted...

or an outright ban on video games?

I'm not gonna lie, I don't think I would be willing to part with how video games, or part with how they're made today. I like being able to shoot people in Call of Duty and going on shooting sprees in Grand Theft Auto. I also like role playing as a follower of the Daedric Lord Namira and as a member of the Dark Brotherhood, because I think playing as a murderer in roleplaying games is fun.

There isn't the equivalent a big, stupid fucking organization like the NRA being incorrect about the 2nd amendment for video games.

TitanusGodzilla posted...

I know.

Then you know that your analogy is fundamentally broken and you're back to square one as far as making a compelling argument goes. Please try again.

TitanusGodzilla posted...

I'm just saying, if video games contributed to the same amount of deaths as guns(and you csn add the wounded on top of that), I would not want my games to be regulated or banned.

If there's a conclusive causal link, then they absolutely should be regulated. That regulation, however, would most likely take the form of more strictly enforcing rules against selling T- and M-rated games to those under 13/17, as well as revisiting the rating criteria to make sure they reflect what's least likely to cause developmental harm instead of the largely arbitrary approach the ESRB takes now. That's not something that's likely to affect adults at all, so there's nothing to really worry about (unless you're under 17, in which case you aren't going to suffer for having to wait a couple years). An outright ban would be largely unnecessary.

TitanusGodzilla posted...

I love games far too much to give them up, especially in the name of saving lives.

If the death toll was say: 40,000 deaths, then I might consider it.

But not for 13,000.

I chose video games over that many lives.

If you're willing to knowingly sacrifice any number of lives for a leisure activity, you're either a terrible person or somebody who's dangerously addicted to that activity. Arbitrarily picking a larger number than reality doesn't change that, especially where we all know you'd just move the goalposts and pick an even larger number if a hypothetical 40k year were ever to happen.

like sword art where if you die in game you die for real

I would support the same restrictions that are in place in countries that see low rates of video game related deaths.

To continue the gun parallel, most countries that have access to guns but low deaths include licensing, registration, mandatory safety courses, waiting periods for purchases, and restrict or ban those types of guns that are most responsible for death and destruction. I'd be fine with those same restrictions for games.

What a lot of the pro-gun crowd doesn't respect is that the issue isn't responsible gun owners owning guns; it's the fact that it's far, far, far too easy for irresponsible (or downright psychotic) people to get their hands on guns, thanks to almost a complete absence of any meaningful checks and balances.

If my hobby was killing a lot of people... well, I'd be strongly tempted to get a new hobby, but if that wasn't an option for some reason, rational and well-thought-out restrictions would be fine.

Alpha_MaIe posted...

Unless the video games themselves gain sentience and go on killing sprees, Im not gonna care about all the claims that video games are the supposed cause of deaths each year.

This

TitanusGodzilla posted...

Neither are guns, yet despite that we blame guns instead of people and mental health.

Which is the fault of dumb, short -sighted people.

TitanusGodzilla posted...

Neither are guns, yet despite that we blame guns instead of people and mental health.

Largely because:
a) Most shooters, of both the regular and mass-murdery variety, aren't mentally ill
and
b) The trend of shooting deaths doesn't track with mental health care; it tracks with availability of guns. There's lots of countries in the world that have subpar mental health care and don't do a good job of taking care of their mentally unwell. I live in one of them. We still don't have a lot of shooting deaths because - surprise! - we actually regulate our guns, which means maniacs have a much harder time getting their hands on them.

TitanusGodzilla posted...

No.

But even if they did, I still wouldn't want any limitations on them.

Let's play devil's advocate here. If we had one world where all of the video games ever created and to be created were removed and another world where all of the guns ever created and to be created were removed which one would have less crime? I totally expect some b.s. to come from you but it would be hilarious to see you try to justify your b.s.

jsb0714 posted...

There isn't the equivalent a big, stupid fucking organization like the NRA being incorrect about the 2nd amendment for video games.

The NRA are Gamefaqs members?

jsb0714 posted...

There isn't the equivalent a big, stupid fucking organization like the NRA being incorrect about the 2nd amendment for video games.

No, there's a big stupid organization like the ESRB being incorrect about the 1st amendment, and acting as a deliberate shill for the games industry and attempting to defuse regulation discussions when it comes to underage gambling and loot box mechanics.

The ESRB has always been portrayed as a review and regulatory board that protects consumers, but it has literally never been that. It's an advocacy group that acts as a mouthpiece for the industry and toes the party line of the major publishers, outright lying to government agencies and inquiries and attempting to give the illusion of self-regulation to prevent those governments from taking regulation into their own hands. It's a smokescreen to protect the industry from negative public reaction - even when said reaction is 100% justified.

The only reason most people don't see it that is because a) the only people who really pay attention to or give much of a shit about the ESRB are gamers, who themselves have a vested interest in defending their own hobby from what they see as out of touch lawmakers, and b) because in a lot of cases, the ESRB was defending against out of touch lawmakers pushing ridiculous and stupid assumptions about what gaming actually is.

But the industry as a whole has become more and more powerful and more and more anti-consumer over the last decade or so, so a lot of gamers are starting to turn against publishers in what always used to be seen as an "us-versus-them" scenario. Between loot box gambling controversies and behind-the-scenes problems like Activision basically imploding mixed with overhyped game launches that are borderline broken stirring up questions of responsibility and refunds, a lot of people are starting to ask whether or not gaming SHOULD be regulated in some way, and whether moral and ethical responsibility (or the current lack thereof) trumps artistic integrity (or the current lack thereof).

darkknight109 posted...

b) The trend of shooting deaths doesn't track with mental health care; it tracks with availability of guns.

if that were the case then other countrys would be almost as bad as the US in gun deaths. some countries like France, Switzerland and even Canada have huge gun ownership and their laws arnt much more strict than places like California or New York and yet their gun deaths are SIGNIFICANTLY less. the US itself wasnt like this (for the most part) until the 90's despite the guns always being there. even war torn countries in the middle east and how shitty certain areas of them are have high gun ownerships where a real AK47 can be had for $50, you still dont see people going and shooting up schools.

not to say the guns arnt an issue because they obviously are, but other aspects shows theres a LOT more to factor in than just guns.

That is another point: Questions about regulating violence in games aside, paid loot boxes in games should absolutely mean it is as illegal to sell those games to minors as it is to sell that same minor a lottery ticket or welcome them into a casino. There's some (very little) room to debate whether or not loot boxes are technically gambling, given the lack of direct monetary reward, but it's unquestionably true that they have the same potential for mental and financial harm that real gambling has. Given that that potential for harm is the sole reason gambling is regulated, video games should see similar regulation. The only reason they don't is that those with the power to make those regulations understand nothing about gaming as a whole beyond "we get more lobbying money if we don't regulate them."

adjl posted...

There's some (very little) room to debate whether or not loot boxes are technically gambling, given the lack of direct monetary reward

Yeah, but it borders on the Japanese having pachinko parlors that don't give out cash rewards (because that's gambling, and therefore illegal), but which give out prize tokens that can be redeemed by a completely unaffiliated store right next door for cash rewards (so the end result is exactly the same). While the work-around avoids breaking gambling laws and regulations on a technicality, literally everyone involved knows exactly what's actually going on.

As you pointed out, loot box mechanics and similar absolutely trigger all of the same mental processes and addiction channels that gambling for money does, tend to create the exact same problems and patterns of abuse, and ultimately generate income for publishers in exactly the same way actual gambling does, so almost every attempt at an argument that it's not gambling because money isn't involved is facile at best and actively malicious at worst.

There's also precedent against it anyway - schools banning Magic: the Gathering cards back in the 90s because playing for ante was a form of gambling (in spite of the fact that no money changed hands) established that governments are willing to accept the premise that something can be gambling even with no monetary reward, especially when children are involved.

loot boxes aren't gambling, and parental settings/cc settings can make it so kids can't buy them with real money.

loot boxes aren't gambling

You're spending/risking money for a randomized result, of which generally only a rare few are desirable. That's literally gambling.

Really though, they're worse than gambling, because you can't even "win" money back like you potentially can at a casino.

and parental settings/cc settings can make it so kids can't buy them with real money.

Too bad it won't even occur to most parents that they need to do that for their kid's age 3+ "E for Everyone" soccer game.

Most loot boxes give you something as a "consolation" prize so they can escape being hit with the gambling laws.

Absolutely not. If anything I would play video games more. It doesn't even sound like a bad way to die.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

There's also precedent against it anyway - schools banning Magic: the Gathering cards back in the 90s because playing for ante was a form of gambling (in spite of the fact that no money changed hands) established that governments are willing to accept the premise that something can be gambling even with no monetary reward, especially when children are involved.

Booster Packs are gambling

Any game with a loot box or gacha system should be given an automatic 18+ rating.

Philip027 posted...

Too bad it won't even occur to most parents that they need to do that for their kid's age 3+ "E for Everyone" soccer game.

if they have their credit card saved on the system, and don't require a password for purchases, that's their own damn fault.

Metalsonic66 posted...

Booster Packs are gambling

That's not why schools banned the game, though. It was almost always playing for ante that was cited as the problem. Which is why at the time the defense a lot of players used was "no one plays for ante anyway".

But even then, booster packs arguably aren't considered gambling. Most existing laws require a cash pay-off for something to be gambling. Which is why there are so many "letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law" situations that involve winning prizes via games of chance in completely unregulated environments (or fundraisers like Penny Sales/Chinese Auctions). They're deliberately bypassing the legal definition (and the consequences of it) by keeping the mechanics but altering the end result.

Which is the same reason why stores could have little red machines with plastic eggs where you put in a quarter and get out a little plastic toy for decades (and why places like Wal-Mart now sell a bunch of wrapped "random assortment" toys). You're paying to get a randomized prize with varying degrees of value, but you can still sell it to kids because it's totally not gambling you guys.

Basically, we need to have good faith discussions about what gambling actually is, why it matters, and what should be done about it. But almost none of the people involved in those arguments are acting in good faith. And half of them don't even understand what they're talking about in the first place.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

if they have their credit card saved on the system, and don't require a password for purchases, that's their own damn fault.

Yeah, and that woman who got sexually assaulted totally should have known not to dress like a slut. She was asking for it. That pretty much makes it her fault more than those guys who took advantage of her.







In case the sarcasm actually needs to be explained, victim blaming is bad.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

little red machines with plastic eggs where you put in a quarter and get out a little plastic toy for decades (and why places like Wal-Mart now sell a bunch of wrapped "random assortment" toys). You're paying to get a randomized prize with varying degrees of value, but you can still sell it to kids because it's totally not gambling you guys.

I still yearn for one of those sticky-hands from time to time

Considering video games aren't designed for the expressed purpose of hurting/killing and their normal function shouldn't allow that, in that absurd hypothetical some regulation would likely be in order. However, considering the almost non-existent regulation on alcohol which does far worse, that hypothetical might not result in any changes... then again, the world has a special exception for booze where it doesn't matter how terrible it makes things, it's generally protected.

Alcohol is iirc currently linked to 25% of all car crashes (and 35% of fatalities?), 50% of domestic disturbances, something like 10-25% of all arrests, among countless other things.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I have.

I've also emulated behavior I saw in movies or TV shows - and even books. Kids emulate pretty much everything - it's part of how they model the world around them. And it's not like that behavior necessarily ends as children grow up (which is why cosplay is a thing).

The problem isn't really whether or not one individual anecdotally exhibited a specific behavior, as much as whether or not the general pattern of behavior proves or disproves the argument.

Pretty much.

Count_Drachma posted...

... then again, the world has a special exception for booze where it doesn't matter how terrible it makes things, it's generally protected.

Alcohol is iirc currently linked to 25% of all car crashes (and 35% of fatalities?), 50% of domestic disturbances, something like 10-25% of all arrests, among countless other things

Right? Thank you pointing this out.

If we're gonna do something about guns and gun violence, why not do something for alcohol as well.