Speaking to investors yesterday, EA's chief executive officer John Riccitiello has reiterated the often-reiterated argument that there's no evidence for videogames causing violent behaviour, but conceded that appeals to scientific fact won't, in themselves, win the war of perceptions.
His comments come weeks after the publication of a Common Sense survey, which found that 75 per cent of US parents believe violent videogames "contribute" to real-life violence.
"There is no doubt that we, like you, were stunned and horrified by the violence in Connecticut or Colorado and many other places over the years. But there's been an enormous amount of research done in the entertainment fields looking for linkages between entertainment content and actual violence and they haven't found any," he added.
"I could give you long stories about how people in UK, or Denmark or Ireland or Canada consume as much or more violent games and violent media as we do in the United States, and yes, they have an infinitely smaller incidence of gun violence, but that's not really the point.
"The point is, the direct studies that have been done - hundreds of millions of dollars of research that has been done - has been unable to find a linkage because there isn't one."
Claims that the videogames industry is to blame for violent outbreaks have been rife in the wake of shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut - a number of newspapers have attributed the crisis to the killer's alleged fondness for Dynasty Warriors.
"We understand that while there may not be an actual problem, given all the finger-pointing going on in the press, there appears to be the perception of a problem and we do have to wrestle with that," Riccitiello explained.
"We're responsible, we're mature, we intend to be part of the solution. Our media reaches literally every American and that can be used as a voice for good," he went on. EA will have more to say in future about "how we can be a part of the solution to this perception problem as opposed to, if you will, the butt of the joke."
US president Barak Obama has proposed new research into the effects of violent media on children. "We don't benefit from ignorance. We don't benefit from not knowing the science," he said during a press conference this month. "This is our first task as a society: keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged, and their voices should compel us to change."
The president has also, however, proposed sweeping changes to gun laws, including new background checks for gun buyers and a ban on automatic weapons and magazines holding more than 10 bullets. The National Rifle Association has, inevitably, condemned the move.
In a letter to vice-president Joe Biden, the International Game Developers Association's Daniel Greenberg "[welcomed] more evidence-based research into the effects of our work to add to the large body of existing scientific literature that clearly shows no causal link between video game violence and real violence. Instead of simply trying to find negative effects, we ask that any new research explore the benefits of violent video games, too."
19 comments so far...
Metalrodent on 31 Jan '13 said:
I'm amazed - EA saying something sensible and well thought out.
But seriously, this is a good attitude, we need to teach people that videogames dont kill people, nor do they cause it them to do so.
Thos. on 31 Jan '13 said:
"The point is, the direct studies that have been done - hundreds of millions of dollars of research that has been done - has been unable to find a linkage because there isn't one."
What an idiot, he should try using Google. Most studies show there is a link of some kind. This one took me 15 seconds to find:
Violent video games make teenagers more aggressive, study finds:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/v ... finds.html
lawsond28 on 31 Jan '13 said:
This topic is becoming a little tiresome, and no doubt the same old cliches are soon going to be appearing in this discussion thread. 'Humans have been doing unspeakable things to humans long before the invention of videogames...' yada yada yada.
Here's how I see it, I have a tendency to break things down in this way.
Nice, non violent person + Violent videogames = Good (violence far less likely to ensue). e.g. Me (and you, I hope)
Nasty, violent person + Violent videogames = Bad (violence far more likely to ensue). e.g. Adam Lanza
The only factor that has changed in these incredibly simplistic equations is the nature of person playing the games.
The games themselves are not the cause of the problem. It's not rocket surgery.
Throw in 'guns' or 'no guns' into the above equation and the picture becomes even clearer. You can do the maths.
Oh look, I used some cliches.
SilentDark on 31 Jan '13 said:
But is a nasty violent person less likely to be violent without access to violent videogames?
Anybody who knows me knows I'm about as agressive as a kitten who has just woken up from a nap but there are times when things get me down to such a degree that a massive burst of anger and destruction seems like the only answer.
Then I play a videogame, after hacking up several hundred people on Samurai Warriors, or cutting up some idiot in a gimp suit on Soul Calibur or just pummeling someone on Street Fighter I feel much better. Videogames provide a healthy outlet for agression.
It's telling that most people who go on these killing sprees tend to be disturbed individuals or people who are bullied or ostracised by their piers. What we need is not a scapegoat but for the people resposible for these children's wellbeing (Parents/guardians, teachers etc.) to actually take notice of these people and give them the help they need before they snap and do something tragic and stupid.
lawsond28 on 31 Jan '13 said:
That's an easy one. Just take 'Violent videogames' out of the equations altogether.
Nice, non violent person = Good (violence far less likely to ensue)
Nasty, violent person = Bad (violence far more likely to ensue)
A nasty, violent person is still more likley to be violent than someone who...erm...isn't.
Elwood212 on 1 Feb '13 said:
We all know video games don't cause violence. Anyone who says they do needs a history lesson. Humanity has unfortunately alway had a violent side. If video games are the cause of it now, what was the cause of it 100 years ago. Playing cards?? EA has our support on this issue.
Thos. on 1 Feb '13 said:
The comments on this site can be entertaining, because unlike places like YouTube where the comments are pure stupidity, there are people here who seem to think they are intelligent. In terms of ignorance, this comment reaches a new level of comedy.
FishyGinger on 1 Feb '13 said:
Playing Tetris does lead to violent massacres then?
Thos. on 1 Feb '13 said:
Yes, well done, that was EXACTLY my point. I was referring to this comment, slightly re-written to highlight the level of stupidity, for anyone who can't detect the minor flaw in his argument:
"We all know cigarettes don't cause cancer. Anyone who says they do needs a history lesson. Humanity has unfortunately alway (sic) suffered from cancer. If cigarettes are the cause of it now, what was the cause of it 100 years ago. A glass of water?? The tobacco industry has our support on this issue."
Bezza89 on 1 Feb '13 said:
Cause and contribute are different things entirely. And he's right, technically in his argument, we've had violence long before videogames and therefore they are not the cause, they contribute certainly. Also, cigarettes too don't cause cancer - they contribute though. If we're getting pedantic, let's go fully anal.
He's not exactly using the 'I've played GTA for years and not killed anyone argument'. Those naive bass turds annoy me, though they provide humour to the otherwise raging drivvle. Hmm, I don't think that's a word.
FishyGinger on 1 Feb '13 said:
I think you're looking to be argumentative for the sake of it. Which is normally a noble cause to which I am a practitioner but only if I find it amusing. I think the point he/she or it was making is as a direct result of playing games a person with no mental conditions has decided to go on a killing spree.
I'd imagine the number of lung cancer cases has risen quite a bit since smoking started. I'd imagine the number of murders since games came out hasn't.
Bezza89 on 1 Feb '13 said:
I don't think anyone is making that point, that's a silly point to make. Who are you saying is argumentative though, I hope it's not me, I'm just trying to tell thos that elmwoods argument is technically correct. I don't mean to come across that way if I did.
But mr fish, the number of murders will probably have gone up - but that doesn't mean it is down to videogames probably more due to population increase and financial recessions. And as many people smoke without getting cancer you can't say it's the cause, but it definitely contributes. That's the only point here.
Thos. on 1 Feb '13 said:
Actually you'll find he's, to put a rough value on it, about 100% incorrect.
"There was violence before games. Therefore games don't cause violence."
That is literally the stupidest thing I've read this year.
For what it's worth my belief, which I am very open to changing based on actual scientific evidence, is this:
Aggressive games cause aggressive behaviour in kids. A single violent act can have many causes. When it comes to ultra-violent acts like shootings, the effect of games is negligible and insignificant compared to other far more influential factors. However for the occasional punch in the face or playground bundle, I would not be at all surprised if violent games were a contribution.
FishyGinger on 1 Feb '13 said:
I don't know what I was saying, blah what what what. No I wasn't calling you argumentative and he probably wasn't making any point, maybe I was.
When talking about numbers I'd always go percentage wise. But the smoking point I was trying to make was it has a very obvious link to cancer, there can't be much doubting that. There's little to link games to violent outbursts above say stubbing your toe or getting cut up by a mercedes driver.
Bezza89 on 1 Feb '13 said:
All I'm saying is cause is the wrong word, I agree video games contribute towards violence, much the same as films, television and the media, if it is shown we make a connection in our brains and you can't get rid of the exposure. However, saying they are the cause is wrong, you need proof to say that a person performed a violent act as a direct result of using a certain media before you can attribute it to that. It's all well and good saying you need proof that it doesn't, what about proof that it does.
Most definitely a link, it increases the risks ten fold- but you can't just smoke a cigarette then boom, cancer. It takes other factors into consideration too, you need a mix of ingredients before it will develop. That's why scientists say in vague terms, they don't go out and out and say 'You're going to die from this cigar' (daily mail will say a cake), they say the cigar will increase the risk of death. Much the same as saying playing a game will increase the likelihood of bad behaviour, but it will not cause it.
And that was my point, apologies if I'm reinforcing it a bit too much.
FishyGinger on 1 Feb '13 said:
But smoking does definitely kill, not necessarily cancer, but it will lead directly to health problems. If a child punches someone in school and they've been playing games it may be a link but there was something else which was the cause. If it isn't games something else will cause it as it's a mental disposition towards certain actions.
The original point is that violence isn't rising percentage wise since games have been released, there was violence before hand so what caused that? People doing what they do best, act like bastards. The real problem is media needing catchy stories, Jeremy Kyle and politicians trying to win votes by causing fear.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Cig.packet.750pix.jpg/220px-Cig.packet.750pix.jpg
Don't do it kids.
Thos. on 2 Feb '13 said:
Source? Or did you just make that up?
This is why it's a pointless argument if people just randomly make up statistics instead of sitting down and doing research. Exactly like the EA boss in the article.
The only thing that is certain is that nothing is conclusive and further research is needed. Anyone who claims certainties is just attempting to reinforce their own opinions.
SilentDark on 2 Feb '13 said:
So would you say that violence has increased with the release of video games? Some of the most violent periods in our history predate video games by quite a bit.
World War 1
World War 2
Spanish Inquisiton
Witch Hunter Trials
The whole of the Dark Ages
100 years war.
American Civil War
Do I need to go on? I don't think terrorists are avid CoD players. Fred West didn't own a Gameboy. The idea Jack Thompsons of the world like to propagate is that video games CAUSE violence which is patently untrue because such an argument is proved false by this very basic fact that violence existed before video games did. Is there a link between increased aggression and video games? I find that unlikely. I certainly don't think that playing video games somehow "turns" peaceful happy children into murderous psychopaths any more than watching Brokeback Mountain would make straight people gay.
Thos. on 3 Feb '13 said:
And we're back to square one. This genius comment is the reason this place so funny. Simultaneously both self righteous and completely ignorant, ignoring every single post before it.
By the way, if you're under 14, I apologise - good attempt but your argument genuinely makes no sense at all. You see violence can have many, many causes. If you think about what you wrote, and bear that single fact in mind you may be able to work out why you are completely wrong. Good luck, and nice try!