In case you were not aware, on Thursday President Donald Trump had an hour-long meeting with Congressional leaders and video game industry leaders behind closed doors in the Roosevelt Room at the White House. Attendees included company representatives from Bethesda, Take-Two, Rockstar, and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), as well as critics of violent media from the Parents Television Council (PTC), Media Research Council (MRC), Representative Vicky Hartzler, a Republican Congresswoman from Missouri, among others. The meeting, which the White House describes as one of many with the game industry and other stakeholders in a national discussion surrounding school shootings, was closed to the press. However, some of the attendees revealed what went down in post-meeting statements and press interviews.

The meeting kicked-off with the screening of the following 88-second video that depicts violent scenes from game franchises like Call of Duty, Sniper Elite, and Fallout:

Unlisted video from The White House’s YouTube channel​

Following the footage Rep. Hartzler said that the president would ask, “This is violent isn’t it?”, asking for comments and thoughts among those present.

"I think for many of us there, there was a shocked silence," Melissa Henson, a spokesperson for the PTC, said during a press call following the meeting. "Those from the video game industry were quick to defend [the video games] saying they were meant for a mature audience and that they weren't intended for kids to see."

“I think he’s deeply disturbed by some of the things you see in these video games that are so darn violent, viciously violent, and clearly inappropriate for children, and I think he’s bothered by that,” said Brent Bozell of the MRC.

In a press statement following the meeting, the White House added that “the President acknowledged some studies have indicated there is a correlation between video game violence and real violence. The conversation centered on whether violent video games, including games that graphically simulate killing, desensitize our community to violence.”

It is not the first time that President Trump made a connection between violence in video games and real violence. He has been quite vocal about his thoughts on the matter in the past...

Video game violence & glorification must be stopped—it is creating monsters!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 17, 2012

​

... even if studies showed no correlation between the two, as the ESA pointed out: "We discussed the numerous scientific studies establishing that there is no connection between video games and violence, First Amendment protection of video games, and how our industry’s rating system effectively helps parents make informed entertainment choices."

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who was also at the meeting, also acknowledged that there is no evidence linking violent video games to the tragedy in Parkland. But he said he wanted to ensure “parents are aware of the resources available to them to monitor and control the entertainment their children are exposed to.”

"The tone of the meeting was that it was for information gathering, fact finding," the PTC's Melissa Henson said. "I don't believe anyone came in there with a policy outcome in mind. The President was not walking in there with his mind already made up. I am under the impression there will be future conversations, though no next steps were discussed."

___________________________________________​

While nothing consequential went down during this specific meeting, similar ones are bound to happen, especially in the wake of increasing reports of public violence. Decisions might then be made that will have a heavy impact on the video game industry.

Views are highly divided regarding the issue of violence and video games. This will probably remain the case in the foreseeable future until a consensus is met, however unlikely that may be. But what do you think? Is there a correlation? Are there any changes that need to be made within the video game industry that can help to curb real-world violence?

 

[Noctosphere]

Wtf violence in video doesnt need to be stopped
Its parent who buy adult game to their kid who must be stopped
Plus, its not because i play violent video game that ill become a shooter...
Player of violent video game that became shooter represent a minority of those player
I played gta for the first time when i was around 8. I didnt shoot anyone ...
So please, stop saying violent video game must be banned
Hey, maybe we should ban pokemon game? Humans who make their pets fight against others pets... right?

 

[Bimmel]

Is this a new topic or a Trump port from 2009? If so, then no buy for me.

 

[Kioku]

The irony in this thread is astounding.

 

[Hyborix3]

Murica'

 

[FAST6191]

I seems I was a bit optimistic. I thought around the time Jack Thompson got himself disbarred that this kind of nonsense was over.

Equally "some studies show"... I was not in particular need of more evidence that the guy cherry picks things like that but oh well. Does also make his constant cries of fictitious journalistic communiqués ring that much more hollow as well. On the other hand guess he has learned that part of being a politico, maybe he will even learn some of the rest before all is said and done.

If parents weren't stupid and didnt let there 8 year old kid play GTA this wouldn't be a problem.

Still remember the time we let my friend's 6 year old daughter play Just Cause 3. She tried to drive nicely down the road.
That said what problems is an 8 year old playing GTA likely to experience as a result?

Guns killing people is the stupidest argument I've ever heard against them. Know what else can be used to kill people? Knifes, improvised explosive devices, C-4, cars, so why don't we ban those next? Or better yet, we can always ban people

I should know better but fuck it.
It is less that they are the only thing that is able to kill someone and more that they make it a hell of a lot easier, for basically anybody as well, and don't afford much chance to allow cooler heads to prevail. With that in place some then wonder as to their merit in modern society and extent the of the availability.
Your statement there risks being an overly simplistic reduction.

 

[samcambolt270]

we've already proven mathematically that without further evidence, you cannot prove that video games cause kids to be violent. All you need to understand is two statistical concepts, and I'll explain both.

1. 1: Correlation does not equal causation. The rate of ice cream sales in the summer often correlates with the number of murders in that area(for real, not a joke), does that mean that Ice cream sales cause murder, or that murder causes ice cream sales? NO! thats stupid! Two statistics correlating can mean that they both rely on a similar factor, one thing caused both, or nothing at all! Number can just correlate sometimes.
2. The P(A|X) is not the same as the P(X|A). This sounds complicated but it isnt. P(A|X) simply means "the probability of event A occurring given that event X has already occurred." We can prove mathematically that the inverse of a probability is not the same. When someone uses evidence like "out of 500 violent kid crimes, 300 of them played violent video games" and uses that to try and prove that violent video games cause violence, they are using fallacious inverse evidence. I'll boil the "proof" to an equation. I'll use C as "committed a crime" and V as "played violent video games." When someone uses the previously mentioned evidence, they are saying that P(V|C) = 300/500. In other words, the probability of "having played a violent video game" given that they have ALREADY COMMITTED a violent crime is high, and this is the only thing that evidence can prove. If you want to prove that violent video games cause kids to commit crimes, you need different evidence, namely the inverse, P(C|V) or the probability of committing a violent crime given that you have played a violent video game. In that case, you would need a random sample containing solely kids who have played violent video games, and how many of those have committed violent crimes. Of course kids who have already committed violent crimes have a tendency to partake in violent media, so its a given that many kids who commit violent crimes would have played violent video games. You could get very similar biased "evidence" by saying "of the 500 kids surveyed who committed violent crimes, 480 of them ate breakfast! BREAKFAST CAUSES VIOLENCE CONFIRMED!!1!" Of course, they'd never acknowledge this, since it wouldnt match their biased messages.

 

[the_randomizer]

I seems I was a bit optimistic. I thought around the time Jack Thompson got himself disbarred that this kind of nonsense was over.

Equally "some studies show"... I was not in particular need of more evidence that the guy cherry picks things like that but oh well. Does also make his constant cries of fictitious journalistic communiqués ring that much more hollow as well. On the other hand guess he has learned that part of being a politico, maybe he will even learn some of the rest before all is said and done.


Still remember the time we let my friend's 6 year old daughter play Just Cause 3. She tried to drive nicely down the road.
That said what problems is an 8 year old playing GTA likely to experience as a result?


I should know better but fuck it.
It is less that they are the only thing that is able to kill someone and more that they make it a hell of a lot easier, for basically anybody as well, and don't afford much chance to allow cooler heads to prevail. With that in place some then wonder as to their merit in modern society and extent the of the availability.
Your statement there risks being an overly simplistic reduction.

And people wonder why I have reservations in voicing my opinions at all.

 

[SG854]

What exactly do they wish to accomplish with this meeting? Kids are already prevented from buying M rated games. What more can they do? The next step would be to ban violence in video games. Or better educate the public about ESRB ratings. Which I'm pretty sure parents should know by now what ESRB is.

Parenting/guidance is the answer. But, nope, we're instead offered brilliant gems of wisdom such as: "B-b-BUt MoR gUNz n skOOl GUD! giEv TAehCRS GNZZ!!!"

Tragically, creatures like the dotard & the G(L)OP are greedy vampiric monsters that exist solely to accumulate $$$ and leech souls. It's only gotten worse post-Nixon, to the point where most of 'em will now FLAGRANTLY boast of their evil acts, publicly. Paul Ryan? The evil tortoise Mitch? 'Pedo Roy' Moore? Guess what, Millennials and Gen Z -- these Putin drones/wicked bastards don't give a SHIT about you. You're merely the next generations of cattle for them to feed on, for as long as they remain in 'power'....

People would rather be at work then be around their kids to raise them. Women fought to work a job like a man. And man wants to work too. They rather be at work working in a cubicle, then be around the people they care about which is their kids to raise them. Assuming they care about their kids. So we have a generation of kids not being raised by their biological parents and instead raised by video games and tv to baby sit them till the parents come home. No one is considering stay at home parent.

 

[netovsk]

I thought he had no bounds when it came down to whats "good for the economy, creates american jobs".

It was all a smoke screen for some bizarre agenda then it seems.

 

[FAST6191]

While that is true I place a bit more stock in the people doing research.

Hard results from psychology and sociology in the same way I can test the effects of... adding 20% by weight of Lithium to an alloy on its resulting mechanical properties are not going to happen. There are however things like regression testing (you hold, or find somewhere where it was held by whatever means*, everything else the same and remove/alter one element and see what happens), and you are also afforded things like quizzing people, FMRI scans, other sensors and such on those having just played or some 30 days later, twin studies and more besides.

*I am sure some county somewhere did not get a shipment, has too poor internet... something to make the availability and consumption of games drop.

As far as I was aware people did just that though and said "no effect we can see", as did others doing various meta analysis type studies.

And people wonder why I have reservations in voicing my opinions at all.

Because you don't want to back them up?

 

[the_randomizer]

While that is true I place a bit more stock in the people doing research.

Hard results from psychology and sociology in the same way I can test the effects of... adding 20% by weight of Lithium to an alloy on its resulting mechanical properties are not going to happen. There are however things like regression testing (you hold, or find somewhere where it was held by whatever means*, everything else the same and remove/alter one element and see what happens), and you are also afforded things like quizzing people, FMRI scans, other sensors and such on those having just played or some 30 days later, twin studies and more besides.

*I am sure some county somewhere did not get a shipment, has too poor internet... something to make the availability and consumption of games drop.

As far as I was aware people did just that though and said "no effect we can see", as did others doing various meta analysis type studies.


Because you don't want to back them up?

Because I'm cynical of all political discussions and politicians. What good does gun control do when people never want to agree on anything, the government sure as hell can't be entrusted to do it.

 

[FAST6191]

Because I'm cynical of all political discussions and politicians. What good does gun control do when people never want to agree on anything, the government sure as hell can't be entrusted to do it.

That seems to be two different things.

I too have a hard time believing "public service" is currently a thing, and maybe never even was one. That said "run what you brung"/"use the tools you have available" is a thing so why not play anyway.

People having different tolerances for risk will see them never agree entirely, can still make positive steps though.

 

[the_randomizer]

That seems to be two different things.

I too have a hard time believing "public service" is currently a thing, and maybe never even was one. That said "run what you brung"/"use the tools you have available" is a thing so why not play anyway.

People having different tolerances for risk will see them never agree entirely, can still make positive steps though.

I just fail to see why people are blaming guns when guns are good or as bad as their users. They should blame the psychopaths, not the guns.

 

[Lumince]

Blame the idiotic parents that just buy any M rated game for their 11 year old just so they stop whining that they want it. I played GTA when I was 8. EIGHT. I haven't shot up any schools?!?!? I was taught that it was just a game and that it was very wrong to be doing those things in reality. Parents either need to learn to not buy said games for their children, OR TEACH THEM RIGHT FROM WRONG. Lazy parents.....
Children should NOT be able to play this crap anyways. Get them the hell out of my lobbies.

 

[ThisIsDaAccount]

Guns killing people is the stupidest argument I've ever heard against them. Know what else can be used to kill people? Knifes, improvised explosive devices, C-4, cars, so why don't we ban those next? Or better yet, we can always ban people

My personal opinion is that some guns are for self defense while others are clearly not. If you have a handgun in your house in case someone comes in to rob you, thsts self defense. If you hsve a semi-automatic rifle, there's no self defense use that can't be accomplished by simply replacing it with a handgun. The only use I can think of that a semi automatic rifle has over a handguns is that they kill multiple people quicker, which does not help with self defense, it only helps in the offensive.

For a more obvious example (not aimed at you, just for clarifying my point for others reading this), a tank can't kill people without someone driving it. Even though that's true, I still support banning tanks, because no one will own a tank unless they want to kill a lot of people. Same with a semi automatic rifle.

I will agree tho that people are the root of the problem, which is why we need mental health reform as well.

 

[the_randomizer]

My personal opinion is that some guns are for self defense while others are clearly not. If you have a handgun in your house in case someone comes in to rob you, thsts self defense. If you hsve a semi-automatic rifle, there's no self defense use that can't be accomplished by simply replacing it with a handgun. The only use I can think of that a semi automatic rifle has over a handguns is that they kill multiple people quicker, which does not help with self defense, it only helps in the offensive.

For a more obvious example (not aimed at you, just for clarifying my point for others reading this), a tank can't kill people without someone driving it. Even though that's true, I still support banning tanks, because no one will own a tank unless they want to kill a lot of people. Same with a semi automatic rifle.

I will agree tho that people are the root of the problem, which is why we need mental health reform as well.

And yet neither side will agree with anything, always backbiting, pointing fingers, neither side wants to agree with anything. Handguns, yes, I agree, good self defense, but WTF needs an AR-15 to defend themselves? No one.

 

[EDMIRE]

thank god the switch is region free so if anything does go down in the future i'll just order my damn 'violent' games from another country.

 

[ThisIsDaAccount]

And yet neither side will agree with anything, always backbiting, pointing fingers, neither side wants to agree with anything. Handguns, yes, I agree, good self defense, but WTF needs an AR-15 to defend themselves? No one.

Agreed. I believe the second amendment is on our constitution for good reason, but no one needs an AR 15 unless they're going on a killing spree. Like you said, it's sad that everyone seems to think there's a problem but that politicians won't stand up for what the common folk want.

 

[FAST6191]

I just fail to see why people are blaming guns when guns are good or as bad as their users. They should blame the psychopaths, not the guns.

Didn't I already cover that?
People do blame the psychopaths/user, indeed I don't think I have ever seen people say it was not their fault. It is however that firearms make it rather more easy that gives us a discussion.

I am quite large, physically fit and have some training. I rock up with my hockey stick intending to do damage to a crowd and I might get three or four people in before I am too tired and get tackled.
Give me a rifle and provided I can handle the recoil the count will be far higher, and I will walk away not especially tired. Indeed someone not especially fit, not very strong and with minimal tuition could probably get themselves a fairly high score.

The question is then given those things might firearms then be worth limiting so as to lessen the harm potential? It can be shown to have happened elsewhere when they employed controls. What limitations are to be put in place, what problems it will cause (are firearms particularly useful devices for the modern world? If they are then would stripping them cause harms beyond that which might be acceptable?) and how to enact any changes are then all up for discussion.

 

[dimmidice]

How is it not having them informed? It's a matter of the parents not understanding or not caring about their child playing gory violent games. Which games like cod that are known to have a lot of children playing has blatantly shown right on the box.
View attachment 117016 View attachment 117017

Oh sorry i did not see this post. The reason i said bollocks is because it said "effectively" and well it's not effective when most parents don't know or don't care about the ratings system. The ratings system obviously isn't to blame for that, lazy parents are.