"AMOA believes that the current trend of the escalating use of violence in video games will prove to be detrimental to the industry in the long term. We are currently seeing parents and safety advocate groups speaking out against video games and their use of graphic violence. AMOA believes that it is indeed possible to design successful video games without the use of graphic violence. AMOA believes that if the graphic use of violence continues, our industry will suffer repercussions similar to the regulatory backlashes of the early 1980s, with state and local governments receiving pressure to further regulate and tax the industry. AMOA encourages all manufacturers to design games with wide appeal and design without the excessive use of graphic violence."
If reading the above statement gives you a sense of "deja vu," it's no wonder. The above constitutes the text of an AMOA position paper released in October, 1993. Youth violence is one of the biggest problems facing our society as we head into the next millennium. We have detached families and children that are growing up in homes where they are not wanted, which leads to children that get little or no supervision during their primary developing years. Contributing factors to the problem of youth violence, as the media has pointed out, include the violence that children are watching on television, at the movies, the music they are listening to, unrestricted Internet use, violent home video games and violent coin-op video games.
Here's the reality. Violent coin-op video games will be singled out as a primary contributor to the youth violent acts we're witnessing today. The government can't do much about the breakdown of the traditional family. They can't legislate that all family members sit down nightly for dinner at six o'clock in the evening and discuss the day's activities. The motion picture industry lobby is too strong and powerful to bow to pressures to produce less violent movies. Television studios are much the same; they won't stop producing violent shows. The music will only become more violent and disgusting - remember when Elvis was considered the corruptive youth influence of his day? The last really good wholesome youth band was Van Halen, in the '70s. (Coincidentally, I really liked Van Halen as a teen and my parents hated them.) The consumer video game market is way too large and profitable to do anything other than post a few token ratings and maybe even make a temporary reduction in violent titles.
Coin-op video arcade video games will become the focal point of this debate. They will be legislated to the point where they will eventually be illegal, or taxed beyond what the market will bear. The legislation will continue to begin at the local level, where plenty has already happened. Does this sound familiar?
Just as we lost the public debate with cigarette vending, we will lose the debate defending violent video games. For years we argued that cigarette vending machines are not the cause of youth smoking nor the primary choice of youth access. Statistics show we were accurate in our argument. What we lost was the public debate. We will lose a public debate on violent video games because of a lack of massive lobby funds to influence lawmakers, and because our reaction to the problem addressed in 1993 is too little, too late.
The other similarity is that we won't have the support of the manufacturers of these same games. Just as in the cigarette wars, manufacturers will leave us standing in the field when push comes to shove. If it appears they can maintain the home market for violent video titles, the coin-op market will be abandoned faster than the average ball time of a modern day pinball, about 60 seconds. Just as the cigarette vending issue was a losing proposition 10 years ago, so is today's defense of violent video games.
The disappointing part of this debate is that it was so avoidable. I remember the industry meetings vividly, going back to 1993, when a couple of U.S. senators (Lieberman and Kohl) began focusing on the violent content of modern-day video games. It was clear to most industry leaders that this was a issue that wasn't going away, and at that time it was the amusement industry's problem to solve internally or we would be have the solution legislated to us.
It is true that they initially focused on the home market, and then brought the coin-op industry into the fold. AMOA's presidents in 1993 and 1994, Craig Johnson and R.A. Green, both testified in Congress at the request of the senators during their respective terms. Craig and R.A. told a great story about how they are responsible parents, too, and how violent games only represent a small portion of the total coin-op video titles.
Not everybody appreciated their efforts. A few industry members directly accused the AMOA of bringing unwanted attention to our industry. They were sure our business would be ignored if we just kept a low profile. We would walk out of those industry meetings knowing full well that our concerns were falling on deaf ears, claimed the critics.
Well, I guess it is just human nature to delay dealing with a problem in earnest, until it clearly threatens your livelihood. If someone told you with absolute certainty that your house was going to burn down sometime in the near future, would you wait until you could see flames to do something about it? What we did in our industry was to take a small bucket of water and placed it in the middle of the living room. We made some noise. We even produced some really nice rating stickers.
Today a few industry leaders are working their tails off to ward off legislation that is developing in state and local jurisdictions. Because of the small portion of our industry who were genuinely interested in this issue (at least until the last few months), we get a grade of a "C" at best. It's unbelievable to me that at this very moment, in June of 1999, a full six years after this issue was brought to light, you can still buy (brand new) the most violent games our industry has ever seen.
Our industry should have voluntarily phased these games out by developing new technologies. Some companies have actually done just that. Incredible Technologies has been as successful as anyone in the industry in the last ten years. They developed new technology in a wholesome game, Golden Tee Golf, with an aggressive marketing campaign. Meanwhile, other manufacturers have continued to produce every conceivable fighting configuration imaginable. Men fighting men, men fighting animals, men shooting men, women, children, animals, dinosaurs, animals shooting people, men shooting aliens. You would think there is an end to the different versions but it appears there is not.
This debate is over before it starts. We have children shooting children in numerous schools throughout the nation. These children are playing our games. Granted, I'll argue all day long that the problem doesn't start with video games, but rather at home. However, they are playing our games and some of our games are terribly violent and not defensible.
The public can, just as it did in the cigarette wars, run us out of business with great success. It's not right. The cigarette issue wasn't decided on facts but by public sentiment, which rules in this very democratic nation. Sure, there will be those operators who prosper with violent games...just as there are operators today whose cigarette routes are at record-setting profit levels. There will always be an adult bar, probably with women dancing on a stage, that has a room in the back with a grotesquely violent video game, that will probably cost $2 per play, that will earn extremely well. The public loves to have something they've been told they can't have.
However, for the mainstream operator with bowling centers, arcades, and family entertainment centers, violent games will not be tolerated by the public. Just in the last 60 days, we've made every major news show, including the dreaded "60 Minutes" (the show that has ended more than its share of careers and products), with our violent products. The local representatives will continue to introduce legislation to restrict these games. Assuming the industry associations vote to spend the money, we will win most of these battles initially.
Simultaneous with this, your customers will start requesting you to remove these violent machines. First it will be only a few customers, but in the end, if one major chain makes this decision (as one has), then public demand puts pressure on the retail competitors to make similar decisions. Our industry members will be sued numerous times. One major suit is now underway (the one filed by parents of shooting victims in Paduca, Ky., against a long list of movie and video game producers). We'll probably win most of them, too. In the end, though, someone will lose a big one. Then it will be officially over.
What is the solution to this massive problem? It hasn't changed since 1993. The manufacturers should stop making the violent games now and be very public about their responsible decision. As operators, we have about as much discipline as a crack cocaine addict. If you make it and it earns, we'll buy it. It is time for all of us to move beyond this phase of our industry.