US physicians urge game-ratings overhaul

The American Medical Association calls for the ESRB's current system to be reexamined by the Federal Trade Commission, warns of possible health effects from overzealous gaming.

Earlier this week, the American Physiatrists Association tabled a resolution to "strongly encourage" the "inclusion of 'Internet/video game addiction' as a formal diagnostic disorder." That wasn't the end of the story, though. Now, the APA's parent organization, the American Medical Association, has called for further research on games' effects--and a reexamination of one of the game industry's central institutions.

Today, the AMA's Council on Science and Public Health issued a revised edition of a report first commissioned at last year's annual AMA meeting. Originally titled "Emotional and Behavioral Effects, Including Addictive Potential, of Video Games," the report is now called "Emotional and Behavioral Effects of Video Game and Internet Overuse."

Citing government studies, medical findings, and surveys commissioned by the Entertainment Software Association, the game industry's own lobby, the report came to several conclusions. Though it did say games can play a "potentially positive role" in society, the report outlined how the AMA is becoming increasingly worried about the effects of gaming on health.

"The [game] industry's predisposition toward age-inappropriate imaging and marketing techniques has led to concerns about untoward side effects, ranging from physical symptoms, such as seizures and tendonitis, to socially maladaptive behaviors, such as increased short-term aggressiveness and overuse syndromes," the report said.

The AMA report also issued several "directives to take action" on games. First, it called on the Federal Trade Commission and the ESRB to "establish an improved ratings system." It was unclear whether or not the suggested system would completely replace the old scheme, which issues letter-based ratings alongside a series of content descriptors.

ESRB president Patricia Vance responded to the AMA's directives by pointing out the ESRB ratings system's has been praised as "effective" by the FTC in the past. "While we agree with the AMA that parents should play an active role in determining which games their children play, their call for a review of the ESRB rating system seems to disregard the fact that the vast majority of parents are satisfied with ESRB ratings and use them regularly to choose games for their children," she told GameSpot via e-mail.

The AMA report also advocated a new nationwide initiative by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians to "educate physicians on the public health risks of media exposure and how to assess media usage in their pediatric populations and provide families with educational materials on the appropriate use of video games."

But while the AMA often described games and their effects in stark terms, its final report wasn't nearly as harsh as its prior form. As previously reported, the call to include game addiction as an official physiological disorder has been removed. Instead, the AMA is now merely asking the APA to review its report when preparing for the next revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, due in 2012.

Also gone is the AMA's recommendation that Internet usage and game playing be limited to "1 to 2 hours of total daily screen time." No new recommendations on time limits on gameplay and/or computer usage were offered in their place.

409 Comments

  • benjaminjoel

    Posted Jun 30, 2007 7:32 pm PT

    The AO rating just needs to stop being equal to a ban, and we'll be all set.. EC, E, E10, T, and M do their jobs brilliantly.

  • kappareign

    Posted Jun 29, 2007 8:19 am PT

    the ratings are fine... E, T, and M do their job. what would they have the ESRB do, put "potentially addictive" on every game box?

  • brianpoetzel

    Posted Jun 29, 2007 6:14 am PT

    slidet22 said: I could have also drawn an analogie to driving, reading, talking with friends, or playing soccer as an addiction. These are all things people may do from time to time - perhaps even on a daily basis that are NOT required for life functioning."

    I agree 100%. If they choose to make games an addiction they will have to make EVERY hobby an addiction. Woodworking, car tuning, gardening, reading, TV, working out, movies, clothes and fashion, music, baseball, football, soccer, etc. The list goes on.

  • re-raid

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 11:01 pm PT

    why cant they just go away?

  • slidet22

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 8:53 pm PT

    brianpoetzel - I don't think anyone would argue with that. I think you may have missed the point. I was simply pointing out that many believe the APA is considering making video game addiction a label that would apply to anyone playing video games. I was just pointing out that simply engaging in a behavior does not make one addicted. I could have also drawn an analogie to driving, reading, talking with friends, or playing soccer as an addiction. These are all things people may do from time to time - perhaps even on a daily basis that are NOT required for life functioning.

  • malmeid2

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 6:22 pm PT

    brianpoetzel slidet22 said: the APA does NOT consider an addiction simply something that one engages in a lot. Otherwise, breathing, standing, sleeping, eating, and all life functions would be considered an addiction"

    Gaming is voluntary and not required for life. IIMO there's a big difference between things we have to do and things we choose to do. ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    Standing is required for life? I haven't gotten out of my computer chair in 14 years and I'm in the best shape of my life!

  • brianpoetzel

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 5:26 pm PT

    slidet22 said: the APA does NOT consider an addiction simply something that one engages in a lot. Otherwise, breathing, standing, sleeping, eating, and all life functions would be considered an addiction"

    Gaming is voluntary and not required for life. IIMO there's a big difference between things we have to do and things we choose to do.

  • brianpoetzel

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 5:20 pm PT

    @ Inv_machine: That's assuming that game addiction is real, which most people,even physicians agree does not.

  • slidet22

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 3:40 pm PT

    Inv_machine - agreed. I started a thread on this a while back, but few seemed to get it. Some just assume their being attacked and start flailing in defense. I even saw some talk about how the government needs to pay attention to education more...I needed to point out that the AMA is not related to education budgeting...oh well. I agree with you 100%. Well put.

  • Inv_Machine

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 1:50 pm PT

    Let me remind all of you a couple points that need to be highlighted.

    - Game ratings and game addiction are two different topics. I don't know how any of you can say that game addiction has anything to do with the ratings and vice versa. While this article is talking about improving ratings to include warnings of game addiction, it has nothing to do about the audience's age ratings. So stop using Manhunt 2 as an example in your discussions, please.

    - This has nothing to do about politics. If you paid attention closely enough, nothing in the past articles mentioned anything about partisan politics or anything involved with the US government. Everything that these articles are talking about is game/internet addiction and how prevailent it is in our society. Which goes on to my next point...

    - None of these things are going to affect YOU, the casual gamer. They're not even targeting anything besides people who are severely addicted to video games and the internet! (that'd be me) All that they're doing is raising awareness of game/internet addiction and going through options of how to reduce these addictions. Even if they still included the recommendation in their report to have game/internet time reduced to a set number of hours of use, it's just a recommendation, not a requirement.

    - Nothing in these articles ever said that games are bad altogether for society. If you believe that this is an effort to stop people from playing games or to snuff out gaming entirely, then you're a fool. The gaming industry is one of the things that America thrives on, so getting rid of it altogether or getting gamers to stop playing is just foolish.

    - The critical point of this topic is to make people AWARE of game/internet addiction and to REDUCE game/internet addiction, not STOP gaming altogether. All I have to say is that there's nothing to be worried about and you all should stop ranting about how AMA is tearing up the gaming industry.

  • Guuthulhu

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 12:13 pm PT

    The people who never leave their homes, never bathe, and just play video games or hang out in chat rooms all day to the point where it obviously negatively affects their life, and health are the ones with potentially serious problems. Just playing videogames all the time isn't enough to classify it as a serious addiction. This reminds me of when i was young back when the NES was released. By neighbor would come over after school to play games and he was the type who scream at the tv when Mario wouldn't jump and even broke my controller once beating it against the floor. That's not healthy at all, so I agree in educating parents in how to deal with their children and video games.

  • slidet22

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 10:49 am PT

    steel_rain - your the first to recognize MST3K - you are officially "da man."

    I will also say, however, as I did in an earlier post. Don't let this article fool you. FAR more man hours are put into cancer, aids, diabetes, research than this. I suspect you're not reading many other news sources other than those provided on gamespot, though. You'll not know that without reading elsewhere.

  • Steel_Rain777

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 10:29 am PT

    Pure stupidity, Why not use the time to finding a cure for Aids or cancer, instead of labeling "Video game addiction" as a disease. BTW MST3K is the S$%T!!...just felt like adding that

  • slidet22

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 10:17 am PT

    Note to all: the APA does NOT consider an addiction simply something that one engages in a lot. Otherwise, breathing, standing, sleeping, eating, and all life functions would be considered an addiction. An addiction refers to an activity that one engages in to the point that it actually deters one's ability to live. A drug addict, for example, will often lose employment, steal, and do anything to get to that next high. They will do things that will harm themselves, including the drugs, to get that next high. THAT's an addiction. So, unless you're gaming a TON, addiction would not apply to you. It would not apply to probably 98-99% of gamers. That doesn't mean it's not a problem for a select few.

  • Blisster

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 10:15 am PT

    Isn't being addicted part of the fun? heheheee

  • slidet22

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 10:15 am PT

    re4lekennedy - I agree - you can be addicted to anything. However, I don't get what you're saying about the music/tv thing. Less than a decade ago, that was receiving all the attention, and now we have warning labels and tv ratings. Those things are far more researched than video games.

  • slidet22

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 10:13 am PT

    No, the AMA did not classify it as an addiction. They cannot do that. They recommended to the APA that it be in the next DSM, and it looks like that is not passing. Second, like re4leonkennedy pointed out - ANYTHING can be an addiction. The reason to idenitfy something by name is for many reasons. One is so that if you do need help, you have a better chance of an insurance company paying for it or some of it. Second is for research purposes. When any problem has a common name, it aids in the continuity of research.

    Also, the addiction would follow the same terms of any other addiction - namely that it GREATLY impacts daily functioning to a point that actually deters one ability to live. A drug addict, for example may be jobless, a thief, and looking for nothing more than their next fix. I had a buddy who played WOW for 15 hours a day, quit his job, quit paying rent (which his two roommates then had to cover) cut down his eating to one meal a day, and was trying to figure out how to reduce sleep to play more. THAT is an addiction. If you're not doing that though, the AMA was not suggesting you be called an addict. I probably play about an hour to two hours of video games per day on average. I would be right there with you if they started saying that I was an addict, but that is not what they were saying.

  • ginoon

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 10:12 am PT

    well thats the government for you.

  • iuns

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 10:03 am PT

    all rubbish =P

  • re4leonkennedy

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 10:02 am PT

    wow! people can be addicted to video games. no crap; people can get addicted to anything. i am tired of all this stuff about video games being so bad for people they are obviously not. SAy video games are bad for kids but lets not complain about tv or music being bad. no those are too loved and precious. Its simple if you have a kid don't buy him games called grand threat auto or manhunt.

  • Zeliard9

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 10:01 am PT

    Dude, the AMA once classified "game addiction" as an actual physiological disorder. Just because they've changed the wording to be more politically correct doesn't mean their opinions and intentions have changed any. By basically that if you play "too many" games or spend "too much" time on the Net, there's something seriously wrong with you, you are stigmatizing an already-stigmatized group of people even further. It isn't helping anybody. People who have problems with addiction of any sort need to be helped on an INDIVIDUAL basis by those around them that recognize they have an actual problem and take steps to remedy that.

  • kyo_tetsuei

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 10:00 am PT

    So... wait. What about Katamari?

  • concealedview

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 9:50 am PT

    Didn't one of those musical masters like Beethoven or something play piano like 14 hours a day?

  • PixyMisao

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 9:50 am PT

    Apparently these people have never looked at the first two pages of Nintendo game instructions, let alone all the warnings plastered on the Wii and DS system booklets.

  • slidet22

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 9:48 am PT

    zeliard - that is not TARGETING gamers - it is targeting anyone in front of a screen for that amount - including employees doing their jobs. This would make companies more liable to improve health benefits as well. Also, like you said, that was IN THE PAST, so they have revamped their recommendations.

    Sedentary behavior is sedentary behavior. They have recommendations for tv addicts (been around for years), truck drivers, and the obese. It is natural to focus on the new breed of sedentary people - gamers and internet users - and the internet has been addressed a lot already. They are simply pointing out that this is not healthy. It is not making a law anywhere indicating that you CANNOT play longer, only that it is detrimental to your health. Sedentary behavior has been linked to MANY of the other things posted here, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and more. Unfortunately, many here will read that previous statement as "video games cause diabetes." NO, that's not what I or the AMA is saying - only that it puts you at greater risk, and let's be careful.

  • Zeliard9

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 9:42 am PT

    Slidet, where you do get sarcasm from? I wasn't being sarcastic at all. And the reason we feel they are targetting all gamers is because in the past, as the article states, they thought it'd be a good idea to suggest that people should only sit in front of a screen or monitor for 1-2 hours. How is that only targetting addicts? At least they weren't dumb enough to make that silly mistake again, though.

  • tekmojo

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 9:39 am PT

    I guarantee there will be a day where games (gaming technology/concepts/intel) will become in sync with life, and will feel as natural as ever. Then the AMA or whatever will be in its place will be saying, we need more people involving themselves with the entertainment of gaming. I think the real problem we have here is the word video. Games are still totally seperate from "video". As technology evolves, hopefully we can figure out new ways to safely increase our happiness, intelligence, cooperation(online gaming). Bright minds are already working on it, I can assure you on that.

    We can't just give up now, we can sleep when we're dead. Just think if everyone limited themselves on something they had passion towards. What a dull earth this would be. Let's finish what we started.

  • slidet22

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 9:36 am PT

    licker_91/Obliterati - they ARE...they're focusing on the obesity epidemic. There are more obese youth than ever before. The side effects of that, including type-II diabetes is on the rise. They are not arguing to eliminate video games, only reduce it. Even at that, they are talking abot extreme cases. Or, they will encourage parents to have their kids do something active in addition to video games. This is a response to a growing problem that is only getting worse with more severe consequences. Unfortunately, too many here are playing the part of the victim.

  • licker_91

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 9:31 am PT

    Obliterati is right, this AMA is focusing on video game addiction and compared to so many other problems are world has it should be alot farther down the list. You hear about people blaming video games on acts of violence, but the thing is if someone kills someone else you can't blame on a video game its the person who commited the act of violence. I've been playing M rated video games since I was 5, I've never done anything to harm anyone other than hitting my sister.

  • Turtodile

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 9:28 am PT

    I think that play video games actually helps me... Reading the text, doing puzzles, thinking what to do helps my brain. I bet i wouldnt be getting straight A's in school if i didnt play video games. It even helps your reflex and thinking on the spot.

  • slidet22

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 9:10 am PT

    Ummm....this IS trying to reduce obesity - the first thing on your list. Which, by the way, is at an all time high in youth according to the CDC. I think you guys aren't realzing that this is FAR from the only project the AMA is working on. It's just listed here on gamespot because it's related to video games. If this is the only place you're getting your news, you need to be careful because there is a LOT more out there.

  • iLiveBy2words

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 9:08 am PT

    Starring at a television or computer monitor makes your metabolism twice as slow and causes you to become semi-hypnotized, but the same thing happens during driving. Should people be limited to 1 to 2 hours of daily driving? No. So screw those doctors with no Vaseline. They're just going to try n' milk us for more money in the end. Like...'Based on our studies of video gamer habits, any male between the age of 11-26 will now have to pay an insurance premium covering their statistically high risk entertainment habits.'

  • Obliterati

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 9:06 am PT

    Jeez, you'd think the American Medical Association would have better things to do with their time. "Obesity, AIDS, smoking, teenage pregnancy, drug addiction, cancer, autism, heart disease, stress, diabetes, alzheimers, hypertension, depression, cholera...forget that crap. What we really gotta do is fix the video game addiction problem!"

  • DonutTrooper

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 9:05 am PT

    LMAO


    Usually I would have more to say, but I'm laughing too hard.

  • slidet22

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 9:04 am PT

    Tanjo22 - It's not like they're saying the Internet is completely a bad thing. They are just talking about excessive use of it. One could argue good and bad things about the internet. Your example is good, but another could point to identity theft, online gambling addiction, porn addiction, and general internet addiction that has some sitting in front of the computer for 14-16 hours at a go. The AMA is simply trying to improve awareness and cautionary statements about excessive use and the effects on health...which they SHOULD. In fact, this could improve work environments who have people sitting in front of computers all day to improve health plans and offer incentives for fitness memberships and the like.

  • Shrapnel99

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 9:03 am PT

    APA, AMA.....Too many A's......

  • Karmacodelc18

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 9:00 am PT

    This wouldn't be an issue if people got more active and made an effort to socialize instead of ignoring all of thier needs and wants by playing World of Warcraft days on end.

    It's not the fault of the video game. It's the fault of the gamer.

    Quote me on that.

  • Tanjo22

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 8:58 am PT

    If you think about it it positivley effects our lives. While we're browsing the internet we might have msn or aim open and keep in touch with our freinds/family. Video help to develop motor skills and reflexes, also it makes us alot more happy to play them, which is good for depressed people.

  • slidet22

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 8:56 am PT

    zeliard9 - sarcasm isn't necessary. Anyway, they are NOT targeting all gamers/internet users, just the ones with serious problems. You show me where they say that. They only mention including gaming as an addiction and a health concern. They do not say that if you're a gamer, you are being targeted, only those gamers/internet users who have problems. Read the DSM, it is very straightforward about addictions and the like. It is NOT targeting the community as a whole. THIS community has just assumed that.

  • tekmojo

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 8:55 am PT

    goo goo gah gah tell me what to do society....sarcasm aside, my life and the choices i make in it are up to me. AMA just mad cause they suck at video games..

  • Recurvebow_ak47

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 8:50 am PT

    Ok, nevermind then.

  • Zeliard9

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 8:46 am PT

    Uh Slidet, that's the whole point. They're targeting gamers and Internet users as a whole when only a relative few of us are "addicted" to the point where it negatively affects our lives. And that is, quite simply, wrong. And that should be obvious.

  • Gothichell

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 8:43 am PT

    More big brother telling us what to do.

  • slidet22

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 8:40 am PT

    recurvebow - There is more research on violent/sexual visual media (tv, movies) than video games.

  • Crisis_Eye

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 8:38 am PT

    angryduck67 you are my hero! lmao

  • Tanjo22

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 8:33 am PT

    I've been playing oblivion for the past 2 weeks straight and I feel fine.

  • Angryduck67

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 8:30 am PT

    *walks into a room full of men and fold out chairs, taking a seat*

    Man at center of room: Greetings everyone and welcome to GAA (Gaming Addicts Anonymous) it looks we have a new visitor, would you like to introduce yourself?

    *nervously stands up, sweating intensely, hands quivering slightly* AngryDuck67: Uhh...hello.

    Group: Hi.

    AngryDuck67: Uhhh.. uhhmmm...where do I begin, I think it may have started with Super Mario Brothers 3. *Group nods in understanding* I just...could not beat it, I had to beat it, I stayed up all night, but those....those airships.....those freaking airships.......*starts breathing heavily*...I was still so young, I could never......those AIRSHIPS!!!!!!! And those turtle bosses, they are so tricky....one hit and BAM it's all over, all over....... *falls back into seat sobbing into his own hands*

  • Recurvebow_ak47

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 8:27 am PT

    Why do people chose to worry about video games, and not sexual and/or violent movies?

  • slidet22

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 8:25 am PT

    First, you guys still are not understanding the addiction thing. To be diagnosed with an addiction, you'd have to play about 12 hours of video games every day, quit going to school/work, and reduce your general life functioning to a point that dramatically impacts your health outlook. You gamers playing when you get a chance are not going to be considered addicted. Second, playing video games is without question not healthy. You sit for hours on end, and often eat junk food and/or drink soda while doing it. If you couple that with the childhood obesity epidemic and rising type II diabetes rise in youth, and I would hope they'd be concerened about video games and other mediums promoting laziness. They do have internet addiction (another poster saying it was "acceptable"). It's all acceptable in moderate amounts, which I'm sure most of you do. Unfortunately, many are thinking they are being targeted. Unless you're getting fatter and fatter and playing loads and loads of video games, you're NOT being targeted.

  • Hvac0120

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 8:24 am PT

    1 to 2 hours play time? So, what...we are all casual gamers now? I only have this much time in a weekday to play games, so I fit the mold, but when I was younger, I would play for a good 8 hours straight on some days.

    Maybe it's not good for your health? Parents should certainly monitor their childrens play time, but 1 or 2 days of long gaming shouldn't hurt them too much if they are still getting out and being active the rest of the week. This time restriction seems to be on the extreme...

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!