The Paradox of Video Game Regulation

Support for video game regulation and censorship has often been linked to moral panic. Nationally, many governments attempt to limit the distribution of the content of video games due to the perceived sociological effect that “violent” video games have on young children, especially male teenagers. China has recently enacted the most stringent laws, allowing children to only play three hours of video games that often fall during 8–9 PM on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. But many companies have also been appeasing Chinese censors and have streamlined their video game designs to remove”unfavorable” aspects. Today, video games are a multi-billion dollar industry, but the formula that attracts audiences in Western markets may leave untapped potential in other ones, mainly China. For example, Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege had only one global launch and as the game grew, developers tried to modify parts of the game to expand their audience to China. However, any changes would affect the global audience and due to backlash, they eventually folded on the idea. When video game censorship is viewed as a necessity in order to release a product in certain markets, how do developers minimize censorship and maintain global audiences? And especially when pieces of legislation related to video games only filter it, what prevents the inevitability of certain video games from becoming over-filtered?

Video game developers are in a catch-22, as it is impossible to cater to regional sensibilities without maintaining universal freedom. It isn’t difficult to imagine that developers themselves want to maintain the artistic creativity and freedom that any form of entertainment or media brings. But for companies at the end of the day, all that really matters to them are their profit margins. Commercial video game success simply depends on the quantity of a product and the price at which it is sold. Therefore, leaving out certain markets is essentially profitability suicide and a recipe for corporate and shareholder backlash. There could be options in a video game that allows for various levels of censorship, but governments like being in the driver’s seat and not placing the “burden” of freedom of choice on the consumer. There is no simple one-size-fits-all approach — if there was, there would be no need for this post.