9 out of 10 teenagers play
Computer and video games have been growing more and more popular for years and have become an inseparable part of life. In 2018, 35% of people in Germany regularly played digital games, and 28% of players were over 50. That shows video games are popular across all age groups. But teenagers play the most: only one in ten teenagers never plays.
The industry profits on a large scale: the games industry in Germany recorded 3 billion euros in revenue in 2018, and the trend is rising.
Why are computer games so popular?
But why are video games so popular, and what purpose and benefit do they have? Are they first and foremost simply games, toys or tools for education? Should they serve development and training, or are they a medium like a movie?
Why people play can be explained like this.
The pleasure center is stimulated, success triggers feelings of happiness, and you can escape reality and live in a world of your own.
Every player has their own reasons.
The four principles of choosing an action
On the other side are the companies and their ethical view of why they produce their games. Ultimately, they’re in it for the profit. Still, they also give reasons that go beyond finances. These always come down to four principles of choosing an action.
1. The consequences principle
Here, rightness is judged by the consequences. In this case, games aren’t good or bad in themselves; they can only be judged in the context of their consequences. If players get positive added value from them, in the sense of fun, knowledge, development and so on, the consequence is that the game is classified as right. Examples are games that include historical elements, but strategy games belong here too.
2. The utility principle
This means games are morally right if, overall, the well-being of all players is maximized. The content is secondary. That way, even games that are ethically questionable can be justified.
3. The hedonistic principle
If the game contributes to fulfilling and satisfying human needs, it’s good. Here too, the content is secondary, as long as the pleasure center is stimulated and players are happy and satisfied with the game.
4. The universalist principle
Here, the game has to serve all people; it’s about the obligation to the general good. Unlike the consequences principle, it’s not mainly about the consequences that result, but, from the outset, about how far the game contributes to the general good. Learning and knowledge games are among the games that fall under this.
A statement by criminologist Prof. Dr. Christian Pfeiffer, one of the biggest opponents of video games in Germany, makes clear that not everyone sees this positively.
“A society that lets such (cruel) games onto the market is sick.” (Prof. Dr. Christian Pfeiffer)
This is one voice among many. In general, everyone should be aware that there are games with positive effects, but also that many games can come with risks and side effects. In the mobile game Pokémon GO, for example, players could at first “hunt” ghost Pokémon in cemeteries and at memorial sites. This is morally very questionable when lots of people run around these memorial sites, possibly damaging things or disturbing and bothering relatives of the deceased in the process. That’s why the developer fixed it.
Another questionable scene is the waterboarding in GTA V. There, you have to carry out waterboarding to progress in the mission. The developers argue that they want to draw attention to waterboarding with this scene in order to prevent it in the real world. The scene “No Russian” in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 also raises a lot of questions. There, you’re part of a death squad that shoots dozens of civilians at an airport. In the German version, though, this isn’t possible; you’re “only” along for the ride. As soon as you shoot at civilians, you have to restart the mission. Both of these examples are still being debated. Even die-hard fans of the game series have voiced criticism. On the producers’ side, though, the 2nd or 3rd principle of choosing an action probably applies, because these individual scenes are weighed against the experience of the game as a whole. But there are no clear statements on this.
Risks and side effects of games
Poorer school performance has also been named as a side effect. That’s why there were calls to give games higher age ratings to make access harder and leave more time for studying. Another, and probably the most common, criticism is the violence in video games. There are two sides here: the producers and the critics. One criticism is that violence leads to a decrease in social behavior. Researchers were able to confirm this but pointed out that it only applies for a short time right after playing.
There is also debate about whether violence in video games serves any educational purpose. Above all this stands the question of whether depicting violence violates the boundaries, norms and values of a society. Here, aesthetics and ethics are in conflict. The producers see video games as art and feel their artistic freedom is restricted when games that depict violence are banned.
Blanket demonizing of depictions of violence doesn’t help; instead, we have to stay in ongoing dialogue.
Opportunities and limits of youth protection
To protect teenagers and minors from various kinds of content, the USK (Germany’s video game rating organization, comparable to the ESRB in North America or PEGI in many European countries) rates games according to youth protection standards. It rates only the content, not the cognitive abilities a game requires. That means a child may be allowed to play a game but may still be overwhelmed and frustrated by the controls and so on.
In Germany, there is also the option of placing games on the index (a list of media considered harmful to minors). This happens when the content violates applicable laws, or is suspected of doing so. That includes, among other things, content that violates the protection of the constitution. Before a game comes onto the market, it is reviewed and, if necessary, placed on the index. Depending on the rating, a game may not be released at all, or may not be offered where minors can see it. In extreme cases, criminal proceedings are initiated.
One point youth protection doesn’t cover is the potential for addiction. The rating looks at the content, not at how the game is used. This can have far-reaching consequences, more so for online games than offline ones. Online gambling and prize games also influence how children and teenagers learn to handle money.
But there are advantages too. Games with prosocial behavior can increase social behavior and can also be very helpful in religious education.
Still, each person, or their parents or guardians in each individual case, should decide whether particular games are meaningful and good for that person, even if youth protection rules allow them to play them.
References for this article
Grimm, Petra; Capurro, Rafael (eds.): Computerspiele: Neue Herausforderungen für die Ethik? Stuttgart 2010 (in German).
Ulshöfer, Gotlind; Wilhelm, Monika (eds.): Theologische Medienethik im digitalen Zeitalter, Stuttgart 2020 (in German).
Fladerer, Bernd: Videospiele zwischen Wirtschaftlichkeit, Recht und Moral, Marburg 2013 (in German).
