WHO: "There is increasing and well-documented evidence of gaming disorder"
Recent listing is "only a clinical description" for diagnoses, not prevention or treatment
The World Health Organisation stands by its definition of the recently-classified 'gaming disorder', describing it as "a clinically recognisable and clinically significant syndrome."
Last week it emerged both 'gaming disorder' and 'hazardous gaming' had been added to the current draft of the next revision for WHO's International Compendium of Diseases (ICD).
The listings are fairly broad in their definitions and prompted several questions from across the industry - most prominently: what separates victims of gaming disorder from passionate consumers who choose to pour a lot of their leisure time into the medium?
GamesIndustry.biz reached out to the organisation, and a spokesperson observed that gaming disorder is one of two diagnostic entries related to addictive behaviour - alongside gambling disorder, which has been included in the ICD for several years.
"There is increasing and well-documented evidence of clinical relevance of these conditions and increasing demand for treatment in different parts of the world," the spokesperson told us.
"Use of the internet, computers, smartphones and other electronic devices has dramatically increased over recent decades. While the increase is associated with clear benefit to users - for example, in real-time information exchange - health problems as a result of excessive use have also been documented. In a number of countries, the problem has become a significant public health concern."
GamesIndustry.biz requested several times for examples of this evidence, or clarification on how WHO defines 'excessive', but we have yet to receive an adequate response.
When pressed for a definition of 'excessive', the WHO spokesperson directed to the listing for hazardous gaming, which doesn't entirely satisfy the question.
The spokesperson did offer further examples of the health concerns that can result from both gaming disorder and hazardous gaming. Negative consequences on the sufferer's physical health include sedentary lifestyle, impaired vision and/or hearing, musculoskeletal problems, injuries and accidents, and infections.
They also listed some of the psychosocial problems that can arise, including cyber-bullying, hindered social development, sleep deprivation, risky sexual behaviour, aggressive behaviour, depression and suicide.
The organisation did stress that the entry on gaming disorder "includes only a clinical description and not prevention and treatment options", reiterating that the purpose of the ICD is to identify global health trends, helping medical practitioners and researchers to categorise conditions.
"Inclusion of a disorder in ICD is a consideration which countries take into account when making decisions on provision of health care and allocation of resources for prevention, treatment and rehabilitation," the spokesperson added.
It's also worth restating that the current beta of ICD-11 is a draft and can change on a daily basis. The final revision won't go live until later this year.
The WHO's decision to classify gaming disorder prompted debate across the games industry, as well as a response from the Entertainment Software Association. The ESA said the listing "recklessly trivialises real mental health issues" and urged the WHO to remove it.
However, WHO's listing is not without merit. There are numerous stories of deaths linked to extensive gaming sessions in Asian internet cafes over the past decade, which are presumably part of the "well-documented evidence" WHO has based this clinical description on.
Meanwhile the rise of free-to-play mechanics and loot boxes are reminiscent enough of gambling systems to have prompted another debate across the industry and even drawn in governments on the matter. It's not difficult to see that such mechanics could exacerbate addictive tendencies in certain individuals.
Gambling addiction in general and gambling mechanics in videogames do merit attention, though.
As game developers we go to great lengths to create immersive, rewarding experiences that encourage our players to keep playing, to come back and play again, to value the time they spend playing and the things they achieve in the game. This allure is why we love playing games, and I am perfectly willing to believe that it can lead to genuinely harmful addiction in some cases.
Playing games to excess may not be as immediately physically harmful as chemical addictions like cigarettes, opiates or alcohol but it is extremely dangerous when playing the game becomes more important and psychologically easier to achieve to someone than fulfilling basic needs like eating, sleeping, hygiene or caring for dependents. I can't be the only person who has stories to tell about friends who spent days on end playing their game of choice, forgoing sleep and toilet trips because they were so immersed. Are tales of excessive book or movie use anywhere near as common? Do you know anyone who passed out after three solid days of scrolling through Facebook? I do think games can be uniquely addictive in this sense.
Instead of trying to swat down the WHO's concerns, I think we should all be looking to see what we can do to avoid harming people, even inadvertently, with our products.
And I'll add that I am unsurprised but disappointed to see the ESA and IGDA both attempting to dismiss this.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jessica Hyland on 9th January 2018 5:17pm
So creating definitions of said addictions is fine and dandy, treating the symptoms however will never get to the root of the real problem, but then again, there really isnt much money in curing anything, and isn't it all always about just that ..money.
I just hope they don't ultimately throw gaming under the bus, and act as if its one of society's ill, when in fact it's likely one of the least harmful escapes we have.
Edited 4 times. Last edit by Todd Weidner on 9th January 2018 5:57pm
That being said, some of the things that come from the WHO have a habit of scaring people or not presenting information clearly (for whatever reason), so I think its important they properly define what this means.
The act of doing something that works for you but isn't a best case scenario.
The act of doing something that is killing you in the long run.
To give three examples, the difference between basejumping, having no job ambition and Heroin. In which category would one put playing too much computer really? The WHO definition seems to be designed to be intentionally loose enough to have a tool for control, more than to have a medical tool.
Previously known as growing up, or par for being a human. Is there a pill I can take?
Mental health problems affect so many people in many different ways and ruin so many lives. Try being a bit more understanding and less flippant.