Skip to main content

Gamed: Don’t trust Jay Rockefeller (yes, of those Rockefellers)

gamed support your local call of duty publisher mw2 washington
Image used with permission by copyright holder

In this week’s edition of “How many people can I piss off,” it’s time to talk politics.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) Image used with permission by copyright holder

In July of 2013, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), of the “yes, those Rockefellers,” introduced S.134 aka the Violent Content Research Act of 2013, a bill that would task the National Academy of Science with studying the effects of violent video games and violent programming on children. Once the study began, it would then have 15 months to turn in its findings. S.134 has been approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which not coincidentally Rockefeller chairs, and it is currently waiting to be brought to the Senate floor for a vote.

The legislation sounds reasonable enough, but there is a reason Activision Blizzard, the Entertainment Consumers Association, and the Entertainment Software Association have all decided to get involved.

Politicians have this thing when it comes to introducing bills. When they tie their name to a piece of legislation, it sticks with them like an anchor. That legislation can be used as a platform for re-election, or a weapon against them depending on how the bill is received. A bill may say that it wants to feed a thousand puppies. Who doesn’t want to save puppies, right? The politician that introduced the bill may have a kid in the puppy food business making it a corrupt bill, but if someone votes against it, then you can expect an ad come election time with a deep, ominous voice saying something like “Senator Throatwobbler Mangrove voted against puppies. … Are your children next?” It’s like a game, just with stakes that kind of define our lives.

Take the horrible/hilarious (horriblearious?) case of Senator David Vetter (R-LA), the target of a bill so fantastically spiteful, and yet so easy for the people that introduced it to defend, that its dickishness borders on genius.

"And then my hand just went crazy and started dialing that Madam on its own!" Senator Vitter claimed.
“And then my hand just went crazy and started dialing that Madam on its own!” Senator Vitter may have said. Image used with permission by copyright holder

Vitter has been a longtime opponent of Obamacare, and recently attempted to attach an unrelated rider to an energy efficiency bill that would prohibit federal funds for lawmakers to help with their personal healthcare costs. In retaliation, Democrats introduced legislation of their own that would block lawmakers from access to healthcare if there is “probable cause to determine [that person] has engaged in the solicitation of prostitution.” Vitter, you see, had a wee prostitution scandal back in 2007, when his phone number was found in a book of client names for a D.C. Madam.

That leaves the GOP in the odd position of being forced to argue against a bill that only effects Johns. It’s sort of like they are tacitly endorsing prostitution by fighting it – at least that’s what their opponents will say. That deserves a slow clap. It’s like being a prick became a team sport.

With S.134, the bill itself is innocuous for the most part, but the cracks between the words hide a few problems. The bill calls for all new research. This research will take place over a 15 month period – less when you consider the time for pragmatic things like writing the paper, determining research methods, etc. It will ignore the mountains of research that already exist, including the most current and relevant info that was recently presented to the Supreme Court during the Brown v. the Entertainment Merchants Association case. The new study would ignore years of research in favor of what is essentially a short term study.

Since this would be the first real government research dedicated to the subject of violent gaming’s effect on kids, it also means that any future legislation would rely on it primarily. The Federal Government loves to justify its expenses. There have been dozens of major research projects dedicated to the effects of gaming on people, but none of them will matter. The fate of a multibillion dollar industry may come down to one single study.

A possible monster
A possible monster Image used with permission by copyright holder

The National Academy of Science has a reputation for impartiality, but Rockefeller himself has repeatedly shown a bias against video games. Following the Sandy Hook shootings, while the nation was mourning and the topic of gun control raged, Rockefeller blamed violent video games. He didn’t suggest that there may be a correlation, he flat out blamed violent media and seemed to think it was obvious to everyone. “As parents, research confirms what we already know – these violent images have a negative impact on our children’s wellbeing,” he stated without pointing to any specific evidence.

He then attempted to introduce a version of S.134, but it didn’t go anywhere at the time. Following the Supreme Court case in 2011, he also claimed that the Courts were flat out wrong, even it spent after months reading studies, something Rockefeller doesn’t seem to have done.

“Recent court decisions demonstrate that some people still do not get it,” Rockefeller claimed. “They believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better.”

This is the guy championing the research into whether or not violent media can effect behavior. He’s not looking for a scientific study to determine an answer, he’s looking for a justification for his beliefs – scientifically unconfirmed and frequently disputed beliefs. Rockefeller is so certain that violent games and programming cause violent tendencies, that this study is, to him, just a formality. 

The point of the bill, to research violent video games and violent programming’s effects on behavior, is understandable. For as certain as Rockefeller is of what the study will conclude, there are those on the other side that welcome the discussion and think there will be no correlation found. Just like all the other studies on the subject. It just needs a more impartial sponsor.

Hot Coffee and News

PS4 Strong like bull

Xbox One vs PS4 Blu_ray and DVD PS4According to a report from Edge, several devs have claimed that the PlayStation 4 is up to 50 percent more powerful than the Xbox One. That power difference is further described as “significant” and “obvious.” One example the report gives is in the HD frame rates. The PS4 can run 30FPS at 1920×1080 resolution, while the Xbox One runs around 20FPS at 1600×900 resolution. Microsoft has disputed this and claims other aspects of the hardware, like using memory writes instead of ALU, favors the Xbox One. PC developers, in reply, said “both systems are adorable” before bursting into fits of laughter.

J.J. Abrams throws dev under bus

Star-Trek---video-game-tr-001The Star Trek game wasn’t what most people would classically consider “good,” or “well made” by, ya know, human standards. It was poorly conceived and filled with glitches, and it hurt J.J. Abrams’ feelings. In a recent interview with GamerHub, the director of the two recent Star Trek films (who just announced that he will not direct the third film due to commitments to some other, indie franchise about some wars out in the stars or something) said that his team was initially involved with the game’s development, but dropped out because they were unhappy about it, and the finished product disappointed him. Digital Extremes continued their development, and have since blamed Paramount for its interference. Abrams further suggested that the game was so bad it may have hurt the box office of Star Trek Into Darkness. I would make a joke here about either the quality of the film or the typically strong reaction from fans toward any Star Trek property, but Trekkers are not to be trifled with.

Microsoft registers Xbone

Xbox One vs PS4 Blu_ray and DVD Xbox OneMicrosoft is not a fan of the nickname “Xbone” for its Xbox One console. Microsoft spokesman Larry Hyrb even claimed it was a bit of an insult, which made everyone on the Internet stop and consider that their words could actually hurt, and so they all immediately wrote a heartfelt and thoughtful apology on comment boards across the digital landscape. Ok, you can stop laughing now. In an attempt to stop the spread of the nickname, or at least to prevent it from hitting ridiculous heights, Microsoft registered the domain name It currently redirects to a Bing search page for the phrase and will probably never be used, thus permanently ending the spread of the nickname forever. Stop laughing!

Editors' Recommendations

Ryan Fleming
Former Digital Trends Contributor
Ryan Fleming is the Gaming and Cinema Editor for Digital Trends. He joined the DT staff in 2009 after spending time covering…
Microsoft, please don’t screw up the Asus ROG Ally
Asus ROG Ally on a purple background.

I'm excited about Asus' upcoming ROG Ally gaming handheld, and mainly for one reason: Windows 11. The device comes with a spec bump over the Steam Deck, and I won't argue with RGB lighting around my thumbsticks, but Windows is what makes the ROG Ally truly stand out.

With Windows, you don't have to worry about a verification program to play your games -- even if Valve has handled the Steam Deck Verified program very well -- and you can access other app stores. And, of course, there's Xbox Game Pass.

Read more
Don’t start the Resident Evil 4 remake before playing these 5 games
Saddler looms in front of amber in the Resident Evil 4 remake.

Capcom’s Resident Evil 4 remake is just a few days away and the anticipation couldn’t be higher. After a wave of glowing reviews, fans of the GameCube classic are ready to have their heads chainsawed off all over again. That wait will come to an end on Friday, March 24, but impatient players may find themselves looking for a way to kill the time until then.

If you’re in the boat, or simply want to properly prepare yourself for the remake, we’re here to help. Part of the Resident Evil 4 remake’s appeal is the way it engages with not just the original game or the series’ past, but the 20 years’ worth of gaming history that would follow it. With a game as important and influential as Resident Evil 4, you don’t need to go far to see how it impacted the action-adventure genre. The remake shines because it’s seemingly aware of that idea, examining the original through a modern lens.

Read more
Don’t expect Zelda’s $70 price to become the new Switch standard, says Nintendo
Link looks at his hand in The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom.

The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom will be Nintendo's first Switch game to be priced at $70. News that Tears of the Kingdom, a sequel to one of the bestselling and most critically acclaimed titles on the system, will have an increased price compared to its predecessor came as a surprise over three-and-a-half years after its announcement. It also raised questions about what the future of pricing for Nintendo games will be, especially as Sony, Microsoft, and third-party publishers all upped the cost of their new games in recent years. 
While Nintendo will release Tears of Kingdom at $70, a spokesperson for the company tells Digital Trends that this will not always be the case for its first-party games going forward. 
"No," the spokesperson said when Digital Trends asked if this is a new standard. "We determine the suggested retail price for any Nintendo product on a case-by-case basis." 
The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom – Official Trailer #2
To get more insight into the price shift, I spoke to Omdia Principal Analyst George Jijiashvili, who explains what has caused the price of games to go up in recent years and how Tears of the Kingdom demonstrates that Nintendo will "remain flexible about first-party title pricing." Ultimately, Nintendo fans are finally starting to feel the impact of inflation that's been sweeping across the game industry, even if it's only "on a case-by-case basis" for now.
The price is right
Nintendo claims that not every one of its significant first-party game will be $70, and we can actually already see that in action. Preorders just went live for Pikmin 4, which launches on July 21, after Tears of the Kingdom, and it only costs $60. Still, Zelda's price tag indicates that going forward, Nintendo will at least consider raising the price of its most anticipated games to $70. But why start with Tears of the Kingdom?  
When asked why it chose Tears of the Kingdom as its first $70 Nintendo Switch game, a Nintendo spokesperson simply reiterated that the company will "determine the suggested retail price for any Nintendo product on a case-by-case basis." Still, it's a surprising choice for Nintendo to make that pricing change to just one exclusive game almost six years into the Switch's life span. Jijiashvili thinks the choice to do this with Tears of the Kingdom was a pretty apparent one for Nintendo, although it won't apply to everything going forward.
"If you are going to make a game $70, it's going to be the follow-up to one of your most critically acclaimed and bestselling games ever," Jijiashvili tells Digital Trends. "I don’t think that this means that $70 will become the standard price for all major Nintendo releases. It's worth noting that Metroid Prime Remastered is priced at $40. It's clear that Nintendo will remain flexible about first-party title pricing."

It makes basic financial sense for Nintendo to ask for a little bit more for a game it knows will be one of the biggest releases of 2023. But what factors in the game industry and world's economy at large caused Nintendo to make this decision? 
Priced Out
For more than a decade, people got comfortable with AAA video games being priced at $60. Of course, there were occasional exceptions to this rule, but it was seen as an industry standard until the dawn of the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X. Publisher 2K was one of the first to announce a price increase, and companies like EA, Sony, and Microsoft have all followed suit. Jijiashvili chalks this up to inflation-related pressure on game publishers.
"The games industry has already been experiencing a lot of inflationary pressure," he explains. "AAA games are much more expensive to make now than they used to be, but prices have actually been declining in inflation-adjusted terms -- if prices had risen with inflation since 1990, they would now be over $90. On top of that, we’ve had a big burst of general inflation, meaning that publishers are looking at big increases in everything from salaries to tools. It’s going to be really hard for most publishers to avoid passing on all those extra costs at some point."
Jijiashvili provided us with a graphic created by Omdia that "shows what the typical price points for each generation would look like if you adjusted for inflation." As you can see, the inflation-adjusted prices are only exponentially growing, and the big game pricing shifts the graph highlights were all technically not even enough to keep up with inflation when they happened. 

Read more