The „gaming disorder” received another update to its description in the ICD-11 draft, and the gaming industry is going against it more than ever before.

In December, the WHO‘s addiction to include gaming addiction into mental disorders was already a subject, but now, the World Health Organization (shortened to WHO from this point) added two definitions to the ICD-11 draft. The first one, the „standard gaming addiction” definition follows: „Gaming disorder is characterized by a pattern of persistent or recurrent gaming behaviour (‘digital gaming’ or ‘video-gaming’), which may be online (i.e., over the internet) or offline, manifested by 1) impaired control over gaming (e.g., onset, frequency, intensity, duration, termination, context); 2) increasing priority given to gaming to the extent that gaming takes precedence over other life interests and daily activities; and 3) continuation or escalation of gaming despite the occurrence of negative consequences. The behaviour pattern is of sufficient severity to result in significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning. The pattern of gaming behaviour may be continuous or episodic and recurrent. The gaming behaviour and other features are normally evident over a period of at least 12 months in order for a diagnosis to be assigned, although the required duration may be shortened if all diagnostic requirements are met, and symptoms are severe.” The second one, „hazardous gaming” follows: „Hazardous gaming refers to a pattern of gaming, either online or offline that appreciably increases the risk of harmful physical or mental health consequences to the individual or to others around this individual. The increased risk may be from the frequency of gaming, from the amount of time spent on these activities, from the neglect of other activities and priorities, from risky behaviours associated with gaming or its context, from the adverse consequences of gaming, or from the combination of these. The pattern of gaming is often persisted in spite of awareness of the increased risk of harm to the individual or to others.”

The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) responded to this ICD-11 update on Twitter with a statement: „It is extremely important to note that the proposed draft circulating is not final and it is still under discussion and review. Experts worldwide are urging caution regarding the World Health Organization’s proposed ‘gaming disorder‘ as it may lead to misdiagnosis of real mental health conditions. It concerns to see the ‘gaming disorder‘ proposal in this draft despite significant opposition from the medical and scientific community. The research supporting inclusion is highly contested and inconclusive. There is no objective evidence to define and diagnose overuse, and that may result in misdiagnosis. The WHO should consider the mounting evidence put before them before inclusion next year of ‘gaming disorder’ in the final version of ICD-11.” The ESA already opposed the WHO in January and March.

And they are not alone now – they issued a statement together with the following gaming industry companies: ESAC, EGDF, IESA, IGEA, ISFE, K-GAMES, UVB@G. We will skip the ESA‘s Twitter part: „Video games across all kinds of genres, devices and platforms are enjoyed safely and sensibly by more than 2 billion people worldwide, with the educational, therapeutic, and recreational value of games being well-founded and widely recognized. We are therefore concerned to see ‘gaming disorder’ still contained in the latest version of the WHO’s ICD-11 […] we understand that our industry and supporters around the world will continue raising their voices in opposition to this move and urge the WHO to avoid taking steps that would have unjustified implications for national health systems across the world.”

In March, thirty-six mental health professionals and academics released a paper, which was a follow-up to their 2016 study. It was supported by the ESA (whose president says WHO‘s deeply flawed process lacks transparency as well as objective scientific support), and even the Society for Media Psychology & Technology in the United States released a statement in March: „We can discern no clear reason why video games are being singled out for a disorder rather than a general ‘behavioral addiction’ category if the concern were true regarding clinical access for those with problem behaviors. Thus, an obsessive focus of the WHO on video game addiction would appear to us to be a response to moral panic, one which in turn is likely to fuel more moral panic, including miscommunications that game playing can be compared to substance abuse.” Even the International Game Developers’ Association’s executive director, Jan McLean thinks that „the WHO‘s creation of a “gaming disorder” has the potential to do significant and serious harm to people who use games as a coping mechanism for anxiety, depression, and stress-and may encourage doctors to address the symptoms but not the underlying illnesses.”

The story is far from over here, and the WHO is unlikely to respond to the industry… but we do understand that there are cases where people do play too much. However, those who only use games as a form of a hobby (like our editors) should not be under the same umbrella…

Source: VG247, PCGamer