With its introduction last December, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) latest classification of addictive behavior dubbed Gaming Disorder has garnered concerns from the respective industry. The disorder was classified as an addictive behavior and given the draft name ICD-11. The document would provide the International Classification of Disease, a means by which to diagnose this proposed “illness”.

The International Classification of Diseases is a benchmark, so to speak, for many countries in their diagnoses of illnesses. Gaming Disorder is classified as a “disorder due to addictive behaviors”, and WHO has released a new draft that offers a solidified definition. It is described as followed:

…a pattern of gaming behavior (‘digital-gaming’ or ‘video-gaming’) characterized by impaired control over gaming, increasing priority given to gaming over other activities to the extent that gaming takes precedence over other interests and daily activities, and 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.”

While IDC-11 has not been finalized, the final draft will land sometime in May of 2019. While there is room yet for changes and the possibility of amendment the following year, the gaming industry has readily expressed their concerns. A statement released and co-signed by several industry companies and representatives including the ESA, EGDF, IGEA, K-Games, ESAC, IESA, UBV&G, and ISFE reads as follows:

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 despite significant opposition from the medical and scientific community. The evidence for its inclusion remains highly contested and inconclusive.

We hope that the WHO will reconsider the mounting evidence put before them before proposing inclusion of ‘gaming disorder’ in the final version of ICD-11 to be endorsed next year. 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.”

There is a considerable amount of evidence to support the industry’s claims, including a paper released that opposed the proposal in March this year. The ESA among others showed support and noted that the World Health Organization lacked transparency and objective support scientifically. In a statement released on the 18th of June, ESA reinforced their opposition and concerns:

ESA's statement regarding the WHO's proposed video game disorder classification. For more, please visit https://t.co/AQE0623Dol pic.twitter.com/GDSbuCTMxq

— Entertainment Software Association (@theESA) June 18, 2018

The Society for Media Psychology and Technology voiced concerns back in March as well, noting that the title and focus of their proposal would create miscommunication. The division of the American Psychological Association stated there was not a clear enough reason for video games to be the center of focus if the WHO was concerned about clinical access for individuals with behavior problems. Ultimately, they felt the focus was more a response to “moral panic” that would likely fuel fear and distort reality as gamers were categorized as substance abusers. IGDA mirrored those concerns on twitter yesterday:

2/ 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.

— IGDA Exec. Director (@IGDA_ED) June 18, 2018

4/ But we're already starting to see unscrupulous businesses starting to look for ways to exploit this by calling for "preventative intervention" and setting up sham "addiction treatment centers" with no basis in science.

— IGDA Exec. Director (@IGDA_ED) June 18, 2018

6/ I support responsible gaming, and especially encourage parents to monitor, and be involved in, the games their kids play. But the WHO's creation of "gaming disorder" is irresponsible, not founded in science, and extraordinarily prejudicial against game players and #gamedevs.

— IGDA Exec. Director (@IGDA_ED) June 18, 2018

It is unclear whether WHO will amend the title of Gaming Disorder into something that suits the arguments presented. With a considerable amount of professionals and science to back their arguments, blatant disregard by WHO could be detrimental to those suffering from addiction who are lost in the classification as the symptom is addressed instead of the underlying issue.

Ultimately, this could also embolden proponents of the argument that gaming is contrary to public health (when science proves otherwise. What are your thoughts on the Gaming Disorder classification? Join in on the conversation in the comment section below! Don’t forget to follow DFTG on Twitter for live gaming and entertainment news 24/7!