The U.S. Presidential Election takes place Tuesday on November 5, 2024, and its results will impact video games regardless of the outcome – both the people who make them and the people who play them.
Video games are art, they are culture, and they are, yes, political. While we expect most people will have made up their minds on the two candidates – former President Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris – we wanted to explore the ways in which video games are directly impacted by politics in 2024. We consulted the Entertainment Software Association’s policy platform, as well as our own newswriting archive from the last few years, to come up with a list of major issues facing video games right now that could see dramatic impacts depending on who wins the election. And we used past actions – statements by the candidates, official platforms, and other literature – to provide a rough idea of what the video game industry can expect on each topic from either candidate in the next four years.
Here’s our 2024 voter’s guide to video games, canvassing video game violence, AI, consumer protections, antitrust, right to repair, labor, DEI, and other video game-related issues.
Video Game Violence and the First Amendment
Video games don’t come up often in mainstream political discussions, so the direct comments from Harris and Trump are few and far between. However, both candidates in this year’s election have at least touched on the issue of the correlation between real-world violence and video game violence.
Former President Donald Trump’s comments go back to 2012 when he tweeted, “Video game violence & glorification must be stopped—it is creating monsters!” He then discussed violent video games even more directly back in 2018 while he was in office, following a high school shooting in Florida that left 17 dead. The then-President called a meeting with politicians, the heads of Take-Two, Zenimax, and the ESA, and others to discuss what effect video games might have on real-world violence. Though the ESA pointed to multiple scientific studies establishing the lack of connection between video games and violence, President Trump’s White House published a “violent video game” reel featuring clips from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Wolfenstein, Dead by Daylight, Sniper Elite, and Fallout 4. “This is violent, isn’t it?” he asked the attendees.
“I’m hearing more and more people say the level of violence on video games is really shaping young people’s thoughts,” Trump said following the shooting but prior to the meeting. “And then you go the further step, and that’s the movies. You see these movies, and they’re so violent, and yet a kid is able to see the movie if sex isn’t involved, but killing is involved, and maybe they have to put a rating system for that.” [Video games do have an existing rating system in the US, run by the Entertainment Software Rating Board, that’s existed since 1994. Films have had one for even longer.]
Harris’ thoughts on the specific issue of violence in games are a little trickier to work out. At the time President Trump made his remarks in 2018, then-Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden agreed with him. “But it is not healthy to have these games teaching kids that, you know, this dispassionate notion that you can shoot somebody and just, you know, sort of blow their brains out.” That said, this statement occurred a few days before Biden announced that Harris would be his running mate, and there’s no indication she shares that explicit sentiment.
In a more clear example, Harris weighed in on the issue as part of her own campaign for the presidency. Her announcement at the time dealt not with regulation of violent games, but with gun safety legislation, including a more dogged pursuit of companies that violate negligence laws by marketing assault weapons to children in video games.
Further back than that, Harris was involved in the famous 2011 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association case in which the Supreme Court struck down a California law that restricted the sale of violent video games to minors, saying it was a violation of the First Amendment. Harris at the time was the newly-appointed attorney general of California, inheriting the case from her predecessor, and thus on the side of upholding the law whether she wanted to or not. With that context, it’s not exactly clear if her efforts in that case are an accurate reflection of her actual feelings on video games, violence, and the First Amendment.
In summary, both candidates over the years have brushed up against the idea of regulation of violent video games, but neither has explicitly defined a policy that would result in it happening. Similarly, neither has exactly defined what that regulation would look like, whether it would be purchasing limitations, outright bans, mandated ESRB ratings, or something else.
Artificial Intelligence
Increasingly, discussions around the use of artificial intelligence, more specifically generative AI, have cropped up in gaming spaces. Various executives, companies, and start-ups have floated generative AI as a solution to all sorts of game development problems imagined and real, from cutting down development time spent doing repetitive tasks to generating an entire game wholesale. Developers, meanwhile, have pushed back with concerns over its environmental impact, use of copyrighted and owned materials, the possibility of AI replacing workers, and the overall question of the artistic value of mushing up a lot of other people’s work and calling it a new thing.
On AI, both candidates have expressed clear and recent stances. The Biden administration released an “AI Bill of Rights” in 2022 that highlighted the need for individual protections against unsafe systems, algorithmic discrimination, and abusive data practices, and the need for notification, consent, and the ability to opt-out. Then, in 2023, President Joe Biden issued an executive order on “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence.” Though not explicitly about video games, the order included new standards for AI safety and security, privacy protections, consumer protections, and more. Perhaps most relevant to gaming is the section on worker support, which emphasizes the need to mitigate the harm and maximize the benefits of AI for workers “by addressing job displacement; labor standards; workplace equity, health, and safety; and data collection.”
That is all Biden’s policy, but Harris has vocally backed it. At a global AI summit, Harris acknowledged the potential of AI technology, but emphasized the potential to “cause profound harm” and the threats AI poses to individuals. She also announced the establishment of the United States AI Safety Institute, which “will create rigorous standards to test the safety of AI models for public use.” Broadly, her views can be summarized by a line from her global AI summit speech: “AI has the potential to do profound good, it also has the potential to cause profound harm.” Harris has professed a desire to federally regulate AI in the interest of public safety, while also supporting the exploration and advancement of the technology.
As for Trump, while AI wasn’t as pressing a political issue during his term in office, he did have a few occasions to address it. In 2019, Trump signed an executive order launching the American AI Initiative in an effort to increase funding and research into the technology, and in late 2020 he signed another one to “promote the innovation and use of AI” in government operations. He has also pledged to repeal Biden’s executive order on AI safety, with his campaign saying “We will repeal Joe Biden’s dangerous Executive Order that hinders AI Innovation, and imposes Radical Leftwing ideas on the development of this technology. In its place, Republicans support AI Development rooted in Free Speech and Human Flourishing.”
What this likely means we can expect is that under a Harris presidency, we would see some support for AI investment and research alongside additional federal regulation of the tech. For video games, that could mean some limitations on their ability to use generative AI, or potentially protections for workers from having their jobs replaced by AI. Under Trump, regulations would likely be repealed, and AI would potentially see more government investment and more prominent and regular usage in federal government operations. Though this likely wouldn’t impact video games directly, if his administration did less to regulate the tech we would be more likely to see increased investment in and use of AI throughout gaming, among many other industries.
Consumer Protections
Video game monetization, consumer privacy, and digital ownership are all fairly significant issues in the games industry that are nonetheless a bit niche in the grand scheme of presidential political platforms. As a result, neither candidate has really addressed the category that we’ve lumped together under the big banner of “consumer protections” in a way that obviously links to a direct video game-related policy. But both Trump and Harris have taken actions in their past government roles that have impacted many of these issues and could indicate future impacts on gaming. Here’s a quick rundown of just a few.
Harris has supported a strong Federal Trade Commission and regulation against anti-consumer practices. As part of her official platform, Harris pledges to crack down on junk fees, scams, and fraud. These hidden fees typically impact things like entertainment and cable bills, but curbing them could keep them from bleeding into the games industry as well. She’s also promised to fight against deceptive marketing practices, and as vice president supported the FTC’s “Click to Cancel” rule that makes it as easy to cancel a subscription as it is to sign up for it. However, unlike the Biden administration, Harris has signaled she may be at least somewhat supportive of the crypto industry, though she’s also called for some regulation in the past.
Trump’s prior administration made a number of decisions during his first term that could point to what he’d do with a second. His appointees broadly dismantled a number of consumer protections while he was in office, including net neutrality (which Biden appointees later restored). Additionally, Trump’s administration opted to allow massive data breaches to go uninvestigated, indicating a fairly loose strategy for consumer privacy and data protections. Trump has also been friendly with major tech executives such as Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, X/Twitter CEO Elon Musk, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, and others, indicating big tech’s interest in gaining his support if elected. And while Harris seems to be leaning friendlier than expected toward crypto, Trump has outright embraced it, allowing supporters to donate to his campaign using cryptocurrency, promoting it in his presidential platform, and even launching his own coin.
Both administrations have spoken in the past about taking action to lower consumer prices across the board in a move that may eventually impact video games. Harris has proposed a federal bill banning price gouging in response, but this is focused on necessary goods (like groceries) during states of emergency, not luxury items like video games. Trump, however, has proposed tariffs on all sorts of goods, claiming they will reduce consumer costs, but economic experts says this will increase prices, not lower them.
More specific to video games, while neither candidate has addressed loot boxes in a meaningful way, it’s possible the future U.S. President is forced to address the issue anyway. A bill introduced in Congress in 2019 by Republican Senator Josh Hawley to regulate video game microtransactions and loot box sales garnered bipartisan support, but was ultimately allowed to expire in 2021. It’s unclear if either party intends to revive the bill or, if passed, if either potential future president would sign it into law.
Antitrust
The video game industry has seen a surge in mergers and acquisitions in recent years, and none as large as Microsoft’s $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard last year. Those acquisitions have had massive impacts on video games and the people that make them, resulting in industry consolidation and contributing to a two-year period of unprecedented layoffs.
Both Trump and Harris have expressed positions indicating they may be tough on antitrust, though their actions while in their respective offices have indicated different levels of follow-through. Trump put forth unsuccessful efforts to block an AT&T/Time Warner merger early in his presidency, and his administration launched antitrust probes into Facebook and a number of other tech companies. Additionally, Trump’s vice presidential pick J.D. Vance has praised the work of Biden-appointed Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chair Lina Khan’s work, indicating that a strong FTC focused on breaking up monopolies is something their administration might continue. That said, much of Trump’s past and present policies are focused on de-regulation, not increased regulation, and many of his most vocal supporters (including X/Twitter CEO Elon Musk) are vehemently anti-Khan and anti-FTC, and would stand to benefit from her removal. Trump’s actual platform on this isn’t entirely clear.
Harris, on the other hand, is expected to continue Biden’s strong stance on antitrust. Under Biden, the FTC took on a massive crackdown on big tech mergers, most notably for gaming by its failed challenge of the Microsoft acquisition of Activision Blizzard. That said, Harris hasn’t said much about antitrust on the campaign trail, leading to some questions as to whether or not she’d be as tough on antitrust as her predecessor. Harris’ campaign has fielded recent pressure by various Democratic figures to replace Khan spearheading the FTC, including from those who believe Khan’s challenge of Microsoft/Activision Blizzard was a waste of money. At the same time, more progressive portions of her base are warning that this would be a mistake. For now, it’s not entirely clear how a Harris antitrust policy would shake out.
Right to Repair
Right to Repair, or the right to fix something you own when it breaks either yourself or through an independent repair shop, is a pretty simple policy that has largely had bipartisan support at the state level. It’s opposed by big tech companies, who often want to push consumers to spend money to replace broken devices or only use their internal repair services, which often come with extra costs and caveats. Last year, the Biden administration signed an executive order supporting right to repair, and Harris’ VP pick, Minnesota governor Tim Walz, recently approved the country’s broadest Right to Repair law in his state. It’s very likely, then, that a Harris administration would continue to support and increase right to repair protections.
The Trump administration has not, to our knowledge, adopted or stated a specific policy on Right to Repair. During Trump’s administration, his FTC hosted a workshop on Right to Repair in which the commission expressed concern about halting manufacturer monopolies. While that’s roughly the extent of the administration’s engagement with the issue, Right to Repair is largely considered a rare party-unifying issue, meaning the games industry is likely to see an uptick in regulations protecting consumers who want to repair their own devices regardless of who’s in charge.
Labor
In recent years, the video game industry in the United States has slowly but surely begun to organize. For years, issues such as crunch, harassment, workplace abuse, poor pay, and lack of corporate transparency have come to the forefront of industry conversation. Now, developers are increasingly turning to unions and other collective action as a potential solution. The outcome of the 2024 election will likely have a major impact on whether those efforts continue to be successful or not.
Harris has made supporting organized labor a major part of her platform. Under Biden, she was put in charge of a new White House Task Force on Worker Organizing and Empowerment with the explicit goal of strengthening unions through measures such as the CHIPS and Science Act, among others.
Harris has pledged to continue this support for labor, calling unions the “backbone of the middle class” in her platform. She’s promised to sign the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act to support organizing workers, raise the minimum wage, and fight for paid family and medical leave. She’s been endorsed by numerous major US unions, including the Communications Workers of America (which represents a number of video game studios). The president of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) has called her “a president for the labor movement,” and her vice presidential pick, Tim Walz, is a former union member himself.
Trump has also garnered support among some union members, though his platform has been criticized for its potential to unravel a number of organized labor protections. Vance, his running mate, voted against the aforementioned PRO Act and Trump threatened to veto it. Vance also introduced legislation that would let managers sidestep employee unions. During his first term, Trump weakened the ability of federal employees to bargain contracts and perform union-related functions. And during his campaign, he’s said striking workers should be fired, and that he used to hate to pay overtime.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
In the last year, a number of gaming communities, companies, and personalities have found themselves targeted by an unprecedented wave of harassment. Though the cited reasons behind the attacks have varied, at the heart of most of these campaigns is a movement to allegedly remove “DEI” or “diversity, equity, and inclusion” from games that contain diverse characters, pro-social messages, or inclusive themes. Organizations such as Take This and the International Game Developers Association (IGDA) have responded condemning these attacks, with the IGDA stating that “Harassment has no place in games or the games industry, and we must create a safe, welcoming, and equitable environment for everyone.”
These attacks come at a time when diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives gaming spaces are declining elsewhere. During the COVID-19 pandemic when funding for gaming was plentiful, a number of companies increased their financial contributions to such efforts. They hired more diverse staff, established employee DEI committees, and greenlit pro-social projects. Now, that funding has dried up, and both practical and anecdotal evidence suggests that it’s these initiatives and individuals that are being cut first.
In the midst of all this is a presidential election where issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion have come up repeatedly. In his first term, Trump issued an executive order banning workplace diversity training, and while the ban was reversed by President Biden, Trump is reportedly planning to ban DEI initiatives again in both the government and private sector on his first day in office. Harris’ own platform includes the protection of civil rights and freedoms, including passing anti-discrimination protections and funding Offices of Civil Rights across the federal government. She’s also pledged to fight to pass the Equality Act, which would enshrine anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQI+ individuals in a number of areas.
Other video game appearances
Though not really policy-related, both presidential candidates have had other, more direct interactions with video games in the past that may indicate in some small way how they view the medium. Trump actually has his own video game: Donald Trump’s Real Estate Tycoon!. Released in 2002 for PC and published by an Activision subsidiary, this was a business simulation game where the goal was to beat Donald Trump by becoming a rich and powerful business tycoon. Its finale incorporates a business competition with Trump himself, and Trump appears throughout the game to offer the player advice. Trump’s exact level of personal involvement in the game is unknown, but at minimum he agreed to have his name, likeness, and personality used for a video game.
Harris has quite recently had more direct involvement. Last week, her campaign rolled out its own Fortnite map: Freedom Town, USA. It also partnered with a number of Fortnite content creators to stream the map, which was designed to inform players about some of Harris’ campaign pledges. In the waning days of her campaign, Harris has made a number of bids targeted specifically at gamers, especially young men. Her running mate, Minnesota governor Tim Walz, even went on a livestream with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to play Madden NFL and Crazy Taxi.
Simply appearing in a video game, either via licensing agreement or user-generated content, isn’t necessarily an expression of a political platform. But both candidates have, over the years, demonstrated some level of awareness of the space, and Harris’ campaign in particular seems interested in courting the gamer audience by meeting them in the spaces they’re already playing.
How to Vote
The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election officially takes place on November 5, 2024. If you’re a U.S. citizen and haven’t already voted early or by mail, you can visit Vote.gov to find out where and what time you can vote in your state. If you’re not registered, check to find out if your state allows for same day voter registration. Remember, if you’re in line when polls close, you legally must be allowed to vote, so stay in line.
