PUBG vs the nanny state

A bunch of parachutists float down onto an island in a war zone. They pick up weapons cached in hideouts and try to kill each other. The last man standing (or the last team standing) wins. Then, they do it all over again. 

That’s the plot of PlayerUnknown Battlegrounds (PUBG), a popular online game. Beyond the banality, this “Battle Royale Shooter”, which is how this genre is technically classified, has very intricate, detailed subplots.

There are several islands with different geographies and all sorts of ingenious hideouts and dangerous locales built into the landscape. As the game progresses, the map area shrinks, forcing survivors to move into closer proximity with each other, heightening risks.  

PBUG can be played by teams, or single players, or players who team up tactically. It requires intellectual cognition to work out some situations, as well as fast reflexes, and street-smarts. Players can adopt first-person points of view (PoV), or third-person PoV, with contrasting pros and cons.  

Every replay is different. This is why PUBG is addictive. Even planes dropping the parachutists randomly vary flight paths forcing players to make good decisions about the right places to eject. The rewards (weaponry, game credits, cosmetics, costumes) increase as players take more risks.  

The ban and the subsequent arrests have led to passionate Twitter debates under the hashtag #PubgBan

PBUG was developed in 2017 by “PlayerUnknown”, a handle used by the game developer, Brendan Greene. It was released by PUBG Corporation, a subsidiary of South Korea’s BlueHole. The full-service versions can be modified to add more twists.

Game cosmetics have been sold for real cash. Chinese hackers developed cheating software. BlueHole then developed anti-cheating software, which has been used to ban over 13 million accounts. It is that popular.

PUBG is free-to-play on mobile, which is important in the Indian context. Lots of desi kids play it. It is arguably less violent than many Indian movies with “U” certificates. However, it has been banned for “promoting violence” in several places in Gujarat. At least 10-15 persons have been arrested across the state for playing PUBG, under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant).

The ban has serious implications. There seems to be no scientific data, or anecdotal evidence, in support of the ban. There were no news reports of youths parachuting out of planes, stealing weapons, and killing each other. Nor were there any reports of players committing other crimes, creating disturbances to public order, spreading hatred against communities, or any of the other reasons usually cited for bans.

There have been no psychiatric studies anywhere under controlled conditions to indicate PUBG players are more violent than average. The plot, the player appearances and costumes are removed from reality, making it pure fantasy. It will not translate into a gunfight or a riot at Naroda Patiya.

Game addiction is a real thing, of course, from long before the Internet. “The Defence”, a novel about Grandmaster Luzhin, by Vladimir Nabokov, provides a fine literary description of where game addiction can lead. Serious chess-players, bridge-players, go-players, etc., can all cite anecdotes of witnessing mental instability amongst those obsessed by their games of choice.

But chess, bridge and go are also hailed in academic studies as promoting concentration, patience, focus and problem-solving abilities with apparent links to better academic performances. Arguably, PUBG could be the same. It certainly stretches mental muscles.

Most disturbingly, there was no apparent process followed in this ban. There are processes for banning a book, or a movie, even if the very act of banning is distasteful and those processes are often abused. There is also a system, however arduous, for appealing such bans. This ban seems arbitrary, carried out at the whim of somebody who decided, without any hard data, that PUBG was “bad”. There is no due process for appealing against it. Does this not set a precedent for banning other things, in equally arbitrary fashion?

If the law treats somebody as an adult, they are allowed to make their own voting choices, and also to be arrested for committing crimes. Surely they are also adult enough to decide what games they play? It should not be the concern of the nanny state. 

Twitter: @devangshudatta