Valve says New York Attorney General's violent videogame fearmongering is 'a distraction and a mischaracterization we’ve all heard before'

One of the really interesting things that leapt out at me about Valve's response to New York's lawsuit against it wasn't really about the lawsuit at all, but about comments made by the state about the negative impact of violent videogames—the sort of thing that sounds like it was ripped straight from the headlines of 20 years ago.

New York's lawsuit accuses Valve of violating its gambling laws through loot boxes, which it claims "enable gambling by enticing users to pay for the chance to win a rare virtual item of significant monetary value." It further alleges that "Valve has made billions of dollars luring its users, many of whom are teenagers or younger, to engage in gambling in the hopes of winning expensive virtual items that they can cash in on," and says the lawsuit "seeks to permanently stop Valve from continuing to promote illegal gambling in its games and to pay disgorgement and fines."

Valve, a video game developer, has made billions of dollars by letting children and adults illegally gamble for the chance to win valuable virtual prizes. These features are addictive and harmful.That's why I'm suing to stop Valve’s unlawful conduct and protect New Yorkers.

— @newyorkstateag.bsky.social (@newyorkstateag.bsky.social.bsky.social) 2026-03-11T21:19:57.125Z

That's all straightforward enough, at least as far as the crux of the claim goes. But the press release announcing the lawsuit then went on to say, completely out of nowhere, "although this case is about illegal gambling, it is important to note that Valve’s promotion of games that glorify violence and guns helps fuel the dangerous epidemic of gun violence, particularly among young gamers who can become numbed to grave violence before their brains are fully developed."

The statement is utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand—gambling, remember—but more to the point, it's also entirely unsupported. It's the sort of claim that used to be trotted out by Jack Thompson, a former attorney who was permanently disbarred in 2008, who gained notoriety among gamers for his relentless, borderline fanatical criticism of violence in videogames.

It's a topic that still comes up down and then—as recently as September 2025, the US government said it was "looking at" the connection between videogames and gun violence—but by and large the moral panic has subsided, as both repeated studies and real-world experience have failed to demonstrate any connection between entertainment and behavior.

That's what really makes New York's aside about violent videogames perplexing, and Valve seized on that point too.

"In addition, although this case is about mystery boxes, we feel the need to address comments made by the NYAG about games, real world violence, and children," Valve wrote. "Those extraneous comments are a distraction and a mischaracterization we’ve all heard before. Numerous studies throughout the years have concluded there is no link between media (movies, TV, books, comics, music, and games) and real world violence. Indeed, many studies highlight the beneficial impact of games to users."

As someone who was around for much of the hand-wringing and hysteria over the impact of violent videogames on real-world behavior, I sincerely hope the New York AG's words don't signal the reboot of a debate that by rights should be long settled. Regardless of the merits of Valve's arguments on gambling, it's 100% in the right on this point: Dredging up old fears from 20 and 30 years ago is nothing more than a smokescreen.