Doom. Halo. BioShock. Call of Duty. First-person shooter games are some of the most popular on the market, placing the gamer in a “first-person” perspective, as the name would suggest, seeing the world from the protagonist’s point of view and allowing the gamer to see the game through the scope of a gun. Some games, like Big Buck Hunter, are found in arcades, allowing you to pick up a plastic gun and shoot it as the controller, blurring the lines between reality and your furry victims. As entertaining and popular as these games are, first-person shooters exemplify an opacity in games we tend to overlook but should pay more attention to: Video games aren’t made in a vacuum devoid of corporate interests. In the case of first-person shooters (FPS), domestic arms dealers use these games to glorify and sell high-powered firearms to young men, regardless of their consequences.
When people talk about the connection between video games and violence (as SB did in her blog last week), we often think about how games influence gamers. But, we should also think about how corporations influence games themselves and how corporations trade on the popularity of games to sell products, whether through the addictive models of gambling games, persistent ads, or, in the case of the gun industry, through gun glorification to sell high-powered firearms to very young adults. I started to learn about this a year ago when I was researching some of the firearm industry’s marketing tactics that ran afoul of the Federal Trade Commission’s guidelines regarding misleading marketing tactics and unfairly targeting minors. From there, I learned about an entire branch of the gun market dedicated to getting younger and younger kids access to bigger guns by using misleading statistics, bright-colored firearms, and intentionally marketing guns to attract young men who played FPS.
Firearm Manufacturers Allude to Games in Their Marketing
One way firearm manufacturers do this is by alluding to popular games in their marketing. For example, the pictures below show two Instagram posts by a gun manufacturer, Anderson Manufacturing, where pink palm trees are painted on guns and displayed on their Instagram. Next to them are two promotional images from Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, a popular FPS (which depicts illegal gun use, among… many other crimes), which also feature the same palm trees and color scheme.
Images 1 & 2 show Anderson Manufacturing’s Ads, and images 3 & 4 show promotional images from GTA Vice City which use the same colors & palm trees
Another example is from a 2018 gun show, where four men with guns fight off a “mob,” with the slogan “Not Today Antifa” plastered above it. There are a lot of concerning aspects of this ad, but for this discussion, note the style in which these people are depicted. It’s not realism or cartoon; it looks like the type of animation we associate with first-person shooter games, linking real-life ownership and use of high-powered weapons with people’s actions in violent games.
The “Not Today Antifa” ad from 2018 used at a national gun show demonstrates how the gun industry has turned towards militaristic messaging which also alludes to gaming
Game Makers and Firearm Manufacturers Work Together
Perhaps even more troubling, proof of deals between the gaming companies and the gun industry has been unearthed. Remington, the firearm company that made Bushmaster an AR-15, went bankrupt after a settlement with families of the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012. As part of this settlement, emails and documents were recently released that show undisclosed details of a deal that took place between the company and Call of Duty to put their guns in the game, expressly hoping to appeal to a new generation of potential customers. According to reporting by the Wall Street Journal, one of Remington’s rifles, known as an “ACR,” was put into Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. Remington wanted to sell a civilian semi-automatic version of the ACR, and Activision Blizzard, the company that published the game, wanted a more “realistic” feel for players. It was mutually beneficial. The game sold over 22 million copies, and the civilian version of the ACR developed a cult following. This deal, which is far from the only one out there, shows that a) video games can be used as marketing tools, and b) it demonstrates the desire of the firearm industry to use games to reach a new, younger audience. Another report by Intercept discussed how the firearm industry is moving from an older consumer base that primarily used guns for hunting to a younger market, where the industry advertises how high-powered weapons can be used for “self-defense.”
Ryan Busse, a former executive at a gun manufacturer-turned policy adviser at the gun-safety group Giffords, describes how the industry shifted from hunting-focused advertisements in the 90s to marketing which now focuses on high-powered weapons, military imagery, toxic masculinity, white supremacy, young men, and games. The impact of this is palpable: for the last three years, guns have been the number one killer of children, teens, and young adults in America. Mass shooters in Uvalde, Texas; Aurora, Colorado; Sandy Hook, Connecticut; Highland Park, Illinois; Parkland, Florida; Buffalo, New York; and doubtless countless others used firearms from video games that they had played. In Busse’s words, “The gun industry’s modern marketing effort did not just arm these shooters; in a very real sense, it created them.”
To be fully transparent, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with first-person shooter games. I think they can be really fun (even though I’m pretty terrible at them), and there is no proof of causation between playing these games and engaging in real-world violence. However, pretending as though these games are created or played in a world removed from the weapons they depict is dangerous. The gaming industry needs to take accountability for the deals they’ve made with firearm manufacturers to place real guns in their games. We should all be more aware of the consequences of the gun industry purposefully linking their guns to popular games: they intentionally use militaristic imagery to get (mostly) young men who play FPS, which often show firearm use in active combat, against zombies, or for illegal purposes, to buy real semi-automatic firearms for “self-defense” against other civilians. But beyond the gun industry itself, games are a powerful marketing tool for companies willing to use them, and we should view any product placement, even if it’s seemingly innocuous, with some vigilance. Because although we play games, sometimes they play us too.
— Brynn
New Media: Storytelling in Literature, Films, and Games 
Amazing blog Brynn! Though I had no idea that these partnerships existed between firearm manufacturers and video game companies, I can’t say I’m surprised. Unfortunate that this is the case but, it does make sense for firearm manufacturers to take their advertising to FPS games if they want to get their hooks in early to future gun owners. Young gamers can be so heavily influenced by what they play, or any media they consume really, and like you said, it is really important for the gaming industry to take accountability over what messaging they send with their games. The debate over whether there is a link between playing violent games and engaging in real life acts of violence is one that makes many parents wary of letting their kids play those types of games. I wonder how the news of these partnerships that you wrote about will impact games like Grand Theft Auto in that it may push more parents towards keeping their kids off these games. Thank you for bringing this topic into discussion.
-Alex
Brynn, this post was very intriguing. I have been playing first person shooter games since middle school, and have watched as they have evolved from very serious games into games that look to appeal to their audience rather than stay true to their original intention. When I first began playing Call of Duty, it was a very raw game with limited color schemes and more emotion associated with violent nature of the game; however, where I really think these games have gone south is as you mentioned with the bright weapon skins and other colors that are not associated with war or violence. By changing the typical color palettes, these games have deviated from their initial form and completely lost sight of their purpose as more serious games. Now, every aspect of these games are aimed at a larger audience by way of weapon camos and bright maps. Initially meant to simulate war-like settings, these games have morphed into more of an arcade style that fails to capture the emotion that they did 15 years ago and ultimately desensitizes violence for its players.
Brynn, thank you for sharing this information and perspective. I remember watching my cousins play Call of Duty when I was younger and marveling at the ease at which they moved between the many weapons at their disposal. I never thought much of it, but it is quite insane that these games are promoting and using models of real automatic weapons. The more these kids play, the more they interact with the material and the better they get to know and understand the mechanics of weapons that they can then, unfortunately, go buy in real life. To think that weapons companies are even allowed to do this in the first place boggles my mind and makes me think of the way that Ready Player One’s universe banned ads and how Mapletown banned weapons/guns. Much like the TikTok and social media, these ads target specific demographics who are vulnerable to the subtle, violent agendas of companies and I wonder if there are better ways to go about regulating these games. Maybe there is even a way to undo the damage already done by the existing shooter games.
Brynn, you blogged about games being used by arms dealers as a tool to sell arms, and I think that’s a very compelling point. In fact, the role that violence and guns play in games depends a lot on how they are portrayed by game developers. But sadly, the vast majority of games as a commercial product simply allow the player to experience the thrill of shooting and amplify that feedback. Such tactics weaken the player’s perception of the violence itself, which is also known as numbing the player. There’s a lot that can be done about this, for example, game developers can make players reflect on the consequences and rightness of violence in plot levels, and in some ways this is one of the common means of elevating a video game, which is to make the player achieve a goal only to make him or her reflect on whether or not the goal in the game is really moral or right.
Howard
Brynn, this is incredible writing, you work is always unmatched with the classes’. Your analysis of the relationship between first-person shooter games (FPS) and the firearms industry sheds light on a complex and often overlooked aspect of gaming culture. It’s concerning to see how corporations exploit the popularity of FPS games to market high-powered firearms to young audiences, blurring the lines between virtual entertainment and real-world consequences. The examples you provide, from firearm manufacturers using gaming aesthetics in their marketing to deals between game developers and gun companies, underscore the need for greater awareness of these practices and their potential impacts. In statistical terms, there’s actually no direct evidence linking FPS games to real-world violence, it’s crucial to acknowledge the influence of corporate interests on game content and consumption. Your call for accountability within the gaming industry regarding product placement and associations with the firearms industry is extremely valid, emphasizing the need for vigilance in understanding the broader implications of gaming culture. As consumers and enthusiasts, we must remain critical of these dynamics to ensure that the games we enjoy do not unwittingly contribute to harmful societal trends.
-Jaylan Sims