Sandy Hook fallout won’t impact game sales, says analyst

Friday, 21st December 2012 15:01 GMT By Dave Cook

Subsequent action following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings – be it a recently proposed congressional bill geared towards researching violent games – or other measures will not affect game sales, Cowen & Company analyst Doug Creutz has predicted.

Speaking with Gamespot, Creutz revealed that investors in the games industry have grown concerned that any legislation drafted off the back of proposed inquiries, which surrounding games and violence, will impact on game sales. However, he stated that any impact would be “minor at most.”

He then added, “We have received many questions from investors about the potential impact of the recent tragedy in Newtown on our covered universe of video game publisher stocks,” Creutz said. “While this is a difficult issue to address due to the intense emotions surrounding the incident, we have attempted to present a summary of the relevant facts herein.”

On the threat of further regulation, Creutz added, “We believe that any new attempts to regulate video game sales would be quickly struck down by the courts based on this precedent.

“While these concerns are understandable–particularly given the currently emotionally charged environment–we think video game shares are now pricing in much more risk to their business models than actually exists.

“As a result, we think the group now generally represents a buying opportunity ahead of what should be a strong year for the industry in 2013 due to a loaded first half release slate and the likely launch of new Microsoft and Sony game consoles in the back half of the year.”

What’s your take on the issue? Let us know below.



  1. theevilaires

    Of course it won’t and it shouldn’t. If the guy was dressed up with COD emblems and had a fox hound logo on his jacket then I could see how this would be anyway connected to gaming. This won’t affect the gaming industry in anyway. MW4 will break records again next year and some idiot will commit mass murder also and the two will have nothing to do with each other.


    #1 2 years ago
  2. Mike W

    I don’t see why it would in the first place. What happened last Friday was unspeakable and I can’t even imagine the pain the family and friends are going thru.

    But we have to stop with these ridiculous connections that violence in any form of entertaiment are going to have a drop in sales or come to a complete halt because what happened last Friday. Even if it did, do people believe the murder rate is going to drop?

    We all need to be adults here and start looking at the individual that commited this devilish crime and stop trying to blame it on other shit, that he was into.

    #2 2 years ago
  3. Mike W


    Well said bro….well said.

    Congress should be ashame of itself, I really don’t understand why it’s so hard to believe that the fucking piece of shit of a kid was a killer…

    Why does everyone keep making excuses for him? I keep hearing, “oh he was a nice kid” really? Nice kids don’t do the things this asshole did. “Oh he was mentally ill and he needed help” so he was a nice kid that was mentally ill and he needed help, yeah….right.

    Cry me a fucking river, that piece of shit knew exactly what he was doing and he was completely sane the whole time he was killing those poor innocent children, hence why he off himself when he was done. This is what is wrong with our society, no one wants to take responsibility for the actions that they commit. They want to take the easy route and say the movies made me do it or the video games made me do it….

    #3 2 years ago
  4. DSB

    I think there’s plenty of evidence of psychiatric problems in the last three shooters.

    Tucson guy was posting videos of himself rambling incoherently about grammar in public schools, Aurora guy was isolated and expressing deeply disturbed thoughts in therapy, and Newtown guy apparently had some form of autism, with serious mommy issues according to people who knew him.

    I don’t see a lot of people talking about any of those guys as being nice or balanced, unless they’re friends of the family.

    What exactly is sane about killing innocent children to you?

    #4 2 years ago
  5. AmiralPatate

    It’s easier to blame it on videogames than to reform a two centuries old constitution. But, hey, the world hasn’t change since 1787, so I guess it’s okay, right?

    #5 2 years ago
  6. Cobra951


    The principles certainly have not changed: Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, are all still just as valid today. Keeping the government away from censoring artistic expression is still as important in 2012 as it was in 1787. Taking away the right to bear arms will not make those arms disappear either. That genie will not go back into his bottle. All we can do is arm more responsible adults to nip developing tragedies in the bud, not bury our heads in the sand and pretend firearms don’t exist.

    #6 2 years ago
  7. DSB

    You won’t take guns away overnight, but it’s the only way to make sure there will be less out there.

    If you arm responsible adults, you’re arming irresponsible adults right along with them. More accidents, more killings. And by your logic you’d then need to arm even more people to keep them safe from the ones you just armed.

    Somehow bending over for the genie doesn’t seem the best way either. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

    #7 2 years ago
  8. OlderGamer

    I agree the way to solve gun crimes isn’t to arm more people with guns. I read the NRA cry for placing armed security in every school. And who pays for that? My local school distric is already cutting programs left and right, they can’t afford girls Volyball, but we are ‘possed to pay for police to patrol the halls because kids have(a right to have guns)?

    That is dumb.

    Also read the second admendment. It doesn’t garentee gun ownership. It states that people have the right to gather in small milittia groups in defense. Minute Men being what they were. They provided a key cog in the fight against the redcoats. I know it might seem that gun ownership and the right to assemble(with arms) is the samething, but isn’t.

    It was a statement aimed at the standing armies that Americans had faced, a warning that if threatened it was not only a right of said people but likly the predictable action of said people to defend themself.

    The founding fathers had zero insight into a future where hands guns, assult rifles and auto/semi auto firearms were such headline news. I bet if put to the very same legislators that wrote those laws, you would get a very different answer for todays set of circumstances.

    Hunting was not only a economic causality, but also a nescesity of American lifestyle during those days. Gun control wasn’t even a thought in the equation. “Protecting” anyones right to carry a conceled firearm wasn’t the point or focus. Providing food for the family with a gun was something most families did. Needed to do. Trust me, school shootings weren’t on their minds.

    But we don’t like in the 1700s or 1800s anymore. I get my food from the grociery store. I used to hunt as a kid. I was interoduced to it by my father. He felt being an outdoorsman/sportsman was a vital part of what it meant to be an american. That is one of the things that fuels the NRA. I don’t feel like that.

    I owuld rather eat Chicken I bought from a store then a Duck I shot in the field if it means less guns and less public shootings. I know it is spicy topic. No prob. I know lots won’t agree with me. No prob.

    But imo, guns have more to do with shootings then video games, TV, movies, music or books. Media has always been blamed for societies woes. I remember Elvis being blamed for derailment of american values. Are video games too violent? Yes I think so. Do they outright cause people to kill other people? Yes and No. Some people will snap. I had a kid in my hometown head up into the woods with several guns and lots of amo, and start shooting at people and cops. He had seen the movie Rambo and was acting it out. He ended up shooting a few people and then killed himself. He was 17. Did the movie cause that? No. But it was a catalyst. And that is what games do. They sometimes snap unstable people.

    But in every single shooting and tradegy of such the one common link is … guns. Period. My sons school is going on highented alert today and several polic walk the halls. Some damn kid wrote something on the walls and threatend a rampage. Being rual a lot of houses here have guns, a lot of them. Kind of makes me worried.

    My two cents, get rid of the guns. It will take years, so lets get started.

    Sorry I can’t stay and debate the issue or my post here but I need to run.

    #8 2 years ago
  9. Cobra951

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Note that the main clause follows the comma. What precedes the comma justifies the main clause. It does not abridge it.

    The right to bear arms really has nothing to do with hunting, and everything to do with killing aggressors, especially when the aggressors come from a corrupt state or invading army. (The intent is to allow the people to maintain a free state.) It is an extension of keeping power in the hands of the people, rather than making sheep of us all, and making us trust a handful of official shepherds for our survival.

    A school full of unarmed educators and children is meat on the hoof for armed crazies. That will never change, anywhere in the world.

    #9 2 years ago
  10. DSB

    The US government wasn’t marveling at the will of the people when the South decided they were going to walk away.

    The power of the people is the vote and the word, not the gun.

    What those guns were intended to be used for is highly disputed, but I doubt they were intended for classrooms and sheriffs deputies, and they certainly weren’t meant as a deterrent to other gun owners, as is often the argument today.

    #10 2 years ago
  11. OlderGamer

    Exactly. the intent was, in my mind, to allow for a underfunded and young nation to stave off a foriegn power. Taking the US would mean door to door fighting, where every citizen carries a gun. Where even the best funded and best equiped and best trained standing armies in the world would struggle. I believe that was the message being sent.

    It wasn’t protecting a Texans right to have a gun rack on his pick up or pack a handgun in the back of his belt.

    I fully believe that if faced with todays nightmare situations, they would have considered the “rights” of the gun owner. Hell we are talking about the same legislaters that took the power to vote away from the common uneducated everyday average citizen(electoral collage). They were concerned about the longevity of the nation and its stability.

    #11 2 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.