Video game addiction

[Luk3us 63]

http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-cre...ddicted_p1.html

 

 

I love this website, it always has zany new articles about all kinds of crap I don't care about. This one however, was kinda interesting.

[sith_wampa 6]

That was amazing. It really describes how we think and how game companies try to manipulate us.

 

Imo, games like these are gambling, and as such should be outlawed for minors.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

There's one thing about that statement, it's not like gambling. You can stop kids from getting into a casino, but you can't stop parents from buying **** for their kids.

[sith_wampa 6]

There's one thing about that statement, it's not like gambling. You can stop kids from getting into a casino, but you can't stop parents from buying **** for their kids.

At least making it illegal for kids will raise some awareness.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Will it? Do you really think so? I don't. I still see parents buying M-rated games for 10 year olds even though my brother has to explicitly state why the game is rated M. Do parents care? **** no. They buy their 10 year old GTA4 and Modern Warfare 2 without a second thought.

 

This will only disrupt kids who don't take it seriously. You do realize a lot of a kid's social development is centered around this now, right? Exactly.

 

Now shut up.

[Luk3us 63]

The problem with a lot of people is they have this misconception that games are for kids. These days, a lot of games are not for kids. Its the same reason why so many people don't seem to be able to get it through their thick skulls that games might be more immerse and interactive than, shock and horror, a movie. Which is why stupid parents go and buy their kids these games.

 

Additionally, you shouldn't have to "ban or outlaw" those types of games to minors, because most minors have no money. And they are subscription based offerings, it all comes back to the parents.

 

 

DD needs a chill pill too.

[sith_wampa 6]

Will it? Do you really think so? I don't. I still see parents buying M-rated games for 10 year olds even though my brother has to explicitly state why the game is rated M. Do parents care? **** no. They buy their 10 year old GTA4 and Modern Warfare 2 without a second thought.

Making it illegal is the second thought. Parents wouldn't be so quick to buy something, especially for their kids, if that thing is illegal.

 

Parents might be stupid enough not to read the fine print on the box, but if they get I.D.'d at Gamestop then they just might consider why. It's not a solution to the problem, rather a step in fixing it.

 

This will only disrupt kids who don't take it seriously. You do realize a lot of a kid's social development is centered around this now, right? Exactly.

Is there a good reason for that? Why should kids be involved in addictive games? Just because it's a part of alot of kids lives now, doesn't mean it should be.

 

Now shut up.

You first.

 

 

The problem with a lot of people is they have this misconception that games are for kids. These days, a lot of games are not for kids. Its the same reason why so many people don't seem to be able to get it through their thick skulls that games might be more immerse and interactive than, shock and horror, a movie. Which is why stupid parents go and buy their kids these games.

Very true, and I think making legislation about addictive games could help educate some of these stupid people.

 

Additionally, you shouldn't have to "ban or outlaw" those types of games to minors, because most minors have no money. And they are subscription based offerings, it all comes back to the parents.

I agree. I think it could help the situation though.

 

DD needs a chill pill too.

Indeed.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Making it illegal is the second thought. Parents wouldn't be so quick to buy something, especially for their kids, if that thing is illegal.

 

Parents might be stupid enough not to read the fine print on the box, but if they get I.D.'d at Gamestop then they just might consider why. It's not a solution to the problem, rather a step in fixing it.

You realize that deeming something illegal is the absolute worst approach to 'fixing' any problem. If you look at history and each time anything was illegalized, all that managed to do was send it underground, create more crime and generate more problems than it purported to solve. If you deem it illegal for children, what's then to stop the powers that be from deeming it illegal for everyone, or deeming other forms of media illegal. No, start one place and then explodes from there.

 

Is there a good reason for that? Why should kids be involved in addictive games? Just because it's a part of alot of kids lives now, doesn't mean it should be.

Define addictive then. Does that include any game that kids play for an extended period of time but is not necessarily bad? Seems like all the article focused on was Warcraft and shooters. There are multitudes of games available and ANY of them could be viably considered as "addictive." There is, absolutely, no clear cut indicator for what is, and is not, considered addictive and there never will be - it is impossible.

 

The very idea is ridiculous. Playing video games is a huge part of social development these days. It has been since I was ten and that was fifteen years ago. Stop ****ing with kids and let them be kids, you uneducated dolt.

[Nmenth 291]

I still see parents buying M-rated games for 10 year olds even though my brother has to explicitly state why the game is rated M. Do parents care? **** no. They buy their 10 year old GTA4 and Modern Warfare 2 without a second thought.

The previous generation didn't have excessively violent and dark games, so it is no surprise that they have no comprehension as to what they are exposing their kids to.

Hopefully our generation will have learned the truth of what video games are and the next generation will not be brought up playing GTA.

 

 

I agree with sith_wampa that legality issues would probably raise awareness to the ill-informed, but DD is also right, deeming something illegal is the absolute worst approach to fixing any problem.

Other than brain transplants, I'm not sure how the problem can be fixed, but bringing politics into it will make it more chaotic rather than better or worse.

Unfortunately, people are stupid and stupidity is often inherited and/or contagious as well, but since the root problem here is shear stupidity, the only "cure" is to make people not stupid. If you know of a cure to stupidity though, it will do a lot more for this world than solve game addiction.

[Inferno 22]

The effect of violence in videogames on kids is overrated. Stop crying over it, they're not going to become scarred or murderers. Children aren't made of glass you know. Jeez.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Inferno

[Doctor Destiny 41]

The previous generation didn't have excessively violent and dark games, so it is no surprise that they have no comprehension as to what they are exposing their kids to.

This really is not true. Parents know exactly what's in these games, but they just do not care. It's not a lack of knowledge in this case, it's lack of responsibility. More and more parents use video games to babysit their children instead of doing what parents are supposed to do, which is be proactive in their kids' lives and not be so goddamn lazy. It's sheer laziness that exacerbates the problem. All of the strictest ratings in the world won't prevent lazy parents from being lazy. Why punish everyone for the shortcomings of certain people?

 

I would also disagree that the previous generation didn't have any dark, or violent, games. I'm pretty sure Doom, Wolfenstein, Unreal and many others are considered dark or excessively violent. The only difference between then and now? Easy. The graphics. High definition, high poly count, realistic depictions are the day's standard versus what you had fifteen years ago. Nothing but low resolution pixels... no one screams about noticeably pixellated ****.

[sith_wampa 6]

You realize that deeming something illegal is the absolute worst approach to 'fixing' any problem.

Yes, I understand this. But it's like Nmenth said, fixing stupidity is impossible, so separating the stupid people from the addictive games seems like a logical decision. And it wouldn't go underground if it were only illegal for minors.

 

Define addictive then.

It's certainly a challenge. What I'm getting at really only applies to games you pay for more than once. Things like subscriptions and in game items that are bought with real money. It's illegal for minors to gamble in casinos, how is gambling on the internet any more justified?

 

The very idea is ridiculous. Playing video games is a huge part of social development these days.

You said that, and we all know it. Games like these that purposely designed to get stupid kids to blow their money away have no place in a child's development. Adults can piss their money away all they want. Alot of kids don't know any better, and to no fault of their own.

 

Hopefully our generation will have learned the truth of what video games are and the next generation will not be brought up playing GTA.

That may just be enough to avoid bringing this discussion to the government.

 

Other than brain transplants, I'm not sure how the problem can be fixed, but bringing politics into it will make it more chaotic rather than better or worse.

That's my biggest hang-up about the whole thing. Government doesn't do much right.

 

Unfortunately, people are stupid and stupidity is often inherited and/or contagious as well, but since the root problem here is shear stupidity, the only "cure" is to make people not stupid. If you know of a cure to stupidity though, it will do a lot more for this world than solve game addiction.

Stupidity is definitely part of it, but as DD said, laziness is a major part as well.

 

I would also disagree that the previous generation didn't have any dark, or violent, games. I'm pretty sure Doom, Wolfenstein, Unreal and many others are considered dark or excessively violent. The only difference between then and now? Easy. The graphics. High definition, high poly count, realistic depictions are the day's standard versus what you had fifteen years ago. Nothing but low resolution pixels... no one screams about noticeably pixellated ****.

I think he meant a little further back than that. I don't think your parents grew up with Doom.

 

Hopefully our generation has learned something.

[Nmenth 291]

Stupidity is definitely part of it, but as DD said, laziness is a major part as well.

I do not dispute that, but I think laziness is part of the whole stupidity thing. If you knowingly make the wrong choice because you are too lazy to do it right, is that not stupidity?

 

I think he meant a little further back than that. I don't think your parents grew up with Doom.

Yes, I was talking about those that are ~50 now.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Yes, I understand this. But it's like Nmenth said, fixing stupidity is impossible, so separating the stupid people from the addictive games seems like a logical decision. And it wouldn't go underground if it were only illegal for minors.

Kids will still play, except maybe the ten and younger crowd but they're usually outdoors anyway. But from, say, 12 on up to whatever arbitrary age you've deemed as "no longer a child" will invariably still be playing. They'll bitch, moan, cry and whine until their parents give in, put it in their name and let the kid use it. For every kid that is addicted, there are three with sensible playing habits. Why should they be punished for the inevitable addiction crowd?

 

It's certainly a challenge. What I'm getting at really only applies to games you pay for more than once. Things like subscriptions and in game items that are bought with real money. It's illegal for minors to gamble in casinos, how is gambling on the internet any more justified?

I don't understand why you would need to single out subscription based games. There exist plenty of games that capture as much attention as say World of Warcraft, Guild Wars and whatever else you want to add to that list. What about every other game that glues kids to the screen? Should you ban Halo from kids? Should you ban Pokemon? Should you ban Hello Kitty Island Adventure too because there were kids addicted to playing it? The answer: a big, fat, ****ing NO. It's a ridiculous sentiment. One of the most ridiculous I've heard in a very long time.

 

You said that, and we all know it. Games like these that purposely designed to get stupid kids to blow their money away have no place in a child's development. Adults can piss their money away all they want. Alot of kids don't know any better, and to no fault of their own.

Then it's up to the parents to do their job and do some damn parenting. If parents are lazy, you have lazy kids or bratty kids who get their way all the time. Most of these "hopelessly addicted" kids just have soft, wussy parents or lazy parents who don't care. In either case, the parents just let the kid get his way. For every one like that, there are several who have an iron fist lording over their children. See. We only hear about addicted kids because it's shocking, new and most of all, sensationalist. Then parents begin to panic and overreact, overestimating the situation exactly like you're doing. Grats, you played right into propaganda's hands. Good work.

 

Government doesn't do much right.

I direct your attention here...

 

I think he meant a little further back than that. I don't think your parents grew up with Doom.

He did say last generation, which is my generation.

[Nmenth 291]

He did say last generation, which is my generation.

Last generation for our perspective, we are from the same generation. In other words, our parents.

[sith_wampa 6]

Kids will still play, except maybe the ten and younger crowd but they're usually outdoors anyway. But from, say, 12 on up to whatever arbitrary age you've deemed as "no longer a child" will invariably still be playing. They'll bitch, moan, cry and whine until their parents give in, put it in their name and let the kid use it. For every kid that is addicted, there are three with sensible playing habits. Why should they be punished for the inevitable addiction crowd?

 

The point is if the game is addictive then it can harm a kid who is either not smart enough or not experienced enough to know when to stop playing. Why should responsible kids not be allowed in casinos?

 

I don't understand why you would need to single out subscription based games. There exist plenty of games that capture as much attention as say World of Warcraft, Guild Wars and whatever else you want to add to that list. What about every other game that glues kids to the screen? Should you ban Halo from kids? Should you ban Pokemon? Should you ban Hello Kitty Island Adventure too because there were kids addicted to playing it? The answer: a big, fat, ****ing NO. It's a ridiculous sentiment. One of the most ridiculous I've heard in a very long time.

 

You're right it's no. They don't siphon money from kids who don't know any better. Think of it this way. Kids can play poker all they want. It's when they start using actual money to bet is when problems can arise. And maybe kids should be responsible enough to manage themselves if they're over 12. I'm not sure.

 

Then it's up to the parents to do their job and do some damn parenting. If parents are lazy, you have lazy kids or bratty kids who get their way all the time. Most of these "hopelessly addicted" kids just have soft, wussy parents or lazy parents who don't care. In either case, the parents just let the kid get his way. For every one like that, there are several who have an iron fist lording over their children. See. We only hear about addicted kids because it's shocking, new and most of all, sensationalist. Then parents begin to panic and overreact, overestimating the situation exactly like you're doing. Grats, you played right into propaganda's hands. Good work.

 

Parents definitely should do more parenting, but while parents may be idiots, should their kids have to suffer? Children should not be held responsible for managing their family's money. How could you expect a child, with stupid parents that don't teach him anything, to be responsible for their financial problems?

 

I direct your attention here...

 

Most of those things could arguably be done better by the private sector, but I'd rather not get into that because it's a whole different can of worms.

 

He did say last generation, which is my generation.

 

It doesn't matter, because we're not talking about violent games anyway. The morality of violent games is a separate issue from the financial repercussions children can sustain from addictive games.

 

Now, there's no way they can create enough exploration or story to keep you playing for thousands of hours, so they had to change the mechanics of the game, so players would instead keep doing the same actions over and over and over, whether they liked it or not. So game developers turned to Skinner's techniques.

 

You're right, there are plenty of kids who know better than to fall into these traps. Meanwhile, kids who don't have the ability to decide when to stop could possibly lose tons of money, money which they need for things like food or whatever other essential item one needs.

[Nmenth 291]

Personally, I think paying real money for virtual items ruins the entertainment value and respectability of the game. So whether you are 12, 22, or 92, paying real money for game items is stupid.

 

Unfortunately, even if the company doesn't offer the deal, there are those useless sacks of human flesh that will hack, dupe, scam, etc. to fulfill the demand for electronic loot and those brainless sacks of human flesh that gladly dig into their wallets and pay them to continue their operations.

 

Ultimately it comes back to stupidity again. Outlawing it is also stupid. You can't combat stupidity with more stupidity, you can either euthanize them or let them die out on their own from their own stupidity. Since euthanasia isn't exactly very ethical, you're left with letting stupid people be stupid.

[sith_wampa 6]

Ultimately it comes back to stupidity again. Outlawing it is also stupid. You can't combat stupidity with more stupidity, you can either euthanize them or let them die out on their own from their own stupidity. Since euthanasia isn't exactly very ethical, you're left with letting stupid people be stupid.

A little Social Darwinism could be a good thing. Letting kids suffer because of the idiocy of their parents could be considered unethical too. Why do you think we have CPS?

 

Also, I just thought of this. It would probably be much easier to tax the balls off the money generated by addictive games, apart from initial sales. That way these in-game items and subscriptions have little value to the company.

Edited March 11, 2010 by sith_wampa

[Doctor Destiny 41]

The point is if the game is addictive then it can harm a kid who is either not smart enough or not experienced enough to know when to stop playing. Why should responsible kids not be allowed in casinos?

Again, this is where parenting comes into call. The parents should always be aware of what their children are doing and for how long. I cannot stress enough how important the influence of parenting has to be.

 

I have a simple answer for your question, too. It's so simple you should have thought of it yourself instead of using it as an argument. Here it is - real world vs not real world. A casino is not a friendly place most of the time, but the comfort of your own home or a friend's house is a better place for anyone to be, regardless of age. Responsibility has little to do with a casino in the first place.

 

You're right it's no. They don't siphon money from kids who don't know any better. Think of it this way. Kids can play poker all they want. It's when they start using actual money to bet is when problems can arise. And maybe kids should be responsible enough to manage themselves if they're over 12. I'm not sure.

Games don't need to siphon money out of anyone to be addictive. The only reason anyone even began this sad argument is the Internet, a misinformed journalist and parental panic. Fifteen years ago, kids were still glued to TV screens playing their Super NES until the crack of dawn. Not a word about it. Put simply, blaming a minority subset of all games is extremely unfair and shortsighted since the problem is not a new phenomenon.

 

Parents definitely should do more parenting, but while parents may be idiots, should their kids have to suffer? Children should not be held responsible for managing their family's money. How could you expect a child, with stupid parents that don't teach him anything, to be responsible for their financial problems?

I never mentioned anything about managing finances. Kids don't usually understand it anyway and are unconcerned with it. They just want their way and usually get it. This has nothing to do with financial pressure and everything to do with wimpy ass parents.

 

Most of those things could arguably be done better by the private sector, but I'd rather not get into that because it's a whole different can of worms.

And that's where your wrong. The private sector is the worst choice for most things.

 

It doesn't matter, because we're not talking about violent games anyway. The morality of violent games is a separate issue from the financial repercussions children can sustain from addictive games.

Kids don't suffer financial problems. Parents do.

 

You're right, there are plenty of kids who know better than to fall into these traps. Meanwhile, kids who don't have the ability to decide when to stop could possibly lose tons of money, money which they need for things like food or whatever other essential item one needs.

I know people like to throw the extremes out there like they're somehow relevant, but this is overstating the extreme to a serious degree. This reinforces misinformed opinions and subverts the truth. The truth is really that most people who play games, many kids included, are intelligent enough to stop playing when it's necessary. Few people will sacrifice food and essentials for a damn video game. That's seriously underestimating their intelligence.

[sith_wampa 6]

Again, this is where parenting comes into call. The parents should always be aware of what their children are doing and for how long. I cannot stress enough how important the influence of parenting has to be.

I don't disagree, but children cannot be held accountable for their parent's idiocy.

 

I have a simple answer for your question, too. It's so simple you should have thought of it yourself instead of using it as an argument. Here it is - real world vs not real world. A casino is not a friendly place most of the time,

Casino's don't have to be unfriendly, and some certainly wouldn't be if they were made for minors.

 

but the comfort of your own home or a friend's house is a better place for anyone to be, regardless of age.

The danger is losing your money to an addiction, which can happen in either location. We're not talking about safety, that is another discussion.

 

Responsibility has little to do with a casino in the first place.

Responsibility has to do with gambling, which is addictive, and happens in casinos. What don't you get about that?

 

Games don't need to siphon money out of anyone to be addictive.

No, but addictive games that do siphon money are bad.

 

The only reason anyone even began this sad argument is the Internet, a misinformed journalist and parental panic. Fifteen years ago, kids were still glued to TV screens playing their Super NES until the crack of dawn. Not a word about it. Put simply, blaming a minority subset of all games is extremely unfair and shortsighted since the problem is not a new phenomenon.

The problem is not the addiction itself, but the danger that comes with it such as taking the money of the kids who don't know any better because their parents are retarded. Playing Mario for 12 hours straight doesn't have any significant drawbacks to it, but if you had to pay a dollar for every Super Mushroom, that's unfair to kids.

 

I never mentioned anything about managing finances. Kids don't usually understand it anyway and are unconcerned with it. They just want their way and usually get it. This has nothing to do with financial pressure and everything to do with wimpy ass parents.

Sure, if those parents are rich. But if this is a lower class or borderline lower class family we are talking about, the damages can be significant, even for the child.

 

And that's where your wrong. The private sector is the worst choice for most things.

Well I guess we disagree.

 

Kids don't suffer financial problems. Parents do.

That is an incredibly absent-minded assumption. If the financial problems are great enough, one could lose their house, car, food, and whatnot. Why do I have to explain that to you?

 

I know people like to throw the extremes out there like they're somehow relevant, but this is overstating the extreme to a serious degree. This reinforces misinformed opinions and subverts the truth. The truth is really that most people who play games, many kids included, are intelligent enough to stop playing when it's necessary. Few people will sacrifice food and essentials for a damn video game.

Hopefully it is extreme. I'm not sure if either of us are qualified to make that judgment, unless you can find some nice statistics. The problem is that if this addictive + money siphoning game market were to grow, many unfortunate kids could get boned.

 

That's seriously underestimating their intelligence.

Underestimating who's intelligence? I'm specifically speaking of people who are either not intelligent or experienced enough to know when to quit.

 

/endmassivequotespam

[Nmenth 291]

/endmassivequotespam

Massive? That is medium length quote spam at best...

 

 

How did socialism find its way here, it doesn't even seem to fit the arguments. DD is fighting for less government supervision and lauding government run programs, s_w is promoting legal boundaries and saying government control is unnecessary... I don't understand the relevance...

[Doctor Destiny 41]

I don't disagree, but children cannot be held accountable for their parent's idiocy.

You're right, they shouldn't. CPS should be stepping in on those cases.

 

Casino's don't have to be unfriendly, and some certainly wouldn't be if they were made for minors.

The danger is losing your money to an addiction, which can happen in either location. We're not talking about safety, that is another discussion.

You've never been to a casino before, have you? There's more than one good reason why kids aren't allowed in, even if the "gambling age" is entirely arbitrary. A casino is just an open bar with slot machines, card tables and Roulette wheels. You don't see responsible kids at a bar, do you? Same principle applies... it's just not a suitable environment.

 

Responsibility has to do with gambling, which is addictive, and happens in casinos. What don't you get about that?

Casinos prey on the irresponsible since the responsible are generally not part of the casino crowd. There are exceptions naturally, but most of the people at casinos are pissing away their life savings on a hand of poker or the spin of the Roulette wheel.

 

No, but addictive games that do siphon money are bad.

So games that are just as addictive but don't require a monthly fee are somehow good?

 

The problem is not the addiction itself, but the danger that comes with it such as taking the money of the kids who don't know any better because their parents are retarded. Playing Mario for 12 hours straight doesn't have any significant drawbacks to it, but if you had to pay a dollar for every Super Mushroom, that's unfair to kids.

Oh, so you're just focusing on the financial aspect, not the entire scope. Awesome, way to be misinformed.

 

Sure, if those parents are rich. But if this is a lower class or borderline lower class family we are talking about, the damages can be significant, even for the child.

Only if it gets the point where the parents have no control over their child. However, these types of families rarely see this problem due to lack of disposable income, which is what we're dealing with here. The class of people you describe just doesn't have this problem. It's middle and upper class society that sees this more often the rest.

 

That is an incredibly absent-minded assumption. If the financial problems are great enough, one could lose their house, car, food, and whatnot. Why do I have to explain that to you?

The kid is only dragged down by his parents ineptitude. However, if this were actually the case, I seriously doubt this family has high-speed Internet, much less a decent computer. You think the low end of society is purchasing new PCs and video games to this extent? Hah, no.

 

Hopefully it is extreme. I'm not sure if either of us are qualified to make that judgment, unless you can find some nice statistics. The problem is that if this addictive + money siphoning game market were to grow, many unfortunate kids could get boned.

Maybe you should practice what you preach and find your own statistics. I don't care if they're horribly askew, just something to back up what you're saying would be nice. Before you try to throw that at me, do it first.

 

Underestimating who's intelligence? I'm specifically speaking of people who are either not intelligent or experienced enough to know when to quit.

You're well aware that those gamers make up about 2 to 3 percent of all gamers, don't you? It's fairly rare to see someone that bad.