Guess it's a matter of where we draw the line between personal responsibility and corporate responsibility (not sure if corporate is the exactly right word; hope the point is across though).
Yeah I'd agree with this.
I guess to me though it's just that with video games, including MMOs, in their current forms I have absolutely no problem placing the responsibility wholly on the player. A little popup window reminding you every couple hours it's been since you logged in as a courtesy is about as far as I'm willing to go at this point.
WoW isn't evil, but it can cause addictive behavior and, as said earlier, the developers should take action to curtail this when possible.
Isn't this called anti-poopsocking?
After a couple of hours playing Guild Wars, a polite little message appears in your chat box: "You have been playing for two hours. Please take a break."
And WoW has tips that pop up every so often reminding you to take all things in moderation. And yet I still played for twelve hours a day when the first expansion launched.
They have better things now like daily quests that limit how much you can do in a day and Blizzard started making loot much easier to get with each major patch so people could take a break and not feel like they're falling behind as much. The game also relies less on randomized loot drops which helps a lot.
Basically, you have to change the game design rather than pop up easily-ignored messages.
Sterica on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
WoW isn't evil, but it can cause addictive behavior and, as said earlier, the developers should take action to curtail this when possible.
Isn't this called anti-poopsocking?
After a couple of hours playing Guild Wars, a polite little message appears in your chat box: "You have been playing for two hours. Please take a break."
Does Guild Wars actually do that?
WoW sorta has the right idea. I'm not sure if the rested experience is a good example. It's per-character, and is really more of a system in place to boost the people who don't play often up a tad.
But Blizzard does have the account settings where parental controls are in play. It doesn't have to just be parents monitoring a child's playtime. Friends could intervene and utilize that system for that purpose. It's a means provided by the company for individuals (and those that surround them) to have a safety net, or responsibility net.
I'd say you shouldn't be playing WoW if a second party has to parent you. And would an addicted person have the willpower to even set up such an arrangement?
Rested is a large boost to experience and any system that eliminates the "falling behind" fear is a good one. They already plan to do this more in the future, so Blizzard is taking some steps to fix this.
I am sorry, but this is bullshit. If you cannot pull yourself away from a MMORPG to engage in life, that's your own fucking fault. There are plenty of things corporations should be held ethically responsible for, making an apealing product isn't one of them.
One's lack of willpower is not a reaonable excuse to point the finger at others. No one can make you stay on your ass, or get off of it, but you.
Addiction is thrown around way too often and casually. But hell, there are even geniunly addictive products whose producers I do not find "evil." I know its an unpopular opinion, but everyone's favorite whipping boy, cigarettes and their manufacturers, I just see as another business selling a product. In this day and age, there's plenty of info on the dangers of smoking, so it isn't the big bad tabacco companies fault if you get addicted. Of course, I am a smoker and love the stuff, so take that as you will.
Basically I think alot of people need to grow up and own their decisions. Mcdonalds didn't make you fat, you made the decision to cram your face with burgers excessively. If you don't want to get out of the house, that's your decision, not your avatar's in a MMORPG.
Again, I am not saying that corporations do not have ethical responisbilities. If you are getting your parts or products from workers on slave wages in India, or your dicking your employees out of health benefits, you should be held accountable. But delivering an enticing product? No.
Welp, if Feral is going to repost his words from last month (well, in his case, it's also the month before... and the month before that... and like three or four years ago, if I recall accurately) then I get to repost mine from last week.
I think WoW is held up as the standard for an addictive game because of its popularity and not much else, frankly. From the very beginning with the introduction of the rest system, there have been mechanisms present that are clear counterexamples to any claim that Blizzard was designing the game from the ground up to suck as much time as possible. Even the badges that Wong complains about were originally introduced specifically to address the concern that random loot (IE variable-ratio rewards, as BF Skinner would have it) was a suspect mechanic.
But far and away the simplest reason that Blizzard does not want you to play for eight hours a day is that they don't make any more money. You don't pay by the hour, you pay by the month, and if you play less, the only consequence Activision Blizzard suffers is a marginal reduction in the bandwidth they pay for. You could argue that in order to keep that subscription going from month to month it's in their advantage to keep players "hooked," but my anecdotal experience has been that the people who are logged in 24/7 burn out quicker than the ones who still haven't hit 80.
Now, I by no means intend to argue that WoW isn't addictive. I played it for years and years and of course I know better. But rather, I think it's important to understand that people aren't getting addicted to some kind of fucking super-crack, here; Blizzard is not an expert team of ex-Nazi behavioral scientists working at a blistering pace to perfect the ultimate in anti-nerd weaponry. They're a game company with a profit motive based on a monthly fee, but despite efforts (perhaps inadequate efforts, but genuine ones nonetheless) to the contrary they've produced something that destroys lives.
So when you start seeing shit like ZT Online take off, you should be worried. If a company who has no profit motive in creating a legion of poopsocking zombies chained to their PCs creates "the most addictive game ever," what do you think is going to happen with a payment system like ZT's that makes the problem gamers the best customers?
I apologize, but I wouldn't stray far from Debate and Discourse if this is your response to this because other sections of the forum are going to be a danger to your mood.
Oh boy.
And I'd say that this is not a trend as the OP implies. It's very hard to break into the MMO market and the past five years are a graveyard of titles trying to cash in on the mainstream rise of WoW. Obviously the potential is vast, but it'll be a long time for subscription-based games to become the norm. If ever.
Which is what makes the PA post on RPG elements pertinent: MW2 and BFBC2 are selling shitbricks because they're FPS MMOs
I am sorry, but this is bullshit. If you cannot pull yourself away from gambling to engage in life, that's your own fucking fault. There are plenty of things corporations should be held ethically responsible for, making an apealing product isn't one of them.
One's lack of willpower is not a reaonable excuse to point the finger at others. No one can make you stay on your ass, or get off of it, but you.
Addiction is thrown around way too often and casually. But hell, there are even geniunly addictive products whose producers I do not find "evil." I know its an unpopular opinion, but everyone's favorite whipping boy, cigarettes and their manufacturers, I just see as another business selling a product. In this day and age, there's plenty of info on the dangers of smoking, so it isn't the big bad tabacco companies fault if you get addicted. Of course, I am a smoker and love the stuff, so take that as you will.
Basically I think alot of people need to grow up and own their decisions. Mcdonalds didn't make you fat, you made the decision to cram your face with burgers excessively. If you don't want to get out of the bar, that's your decision, not your bartender's.
Again, I am not saying that corporations do not have ethical responisbilities. If you are getting your parts or products from workers on slave wages in India, or your dicking your employees out of health benefits, you should be held accountable. But delivering an enticing product? No.
I changed around a few choice words just to highlight how ridiculous your rant was
Yeah but alcoholism is still an issue which affects a particular subset of people, and is somewhat independant of the various laws we make regarding liquor establishments. They only can't serve you if you're already hammered - not if you're there every day.
The same is by and large true of gambling as well.
The wider point being, that people get addicted to stuff, doesn't mean that the stuff is inherently harmful.
Right, but we label the shit out of potentially addictive substances and work hard to help people out of the ruts.
You say "video games are addictive because they do X, Y and Z" and people will just laugh. Of course, people used to/still do laugh about most mental illness, because people are twats like that.
Robman on
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
I have a real hard time justifying that the people who make "addictive" games are in any way at fault for people being constantly playing those games. Because you see, the people playing the games went out, got the game, put it on their system, and started playing it. At no point were they forced into playing the game. So it's the choice of the individual to play the game, which has nothing at all to do with the culpability of the game's creators.
We aren't even talking something sneaky here where the MMO creators secretly know a part of their games kill their customers and try to cover it up. They do studies, find out what people like, find out how much time and money they will willingly part with to get what they like, and meet somewhere in the middle.
It's an issue of priorities to me. It's up to the individual to realize that wasting dozens upon dozens of hours in a week on something like an MMO is not something to prioritize over everything else. Should we also expect car companies to monitor my driving speed because I may like going fast or TV manufacturers from restricting how much time we can watch TV? Because that's the equivalent argument here. Either people are responsible for what they choose to do or all companies should be held responsible for the irresponsible choices people make with the items the company manufactures.
In my opinion, since gaming in moderation does not hurt you, and even in excess it's unlikely to hurt many others (unlike second-hand smoke or drinking and driving) the only thing that's needed is a bit of education. Getting caught up in technicalities like whether or not its physiological is pointless. The addictive behaviour is possible, and thus we should educate the public of such a possibility.
I have a real hard time justifying that the people who make "addictive" games are in any way at fault for people being constantly playing those games. Because you see, the people playing the games went out, got the game, put it on their system, and started playing it. At no point were they forced into playing the game. So it's the choice of the individual to play the game, which has nothing at all to do with the culpability of the game's creators.
We aren't even talking something sneaky here where the MMO creators secretly know a part of their games kill their customers and try to cover it up. They do studies, find out what people like, find out how much time and money they will willingly part with to get what they like, and meet somewhere in the middle.
It's an issue of priorities to me. It's up to the individual to realize that wasting dozens upon dozens of hours in a week on something like an MMO is not something to prioritize over everything else. Should we also expect car companies to monitor my driving speed because I may like going fast or TV manufacturers from restricting how much time we can watch TV? Because that's the equivalent argument here. Either people are responsible for what they choose to do or all companies should be held responsible for the irresponsible choices people make with the items the company manufactures.
Would you turn the same argument against Casinos, Cigarette companies, drug dealers etc.
Because you're basically saying that this addiction doesn't count, without providing an compelling reason why. If some games are indeed designed from the ground up to be glorified skinner boxes, and these are shown to be very addictive for a subset of the population, shouldn't we label them like we would any other potentially addictive substance?
I have a real hard time justifying that the people who make "addictive" games are in any way at fault for people being constantly playing those games. Because you see, the people playing the games went out, got the game, put it on their system, and started playing it. At no point were they forced into playing the game. So it's the choice of the individual to play the game, which has nothing at all to do with the culpability of the game's creators.
We aren't even talking something sneaky here where the MMO creators secretly know a part of their games kill their customers and try to cover it up. They do studies, find out what people like, find out how much time and money they will willingly part with to get what they like, and meet somewhere in the middle.
It's an issue of priorities to me. It's up to the individual to realize that wasting dozens upon dozens of hours in a week on something like an MMO is not something to prioritize over everything else. Should we also expect car companies to monitor my driving speed because I may like going fast or TV manufacturers from restricting how much time we can watch TV? Because that's the equivalent argument here. Either people are responsible for what they choose to do or all companies should be held responsible for the irresponsible choices people make with the items the company manufactures.
Would you turn the same argument against Casinos, Cigarette companies, drug dealers etc.
Because you're basically saying that this addiction doesn't count, without providing an compelling reason why. If some games are indeed designed from the ground up to be glorified skinner boxes, and these are shown to be very addictive for a subset of the population, shouldn't we label them like we would any other potentially addictive substance?
Cigarettes have an actual, chemical basis for addiction. Yes yes we like to talk about how psychological addictions should count just as much, but the entire addictiveness of tobacco is centred around physically getting nicotine into your brain. I've never heard anyone complain they were addicted to herbal cigarettes.
The same is true of heroine, cocaine etc - generally the "hard" drug categories.
You can't smoke for any length of time and not get addicted, yet you can get burnt out on MMOs and computer games easily - hell, thus the basis of the industry and the expansion pack.
I also take issue with the idea we label the hell out of potentially addictive things. We don't. Alcohol is not labelled as potentially addictive, but we run awareness campaigns about alcoholism. We also do this for gambling, depression, weight loss etc. We generally should run awareness campaigns to help people identify obsessive behaviors because they're generally destructive to them but they're certainly not unique to video games, and most of the arguments belie complete ignorance of everyone's favorite goto example - WoW.
We are going to end up doing mental health awareness an utter disservice by bandwagoning on the latest new thing as totally a bigger problem then the others. We're also going to mess things up by misinterpreting what we're seeing - why for example are MMOs a bigger problem then single-player games?
I'd say the reason MMOs have a higher likelihood of causing addictive behavior is because they serve a variety of purposes; kinda like how the internet can be addictive because there's so much damn stuff you can do.
MMOs incorporate socializing, competition, teamplay, collecting, roleplaying, and a bunch of other fun stuff. If the framework appeals to you enough, then it's very easy to get completely caught up in all the aspects of WoW or whatever until you're doing nothing but.
Of course, we can agree this is only a problem when it negatively influences a person's life, right? I see a lot of people talk about MMO players as if they were a bunch of morons who just don't realize they aren't having fun.
i dont think anyone is saying its bigger than the others
the furthest anyone has gone at least in this thread is "its pretty much the same"
and everyone else doesnt believe its a legitimate thing
my view is, if alcoholism can be considered a legitimate disease (it can) then that pretty much legitimizes all addictions of the same spectrum video games included, and unlike some people here, i don't think its addition takes away form the seriousness of other so-called "real addictions"
edit: the majority view in the thread as i have read it seems to indicate a very dismissive attitude about the legitimacy of video game addiction, that in my mind makes it worth discussion of this specifically. We're nowhere near "beating a dead horse" where sensationalism comes into the picture yet
The very act of discussing it is blowing it up. We have to talk about how video games have all these things specific to them. We're not talking about the general state of mental health, or dealing with destructive behaviors of any kind. We're talking about video games specifically, for some reason. No good comes of it other then sensationalism.
I apologize, but I wouldn't stray far from Debate and Discourse if this is your response to this because other sections of the forum are going to be a danger to your mood.
Oh boy.
And I'd say that this is not a trend as the OP implies. It's very hard to break into the MMO market and the past five years are a graveyard of titles trying to cash in on the mainstream rise of WoW. Obviously the potential is vast, but it'll be a long time for subscription-based games to become the norm. If ever.
Which is what makes the PA post on RPG elements pertinent: MW2 and BFBC2 are selling shitbricks because they're FPS MMOs
But there's not monthly fee attached to these. Ideally, you want to be like Bioware and sell single-player games that don't require a lot of additional costs.
However, they did they price the first DLC for MW2, which is a glorified map pack for 15 bucks. So I may concede there if DLC picks up steam. But you still have one side claiming it's the random drops that make MMOs addictive and others saying that character building is what makes them addictive.
Sterica on
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Would you turn the same argument against Casinos, Cigarette companies, drug dealers etc.
Because you're basically saying that this addiction doesn't count, without providing an compelling reason why. If some games are indeed designed from the ground up to be glorified skinner boxes, and these are shown to be very addictive for a subset of the population, shouldn't we label them like we would any other potentially addictive substance?
The thing is that literally anything in the world which brings the user pleasure with repeated use can be construed as a Skinner Box. If somebody likes bananas way too much, is it seriously the fault of the banana growers and they have to put a little sticker on each and every banana saying "bananas are delicious, consume with caution"? Because labeling MMOs and the like as addictive won't do a damn thing besides cost companies money to put an utterly useless disclaimer which nobody will ever heed.
If people make their own personal, wide-awake, full-awareness choice to do something for endless hours, especially something which doesn't introduce foreign chemicals which create a dependency link to do so, no, I see no way in which the manufacturer is at all liable for what the consumer does with the product. If someone really does and truly get addicted to a game, then they need to deal with it because they've obviously got issues to work out. But again, people get addicted to all sorts of things. Holding an MMO maker liable for making a fun game would be the same thing as holding Fox liable for over a decade of people watching the Simpsons.
The very act of discussing it is blowing it up. We have to talk about how video games have all these things specific to them. We're not talking about the general state of mental health, or dealing with destructive behaviors of any kind. We're talking about video games specifically, for some reason. No good comes of it other then sensationalism.
So if we, on a gaming website, talk about how some video game developers are actively researching how to make some games more addictive, that's sensationalism?
Nobody is saying Dr Mario etc. is addictive. The article in the OP even says that only a small sub-set of games, those based on monthly subscriptions that employ specific tools and that are marketed to specific vulnerable populations are worrisome.
Would you turn the same argument against Casinos, Cigarette companies, drug dealers etc.
Because you're basically saying that this addiction doesn't count, without providing an compelling reason why. If some games are indeed designed from the ground up to be glorified skinner boxes, and these are shown to be very addictive for a subset of the population, shouldn't we label them like we would any other potentially addictive substance?
The thing is that literally anything in the world which brings the user pleasure with repeated use can be construed as a Skinner Box. If somebody likes bananas way too much, is it seriously the fault of the banana growers and they have to put a little sticker on each and every banana saying "bananas are delicious, consume with caution"? Because labeling MMOs and the like as addictive won't do a damn thing besides cost companies money to put an utterly useless disclaimer which nobody will ever heed.
If people make their own personal, wide-awake, full-awareness choice to do something for endless hours, especially something which doesn't introduce foreign chemicals which create a dependency link to do so, no, I see no way in which the manufacturer is at all liable for what the consumer does with the product. If someone really does and truly get addicted to a game, then they need to deal with it because they've obviously got issues to work out. But again, people get addicted to all sorts of things. Holding an MMO maker liable for making a fun game would be the same thing as holding Fox liable for over a decade of people watching the Simpsons.
Do you only have a chance at eating a banana every time you peel one?
The very act of discussing it is blowing it up. We have to talk about how video games have all these things specific to them. We're not talking about the general state of mental health, or dealing with destructive behaviors of any kind. We're talking about video games specifically, for some reason. No good comes of it other then sensationalism.
So if we, on a gaming website, talk about how some video game developers are actively researching how to make some games more addictive, that's sensationalism?
Nobody is saying Dr Mario etc. is addictive. The article in the OP even says that only a small sub-set of games, those based on monthly subscriptions that employ specific tools and that are marketed to specific vulnerable populations are worrisome.
Look at this issue with a little more resolution.
This issue doesn't have more resolution. There isn't any interesting fine detail to be gleaned here. The only outcome we're going to get is stupid laws and reactionary policy which is as likely to make vulnerable demographics more vulnerable as it is to at best accomplish nothing at all, or at worst impede the development of an art form I enjoy.
You've said it yourself right there - monthly subscription model. There's probably a lesson if you stopped and thought about it for 5 minutes about how the notion that people playing 24/7 is somehow good for developers under this model actually works. Somewhat unlike either a poker machine or a cigarette, they do not get more money each time I off a troll or even for every hour I play (compared to say, the old days of games like Ultima Online).
There's no interesting new insight to be had by looking at the games. There's a hell of a lot to be had looking at the people who get addicted, since it's pretty clear there's not anything approaching a statistically significant correlation.
Game developers are, arguably, creating predatory titles that are designed to hijack the flaws in our thinking system and rake us in for monthly payments. It's long been accepted that a fool and their money are soon parted, and I am normally loathe to say "think of the children!" but well, think of the goddamn children!
Considering that MMO payment systems tend to be subscription-based, the developers have no choice but to offer some sort of incentive to make people keep playing.
This has nothing to do with being "predatory", but rather trying to offer as much entertainment as possible for those 10-15 bucks a month. This entertainment may be addicting for some people, but the problem is with those people because they usually have addicting personalities to begin with.
If they got addicted not to MMOs, but to sex, who would you blame then? Their partners? God?
No. It is the parents' responsibility to make sure they watch for signs of addictive personality and obsessive-compulsive behavior.
Parent's don't know how addictive these games are.
Ignorance is not a very good excuse for not looking after one's child.
What the fuck does the monthly fee have to do with addiction? Is there any better reasoning than that it's correlated to MMOs?
The payment structure of WoW does not motivate developers to design with an eye towards maximizing hours played per day. Period, end, stop. WoW is still a very addictive game, of course, but it is addictive despite Blizzard's profit-motive, not because of it.
ZT Online is the exact opposite. The most addicted gamers give that company the most money. There is an explicit advantage to the developers of ZT Online to maximize the number of hours their players spend sitting in front of the game.
We've already seen that games can cause problems for people, whether you use the word "addiction" or not, but we ain't seen nothin' yet. If you think it's hard to convince Blizzard to control the elements of its game that promote destructive playstyles, imagine trying to make that argument to a company for whom such changes would instantly have a negative affect on their bottom line.
EDIT: also, a poster in last week's thread mentioned that in Asia, where the game-addiction horror stories are made, WoW (and many other MMO) subscriptions are charged by the hour. If Blizzard had intended that as the payment plan from the get-go, I would understand the allegations that they have an evil plan to shackle gamers to their desks.
What the fuck does the monthly fee have to do with addiction? Is there any better reasoning than that it's correlated to MMOs?
The payment structure of WoW does not motivate developers to design with an eye towards maximizing hours played per day. Period, end, stop. WoW is still a very addictive game, of course, but it is addictive despite Blizzard's profit-motive, not because of it.
ZT Online is the exact opposite. The most addicted gamers give that company the most money. There is an explicit advantage to the developers of ZT Online to maximize the number of hours their players spend sitting in front of the game.
We've already seen that games can cause problems for people, whether you use the word "addiction" or not, but we ain't seen nothin' yet. If you think it's hard to convince Blizzard to control the elements of its game that promote destructive playstyles, imagine trying to make that argument to a company for whom such changes would instantly have a negative affect on their bottom line.
EDIT: also, a poster in last week's thread mentioned that in Asia, where the game-addiction horror stories are made, WoW (and many other MMO) subscriptions are charged by the hour. If Blizzard had intended that as the payment plan from the get-go, I would understand the allegations that they have an evil plan to shackle gamers to their desks.
They have incentive to create a gameplay experience that never ends. New content can only hold the player's attention for the months in between content patches if it is designed to be analogous to The Skinner Box.
Wow isn't addictive despite being The Skinner Box, it is addictive because it is The Skinner Box. It is made that way because blizzard has an incentive (The monthly subscription).
EDIT: This is different from other, non-subscription based games, which have no incentive to keep the player playing after he has beaten all the skill-based content(levels, difficulties, etc.) and exhuasted all the emotionally-based content (Endings, sidequests, etc.)
This has nothing to do with being "predatory", but rather trying to offer as much entertainment as possible for those 10-15 bucks a month. This entertainment may be addicting for some people, but the problem is with those people because they usually have addicting personalities to begin with.
Man, if you think that grinding is "entertainment" I don't know what to say.
Grid System on
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Do you only have a chance at eating a banana every time you peel one?
No?
Then your comparison is silly.
I'm trying to read this with a straight face, but are you sure my comparison is the silly one?
Also, I request some clarification here. If you're referring to the gambit nature of dropped items in MMOs, then how could the addiction possibly be comparable to cigarettes? Because every time you smoke a cigarette, you have a 100% chance of getting a nicotine buzz on some level. And every time I play a multiplayer FPS online, there's a chance I might win and have fun. Does this make FPS also addictive?
What the fuck does the monthly fee have to do with addiction? Is there any better reasoning than that it's correlated to MMOs?
The payment structure of WoW does not motivate developers to design with an eye towards maximizing hours played per day. Period, end, stop. WoW is still a very addictive game, of course, but it is addictive despite Blizzard's profit-motive, not because of it.
Mate, you are not looking at it from the correct angle. It's also true that I didn't give you the whole picture so I apologize for that.
MMOs such as WoW have a very strong network externality aspect. The more people who are online, the easier it is to find groups, the quicker it is to get into battlegrounds, the more likely it is for someone to find a guild that plays regularly, etc.
What good is an MMO if the number of people online is not "massive"?
This is why mechanics such as daily quests exist. If someone is logging in to do their daily quests, that means they'll be online for a couple of hours everyday at least. During that time, they may accept group invites for instances, or go PvP. Their presence makes the game more fun for everyone. Not to mention that their income from daily quests contributes to the flow of the economy. Their presence also reinforces the perception that the game is alive and popular, which makes it more likely for trial accounts to convert to paying accounts.
This whole design has absolutely nothing to do with addiction. In fact, you could argue the exact opposite. What is the number one reason for people canceling their accounts? It's most likely either a) running out of content or b) getting burned out. Predatory game design would be a terrible long term strategy for an MMO, for this reason, even if it was based on hourly payment method. With subscriptions, you primarily want a stable customer base that will stay with you for a long time. This makes it easier to make accurate forecasts in other areas of the business, such as your expected quarterly profits or what kinds of infrastructure upgrades you will need.
This has nothing to do with being "predatory", but rather trying to offer as much entertainment as possible for those 10-15 bucks a month. This entertainment may be addicting for some people, but the problem is with those people because they usually have addicting personalities to begin with.
Man, if you think that grinding is "entertainment" I don't know what to say.
It is "entertainment" relative to the alternatives that are available to the individual.
Then again most people don't log in for the purpose of grinding - they login to chat and socialize with their guildmates over guild chat or ventrilo or whatever.
Not to mention grinding is also a necessary evil for other, more fun parts of the game, such as raiding or doing battlegrounds at level 80 where you can pwn people with your legendaries.
Perpetual on
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
Grinding is what makes the game profitable. If people didn't have to grind, devs couldn't keep them playing as long they need to for maximum profit. People tolerate that garbage; if they log in to do it for fun, then yeah, they probably really do have some serious problems. Like being a zombie.
Parent's don't know how addictive these games are. There's no warning labels. There's no publicly available information like there is about gambling or smoking. People who are "addicted" to video games are mocked unlike anything seen in people with other addiction problems.
Important to note is that this is not a condemnation of video games, but rather a particular type of video game design, where the player is drawn in and ensnared in a carefully designed trap.
I agree that there is a lack of awareness about the addictive potential of games, as opposed to gambling or cigarettes. And as you pointed out, people who are seriously addicted to games are also usually made fun of, which isn't right.
But would a warning label on addictive games really stop anyone from buying them? Particularly games like WoW, which is rated T here in the United States, and can be bought by teenagers who probably wouldn't give half a shit about a warning like that. Furthermore, how would you decide which games are addictive and which ones aren't? Would developers change their games to avoid, or even get the label? To me, a label that says "some people may find this game addictive" reads more like "this game is probably good."
It's not the same as putting a warning label on cigarettes, because if you smoke cigarettes often enough you will become addicted, but there is no guarantee that you will become addicted to a video game. As others have said, people can become addicted to pretty much anything that they find rewarding enough, particularly if the rewards are intermittent. It all depends on how your brain is wired... personally, I never gamble or feel any temptation to do so, because I don't find it all that fun and I know the odds are against me, yet it can and has ruined other people's lives.
Drugs are different, because they reliably stimulate the 'reward' sections of your brain. That doesn't always guarantee addiction either, but it is a universal response and therefore justifies a warning label. There's just too much variation in individual responses to video games for labels like that.
Not to mention grinding is also a necessary evil for other, more fun parts of the game, such as raiding or doing battlegrounds at level 80 where you can pwn people with your legendaries.
Not to mention grinding is also a necessary evil for other, more fun parts of the game, such as raiding or doing battlegrounds at level 80 where you can pwn people with your legendaries.
WTF
Like hell it is.
Care to elaborate?
Did you figure out a way to reach end-game without grinding?
You know, thanks to an earlier person mentioning Anti-Poop Socking, I felt like I should investigate the obvious Tvtropes link tied to it. Guess how many windows I have open now?
Speaking of addictive behavior, maybe the Internet's got options beyond games. Honestly, I find I often am worse with Internet features (forums, webcomics, dating sites,) than I am with games, and I love video games.
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
Not to mention grinding is also a necessary evil for other, more fun parts of the game, such as raiding or doing battlegrounds at level 80 where you can pwn people with your legendaries.
WTF
Like hell it is.
Care to elaborate?
Did you figure out a way to reach end-game without grinding?
Yeah, it's called content. But that's hard and time-consuming to create, and even if you generate a nigh-inexhaustible supply, eventually the player will have enough of that kind of entertainment and leave it.
Not to mention grinding is also a necessary evil for other, more fun parts of the game, such as raiding or doing battlegrounds at level 80 where you can pwn people with your legendaries.
WTF
Like hell it is.
Care to elaborate?
Did you figure out a way to reach end-game without grinding?
Yeah, it's called content. But that's hard and time-consuming to create, and even if you generate a nigh-inexhaustible supply, eventually the player will have enough of that kind of entertainment and leave it.
Content is meaningless if players experience it once and then forget about it.
No MMO developer would be in business today without repetitive content, in fact.
Content is meaningless if players experience it once and then forget about it.
Why? One experience by millions of people would seem to be more significant than one person experiencing the same thing a million times, if anything. And who said anything about the content being forgettable?
No MMO developer would be in business today without repetitive content, in fact.
Which tells me something about the whole business model.
Posts
Yeah I'd agree with this.
I guess to me though it's just that with video games, including MMOs, in their current forms I have absolutely no problem placing the responsibility wholly on the player. A little popup window reminding you every couple hours it's been since you logged in as a courtesy is about as far as I'm willing to go at this point.
They have better things now like daily quests that limit how much you can do in a day and Blizzard started making loot much easier to get with each major patch so people could take a break and not feel like they're falling behind as much. The game also relies less on randomized loot drops which helps a lot.
Basically, you have to change the game design rather than pop up easily-ignored messages.
Does Guild Wars actually do that?
WoW sorta has the right idea. I'm not sure if the rested experience is a good example. It's per-character, and is really more of a system in place to boost the people who don't play often up a tad.
But Blizzard does have the account settings where parental controls are in play. It doesn't have to just be parents monitoring a child's playtime. Friends could intervene and utilize that system for that purpose. It's a means provided by the company for individuals (and those that surround them) to have a safety net, or responsibility net.
Rested is a large boost to experience and any system that eliminates the "falling behind" fear is a good one. They already plan to do this more in the future, so Blizzard is taking some steps to fix this.
One's lack of willpower is not a reaonable excuse to point the finger at others. No one can make you stay on your ass, or get off of it, but you.
Addiction is thrown around way too often and casually. But hell, there are even geniunly addictive products whose producers I do not find "evil." I know its an unpopular opinion, but everyone's favorite whipping boy, cigarettes and their manufacturers, I just see as another business selling a product. In this day and age, there's plenty of info on the dangers of smoking, so it isn't the big bad tabacco companies fault if you get addicted. Of course, I am a smoker and love the stuff, so take that as you will.
Basically I think alot of people need to grow up and own their decisions. Mcdonalds didn't make you fat, you made the decision to cram your face with burgers excessively. If you don't want to get out of the house, that's your decision, not your avatar's in a MMORPG.
Again, I am not saying that corporations do not have ethical responisbilities. If you are getting your parts or products from workers on slave wages in India, or your dicking your employees out of health benefits, you should be held accountable. But delivering an enticing product? No.
Which is what makes the PA post on RPG elements pertinent: MW2 and BFBC2 are selling shitbricks because they're FPS MMOs
I changed around a few choice words just to highlight how ridiculous your rant was
The same is by and large true of gambling as well.
The wider point being, that people get addicted to stuff, doesn't mean that the stuff is inherently harmful.
You say "video games are addictive because they do X, Y and Z" and people will just laugh. Of course, people used to/still do laugh about most mental illness, because people are twats like that.
We aren't even talking something sneaky here where the MMO creators secretly know a part of their games kill their customers and try to cover it up. They do studies, find out what people like, find out how much time and money they will willingly part with to get what they like, and meet somewhere in the middle.
It's an issue of priorities to me. It's up to the individual to realize that wasting dozens upon dozens of hours in a week on something like an MMO is not something to prioritize over everything else. Should we also expect car companies to monitor my driving speed because I may like going fast or TV manufacturers from restricting how much time we can watch TV? Because that's the equivalent argument here. Either people are responsible for what they choose to do or all companies should be held responsible for the irresponsible choices people make with the items the company manufactures.
Steam: CavilatRest
Would you turn the same argument against Casinos, Cigarette companies, drug dealers etc.
Because you're basically saying that this addiction doesn't count, without providing an compelling reason why. If some games are indeed designed from the ground up to be glorified skinner boxes, and these are shown to be very addictive for a subset of the population, shouldn't we label them like we would any other potentially addictive substance?
Cigarettes have an actual, chemical basis for addiction. Yes yes we like to talk about how psychological addictions should count just as much, but the entire addictiveness of tobacco is centred around physically getting nicotine into your brain. I've never heard anyone complain they were addicted to herbal cigarettes.
The same is true of heroine, cocaine etc - generally the "hard" drug categories.
You can't smoke for any length of time and not get addicted, yet you can get burnt out on MMOs and computer games easily - hell, thus the basis of the industry and the expansion pack.
I also take issue with the idea we label the hell out of potentially addictive things. We don't. Alcohol is not labelled as potentially addictive, but we run awareness campaigns about alcoholism. We also do this for gambling, depression, weight loss etc. We generally should run awareness campaigns to help people identify obsessive behaviors because they're generally destructive to them but they're certainly not unique to video games, and most of the arguments belie complete ignorance of everyone's favorite goto example - WoW.
We are going to end up doing mental health awareness an utter disservice by bandwagoning on the latest new thing as totally a bigger problem then the others. We're also going to mess things up by misinterpreting what we're seeing - why for example are MMOs a bigger problem then single-player games?
MMOs incorporate socializing, competition, teamplay, collecting, roleplaying, and a bunch of other fun stuff. If the framework appeals to you enough, then it's very easy to get completely caught up in all the aspects of WoW or whatever until you're doing nothing but.
Of course, we can agree this is only a problem when it negatively influences a person's life, right? I see a lot of people talk about MMO players as if they were a bunch of morons who just don't realize they aren't having fun.
the furthest anyone has gone at least in this thread is "its pretty much the same"
and everyone else doesnt believe its a legitimate thing
my view is, if alcoholism can be considered a legitimate disease (it can) then that pretty much legitimizes all addictions of the same spectrum video games included, and unlike some people here, i don't think its addition takes away form the seriousness of other so-called "real addictions"
edit: the majority view in the thread as i have read it seems to indicate a very dismissive attitude about the legitimacy of video game addiction, that in my mind makes it worth discussion of this specifically. We're nowhere near "beating a dead horse" where sensationalism comes into the picture yet
However, they did they price the first DLC for MW2, which is a glorified map pack for 15 bucks. So I may concede there if DLC picks up steam. But you still have one side claiming it's the random drops that make MMOs addictive and others saying that character building is what makes them addictive.
The thing is that literally anything in the world which brings the user pleasure with repeated use can be construed as a Skinner Box. If somebody likes bananas way too much, is it seriously the fault of the banana growers and they have to put a little sticker on each and every banana saying "bananas are delicious, consume with caution"? Because labeling MMOs and the like as addictive won't do a damn thing besides cost companies money to put an utterly useless disclaimer which nobody will ever heed.
If people make their own personal, wide-awake, full-awareness choice to do something for endless hours, especially something which doesn't introduce foreign chemicals which create a dependency link to do so, no, I see no way in which the manufacturer is at all liable for what the consumer does with the product. If someone really does and truly get addicted to a game, then they need to deal with it because they've obviously got issues to work out. But again, people get addicted to all sorts of things. Holding an MMO maker liable for making a fun game would be the same thing as holding Fox liable for over a decade of people watching the Simpsons.
So if we, on a gaming website, talk about how some video game developers are actively researching how to make some games more addictive, that's sensationalism?
Nobody is saying Dr Mario etc. is addictive. The article in the OP even says that only a small sub-set of games, those based on monthly subscriptions that employ specific tools and that are marketed to specific vulnerable populations are worrisome.
Look at this issue with a little more resolution.
Do you only have a chance at eating a banana every time you peel one?
No?
Then your comparison is silly.
This issue doesn't have more resolution. There isn't any interesting fine detail to be gleaned here. The only outcome we're going to get is stupid laws and reactionary policy which is as likely to make vulnerable demographics more vulnerable as it is to at best accomplish nothing at all, or at worst impede the development of an art form I enjoy.
You've said it yourself right there - monthly subscription model. There's probably a lesson if you stopped and thought about it for 5 minutes about how the notion that people playing 24/7 is somehow good for developers under this model actually works. Somewhat unlike either a poker machine or a cigarette, they do not get more money each time I off a troll or even for every hour I play (compared to say, the old days of games like Ultima Online).
There's no interesting new insight to be had by looking at the games. There's a hell of a lot to be had looking at the people who get addicted, since it's pretty clear there's not anything approaching a statistically significant correlation.
Considering that MMO payment systems tend to be subscription-based, the developers have no choice but to offer some sort of incentive to make people keep playing.
This has nothing to do with being "predatory", but rather trying to offer as much entertainment as possible for those 10-15 bucks a month. This entertainment may be addicting for some people, but the problem is with those people because they usually have addicting personalities to begin with.
If they got addicted not to MMOs, but to sex, who would you blame then? Their partners? God?
No. It is the parents' responsibility to make sure they watch for signs of addictive personality and obsessive-compulsive behavior.
Ignorance is not a very good excuse for not looking after one's child.
The payment structure of WoW does not motivate developers to design with an eye towards maximizing hours played per day. Period, end, stop. WoW is still a very addictive game, of course, but it is addictive despite Blizzard's profit-motive, not because of it.
ZT Online is the exact opposite. The most addicted gamers give that company the most money. There is an explicit advantage to the developers of ZT Online to maximize the number of hours their players spend sitting in front of the game.
We've already seen that games can cause problems for people, whether you use the word "addiction" or not, but we ain't seen nothin' yet. If you think it's hard to convince Blizzard to control the elements of its game that promote destructive playstyles, imagine trying to make that argument to a company for whom such changes would instantly have a negative affect on their bottom line.
EDIT: also, a poster in last week's thread mentioned that in Asia, where the game-addiction horror stories are made, WoW (and many other MMO) subscriptions are charged by the hour. If Blizzard had intended that as the payment plan from the get-go, I would understand the allegations that they have an evil plan to shackle gamers to their desks.
They have incentive to create a gameplay experience that never ends. New content can only hold the player's attention for the months in between content patches if it is designed to be analogous to The Skinner Box.
Wow isn't addictive despite being The Skinner Box, it is addictive because it is The Skinner Box. It is made that way because blizzard has an incentive (The monthly subscription).
EDIT: This is different from other, non-subscription based games, which have no incentive to keep the player playing after he has beaten all the skill-based content(levels, difficulties, etc.) and exhuasted all the emotionally-based content (Endings, sidequests, etc.)
I'm trying to read this with a straight face, but are you sure my comparison is the silly one?
Also, I request some clarification here. If you're referring to the gambit nature of dropped items in MMOs, then how could the addiction possibly be comparable to cigarettes? Because every time you smoke a cigarette, you have a 100% chance of getting a nicotine buzz on some level. And every time I play a multiplayer FPS online, there's a chance I might win and have fun. Does this make FPS also addictive?
Mate, you are not looking at it from the correct angle. It's also true that I didn't give you the whole picture so I apologize for that.
MMOs such as WoW have a very strong network externality aspect. The more people who are online, the easier it is to find groups, the quicker it is to get into battlegrounds, the more likely it is for someone to find a guild that plays regularly, etc.
What good is an MMO if the number of people online is not "massive"?
This is why mechanics such as daily quests exist. If someone is logging in to do their daily quests, that means they'll be online for a couple of hours everyday at least. During that time, they may accept group invites for instances, or go PvP. Their presence makes the game more fun for everyone. Not to mention that their income from daily quests contributes to the flow of the economy. Their presence also reinforces the perception that the game is alive and popular, which makes it more likely for trial accounts to convert to paying accounts.
This whole design has absolutely nothing to do with addiction. In fact, you could argue the exact opposite. What is the number one reason for people canceling their accounts? It's most likely either a) running out of content or b) getting burned out. Predatory game design would be a terrible long term strategy for an MMO, for this reason, even if it was based on hourly payment method. With subscriptions, you primarily want a stable customer base that will stay with you for a long time. This makes it easier to make accurate forecasts in other areas of the business, such as your expected quarterly profits or what kinds of infrastructure upgrades you will need.
It is "entertainment" relative to the alternatives that are available to the individual.
Then again most people don't log in for the purpose of grinding - they login to chat and socialize with their guildmates over guild chat or ventrilo or whatever.
Not to mention grinding is also a necessary evil for other, more fun parts of the game, such as raiding or doing battlegrounds at level 80 where you can pwn people with your legendaries.
I agree that there is a lack of awareness about the addictive potential of games, as opposed to gambling or cigarettes. And as you pointed out, people who are seriously addicted to games are also usually made fun of, which isn't right.
But would a warning label on addictive games really stop anyone from buying them? Particularly games like WoW, which is rated T here in the United States, and can be bought by teenagers who probably wouldn't give half a shit about a warning like that. Furthermore, how would you decide which games are addictive and which ones aren't? Would developers change their games to avoid, or even get the label? To me, a label that says "some people may find this game addictive" reads more like "this game is probably good."
It's not the same as putting a warning label on cigarettes, because if you smoke cigarettes often enough you will become addicted, but there is no guarantee that you will become addicted to a video game. As others have said, people can become addicted to pretty much anything that they find rewarding enough, particularly if the rewards are intermittent. It all depends on how your brain is wired... personally, I never gamble or feel any temptation to do so, because I don't find it all that fun and I know the odds are against me, yet it can and has ruined other people's lives.
Drugs are different, because they reliably stimulate the 'reward' sections of your brain. That doesn't always guarantee addiction either, but it is a universal response and therefore justifies a warning label. There's just too much variation in individual responses to video games for labels like that.
Like hell it is.
Care to elaborate?
Did you figure out a way to reach end-game without grinding?
Speaking of addictive behavior, maybe the Internet's got options beyond games. Honestly, I find I often am worse with Internet features (forums, webcomics, dating sites,) than I am with games, and I love video games.
Content is meaningless if players experience it once and then forget about it.
No MMO developer would be in business today without repetitive content, in fact.
Which is why I say grinding is a necessary evil.
Which tells me something about the whole business model.
Death to MMOs! :rotate:
What about a million people experiencing the same thing a million times?
Because that's what WoW is, and it seems to be doing very fine.
I'm not defending the business model, I'm just describing it to you.
If you are going to judge it, at least do so on sound reasoning.
But my reasoning is comfortable and familiar!