Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by mattie_p on Tuesday February 25 2014, @02:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the games-watch-you! dept.

siliconwafer writes: "An article in The Economist raises some interesting points about addiction to video games, drawing from psychology and sociology to describe why certain people prefer certain types of games, and why they might become addicted to them. It is suggested that to discourage addiction, game designers could have their games recognize addictive behavior and respond to it by encouraging gamers to take breaks. Do game designers have any responsibility to recognize addictive behavior, or does this responsibility fall solely on the gamer (or the gamer's parents in the case of a minor)?"

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Serial_Priest on Tuesday February 25 2014, @08:53PM

    by Serial_Priest (2493) <{accusingangel} {at} {autistici.org}> on Tuesday February 25 2014, @08:53PM (#6931)

    Without the right to engage in self-destructive behavior, there is no freedom. Almost anything in excess is dangerous, but the alternative to allowing excess is implementing suffocating social/political rules. As others have pointed out, the principle extends far beyond gaming. Why not police other "suboptimal" activity? Ban soft drinks, medicate hyperactive children, obey authority, drink the Kool-Aid. It's all a piece of the same awful pie.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2