Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘Gaming disorder’ is officially recognized by the World Health Organization

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 236 posts

Re: ‘Gaming disorder’ is officially recognized by the World Health Organization

#121

Post by Drakim »

OberstKrueger wrote: post #120
mattlondon wrote: post #109

This is made worse in my mind for games that are essentially single-player yet have some sort of online element that means you cant just hit pause or save & exit whenever you want. You have to keep on going for longer than you want until it is "safe" for you to stop. In the old days you could just exit out to the pause menu or save so you could go to the toilet or answer the phone or talk to your family and your in-g…

Do you have any examples of games like this? I know there are singleplayer games that require you to be online even when playing solo(i.e. Diablo 3), but when you're solo, you can still pause the game. Curious to know what developers don't allow such actions.

Only ones I can think of is Dark Souls and Resident Evil 6, as other players can invade your single-player game to try to kill you.

Re: ‘Gaming disorder’ is officially recognized by the World Health Organization

#122

Post by dagw »

XalvinX wrote: post #99

Yet more bullshit "diseases" invented by the psychiatric community to push drugs for their big pharma overlords. Doesn't the WHO have better things to do, like fighting real diseases such as malaria? Everybody goes on little sprees of one kind or another during their lives. Up next, "sudden love syndrome" ...the symptoms are about the same, aren't they? No, in fact they are exactly the same if you replace "your new s…

Everybody goes on little sprees of one kind or another during their lives.

Have you actually read what the WHO have said? They're not talking about about 'little sprees', they're talking about sustained patterns of behavior that stretch over at least 12 month and "result in significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas". This is not about people who occasionally blow off some social engagement so they can spend the weekend playing Counterstrike for 20 hours straight.

If it's not negatively affecting your life then, per definition, you're not covered by this.

Re: ‘Gaming disorder’ is officially recognized by the World Health Organization

#123

Post by glastra »

imtringued wrote: post #108
gehwartzen wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people that spend most of their available hours staring at screens of graphs while trading various tokens in order to achieve the highest score... but of course we call them professionals not addicts.

Trading on an exchange is zero sum for the active participants and has secondary benefits like increased liquidity and less volatility for the passive participants. Gambling is negative sum for all participants. The house is always going to win. The jackpots are just a user acquisition expense to trick even more participants into playing.

What about commissions on traded volume?

Re: ‘Gaming disorder’ is officially recognized by the World Health Organization

#124

Post by rohitb91 »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #85

I started playing Starcraft and watching it about 2 years ago. I’ve always had an obsessive mind and had stopped playing games since high school. It’s reached a point where I almost dedicate every free moment to playing. Games are incredibly addictive and it can be hard to stop. Back when I didn’t play I never understood why people play games so much. Games used to be only for geeks and boys but now everybody plays t…

Yep I've had the same problem with counter-strike, SC2 and LoL. All my mind would be devoted to the games and I'd live in a state of ignorance bliss about my career, building up networks, building up any skills whatsoever.

Bad times.

Re: ‘Gaming disorder’ is officially recognized by the World Health Organization

#125

Post by cirgue »

announcerman wrote: post #107

Is obsessing over things related to real life like social ties, money, career, or anything else that will surely pass after you die a disorder? If it isn't then why not?

Because activities related to those things create sustained material security and personal fulfillment. Your efforts at building a strong network of friends pay dividends for decades, the equivalent amount of time playing video games has no bearing on your life a year from now.

Re: ‘Gaming disorder’ is officially recognized by the World Health Organization

#126

Post by stouset »

Drakim wrote: post #121
OberstKrueger wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any examples of games like this? I know there are singleplayer games that require you to be online even when playing solo(i.e. Diablo 3), but when you're solo, you can still pause the game. Curious to know what developers don't allow such actions.

Only ones I can think of is Dark Souls and Resident Evil 6, as other players can invade your single-player game to try to kill you.

In Dark Souls, you can just quit the game and resume exactly where you were in a matter of seconds.

Re: ‘Gaming disorder’ is officially recognized by the World Health Organization

#127

Post by slazaro »

Drakim wrote: post #121
OberstKrueger wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any examples of games like this? I know there are singleplayer games that require you to be online even when playing solo(i.e. Diablo 3), but when you're solo, you can still pause the game. Curious to know what developers don't allow such actions.

Only ones I can think of is Dark Souls and Resident Evil 6, as other players can invade your single-player game to try to kill you.

How is it a single-player game then? I think I'm out of touch with newer games...

Re: ‘Gaming disorder’ is officially recognized by the World Health Organization

#129

Post by mattlondon »

OberstKrueger wrote: post #120
mattlondon wrote: post #109

This is made worse in my mind for games that are essentially single-player yet have some sort of online element that means you cant just hit pause or save & exit whenever you want. You have to keep on going for longer than you want until it is "safe" for you to stop. In the old days you could just exit out to the pause menu or save so you could go to the toilet or answer the phone or talk to your family and your in-g…

Do you have any examples of games like this? I know there are singleplayer games that require you to be online even when playing solo(i.e. Diablo 3), but when you're solo, you can still pause the game. Curious to know what developers don't allow such actions.

Elite Dangerous and Rust are two particular examples I had in mind when writing this.

Re: ‘Gaming disorder’ is officially recognized by the World Health Organization

#130

Post by ericdykstra »

mattlondon wrote: post #109

This is made worse in my mind for games that are essentially single-player yet have some sort of online element that means you cant just hit pause or save & exit whenever you want. You have to keep on going for longer than you want until it is "safe" for you to stop. In the old days you could just exit out to the pause menu or save so you could go to the toilet or answer the phone or talk to your family and your in-g…

There are tens of thousands of games you could be playing, and only a fraction of single-player games have anything like this. If you don't like the small fraction that do, choose other games. I can't even think of any single-player game off the top of my head that I can't pause or save and quit progress at any time.
Post reply on HN