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

221–230 of 236 posts

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

#221

Post by RugnirViking »

beenBoutIT wrote: post #210
pdpi wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Personal, family, social functioning are all impaired still.

In the US the university experience allows a ridiculously care-free existence for many students, temporarily. A while back a friend in university was stuck with a deadbeat live-in GF that he couldn't get to leave. He ended up getting a copy of GTA Vice City and focusing on it until she voluntarily left without a fuss a week later. The GTA franchise in general aren't extremely addictive games, but the negative impact…

You can have a ridiculously care-free existence too if you take out loans for the yearly income of the 1% for a couple years.

Except these people voluntarily spend what is essentially their free time working to improve skills and the economy of the country

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

#222

Post by Sylamore »

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…

I actually remember this being worse on games from the 80s and 90s because some of them didn't even have a save option at all (say River Raid) so you had to start over from scratch any time you stopped playing. Or games like Metroid or Zelda on the NES where you had to be at a save point or you'd lose all your progress since the last save.

Today it's always online games, if you're in the middle of a level/mission the only option you have is to quit which if it's a competitive game leaves your team at a disadvantage, plus some games penalize you if you habitually quit early. In some games, like BF1 or the recent CoDs someone can immediately come back in to take your place if you are playing in a casual game mode, but the more competitive game modes won't allow someone else to join (Breakout in Halo 5 for example).

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

#223

Post by feocco »

zaarn wrote: post #218
anyfoo wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone proposed imposing regulation on the consumer, only on the provider. There is a lot of regulation on that side already, and some of it is actually rather welcomed. For example, if I compare the amount of advertisement that TV channels are allowed to show in Germany vs. in the US, I am certainly for regulation... (back when I still cared about television)

I agree on that comparison. Since I regularly consume an american TV show as part of a community, I get to see the ads too. For the 20 minute episode, there is 10 minutes of ads, just over 1 minute each 2 or 3 minutes, roughly. The same episode on german TV has three ad interruptions. One 5 minute one in the middle, a overlay ad about 5 minutes before the end and a zoom out during the credits showing ads to the side…

I think it's a poor comparison. Equating ads to playtime? Sure you can tangentially involve DLC as an "ad" but it's a big stretch.

Regulating length of ads is silly too. You can just purchase the show and watch it with no ads. Or don't watch the channel. Or watch different content.

Seems the above comments are generalizing to justify controlling media consumption. Regardless of which side regulation comes down on. I see a very slippery slope.

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

#224

Post by XalvinX »

bitL wrote: post #117
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…

Can't wait to see the name of "medication" for gamers - "game over" pills?

Wow, at least one person on the same page as me here. I just don't care what people think..."addiction" to a game and the associated anti-social and possibly self-destructive behavior is just not a disease. Or, if it is, then the sky is the limit on what will be called (and yes, medicated) as a disease. And I don't like the trend...look at the stats, they are medicating tens of millions of children in the US alone for crap just like this.........

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

#225

Post by anyfoo »

feocco wrote: post #223
zaarn wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree on that comparison. Since I regularly consume an american TV show as part of a community, I get to see the ads too. For the 20 minute episode, there is 10 minutes of ads, just over 1 minute each 2 or 3 minutes, roughly. The same episode on german TV has three ad interruptions. One 5 minute one in the middle, a overlay ad about 5 minutes before the end and a zoom out during the credits showing ads to the side…

I think it's a poor comparison. Equating ads to playtime? Sure you can tangentially involve DLC as an "ad" but it's a big stretch. Regulating length of ads is silly too. You can just purchase the show and watch it with no ads. Or don't watch the channel. Or watch different content. Seems the above comments are generalizing to justify controlling media consumption. Regardless of which side regulation comes down on. I…

I don't see why regulating the length of ads is silly at all. Several countries have been doing it for many decades. It works really well and has not led to any slippery slope, and made television much better overall. I have direct comparisons available from living in several countries during my lifetime--do you?

The slippery slope has been going down the opposite hill, actually, in America: It's amazing how much less rights a consumer has in the US compared to, again for example, in Germany.

The "well just don't do/consume/choose X then" argument is extremely shortsighted. If X is provided by commercial entities, then those commercial entities will, together, converge towards maximum profits with no regards for the consumer at all. Regulation is necessary as a counteractive force. A prime piece of evidence actually comes from your own post: "Don't watch the channel". Ok, I switched the channel on my cable box, now what? Ah, still the same.

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

#226

Post by bwbw223 »

DanBC wrote: post #200
DEADBEEFC0FFEE wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can relate. I have taught myself to judge the impact of the StayAndPlay behavioral, and if necessary Alt-F4, walk away. Getting the shopping out of the car when my wife gets back is not more important, but not helping my wife is perceived as rude, and that is important. I'm trying to teach my boy this. Fortnite is absolutely gaming crack designed by psychologists. Powerful shit.

My child enjoys Fortnite Battle Royale. I wanted to buy him Fortnite until he somehow got a free trial for a few days. All the loot boxes really put me off it.

Fortnite is free. The lootboxes, as far as I know, are mostly cosmetic and don’t give an advantage.

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

#227

Post by zaarn »

feocco wrote: post #223
zaarn wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree on that comparison. Since I regularly consume an american TV show as part of a community, I get to see the ads too. For the 20 minute episode, there is 10 minutes of ads, just over 1 minute each 2 or 3 minutes, roughly. The same episode on german TV has three ad interruptions. One 5 minute one in the middle, a overlay ad about 5 minutes before the end and a zoom out during the credits showing ads to the side…

I think it's a poor comparison. Equating ads to playtime? Sure you can tangentially involve DLC as an "ad" but it's a big stretch. Regulating length of ads is silly too. You can just purchase the show and watch it with no ads. Or don't watch the channel. Or watch different content. Seems the above comments are generalizing to justify controlling media consumption. Regardless of which side regulation comes down on. I…

>Regulating length of ads is silly too.

It's not really. The limited amount of adspace, about 10 minutes full screen and 4 or 5 minutes side, some banners, have greatly increased the value of ads on TV.

More expensive ads also means the ads are of much higher quality and less annoying than the US ads.

Buying the content is of course always an option but this is largely form an era before buying content was even an option or required extremely expensive VHS players.

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

#228

Post by krageon »

bwbw223 wrote: post #226
DanBC wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My child enjoys Fortnite Battle Royale. I wanted to buy him Fortnite until he somehow got a free trial for a few days. All the loot boxes really put me off it.

Fortnite is free. The lootboxes, as far as I know, are mostly cosmetic and don’t give an advantage.

But they are inherently addictive (as in, they are meant to be and it is widely known that they are). You generally want to limit children's exposure to addictive things that bring them nothing at all. It's their formative years, after all.

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

#229

Post by krageon »

gruez wrote: post #157
mattlondon wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

both are actual multiplayer games, so it doesn't match parent's description

Elite can be played solo, in which case it (obviously) isn't multiplayer.

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

#230

Post by krageon »

ericdykstra wrote: post #190
Rotdhizon wrote: post #172

Posted it the other day on another thread, will post it here again so people can see it. Here is my own experience with this. As crazy as these articles have been about gaming addiction being a medical condition are, I believe it. I'm in my early 20s, ever since I was in my mid teens I was addicted to video games. All through grade school and in college now, I struggle to put the controller down. I routinely don't ge…

Just play enough clicker games until you realize that "progression for progression's sake" is nothing but an empty dopamine hit. Games can be a fantastic story-telling medium, a competitive environment where you can test your skill and intellect against real human opponents, a lot of pure fun, or a way to spend time playing cooperatively with friends. All of these can be worthwhile activities in different ways. Grind…

I'm not in the same boat as the person you are responding to, but I do play a lot more videogames than most people. I'm a huge fan of clicker games, because to me they represent the essence of modern life and I find that hilarious. What you call "nothing but an empty dopamine hit" is really just most things people find valuable in life.
Post reply on HN