471–480 of 516 posts
Now parents can’t be sure if the kids are working on homework or playing. Or multitasking.
Instead of teachers grading written homework, kids visit clunky websites created by textbook manufacturers, and do their homework online. Takes longer, and can be frustrating, but easier for the teachers. Pearson example: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/mt842499.aspx
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really not, feels like a case of "the things I did when I was young were good, but the kids these days..."
Mortal Kombat and Doom didn't have loot crates where the cool looking items were all low chance to be had upon opening and the loot crates can be bought with real money?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a "Stallman" hosts file, that blocks all sites that do not have incredibly free software? I feel like dumping a kid into the deep end of linux box with access some so-so games installed and letting them figure out how to make things work is extremely valuable learning experience. It's the "passive" screen behaviors that are harmful IMO.
This is my plan for when my kids grow older. Linux box. Some basic games.. Python/ruby/lua interpreter, even better games written in those languages. It will have connection but iptables will block everything. If they ever figure out how to disable that they are ready :) Man pages and other docs will be there for them to enjoy. I will also buy some printed books for python, shell etc They gona fucking hate me, but I…
I agree that computer knowledge is a must, but I think time is spent more wisely if they are aware of the concepts and how mundane they actually are. (I.e., programming and scripts are not arcane stuff)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious to know some examples of what is and isn't permitted. The flashing lights, interesting but not too interesting ding-dong-boom sounds, the loud massive amping up when you win something, all that is allowed and I believe (though don't quite have a source at hand) that these are provably enticing hooks. I'm sure there are things that aren't, but I'm curious as to what. I'm also curious about want Candy Crush…
The most basic thing Candy Crush does that slot machines can't is adapt its behavior to the user. Candy Crush can (and does) let you play freely, only to popup the "insert coin to get help" when you are stuck. It also adjusts the game play to your level (by advancing to harder levels) so that you are always challenged and possibly get stuck. If you advance by paying, you probably will need to pay more to get further…
It's the "Ah, you know what I mean." saying.
No actually, we don't "know" what you mean, and that's the really question that needs answered in the public zeitgeist.
Most here "know" what it means. However, quantifying that into a simple statement or phrase like "screen time" is not so easy.
Are there any recommendations?
I think something along the lines of "screen farmed", seems to fit. A company using your time in their site/app to make money. So that company is "Screen Farming" you.
Thoughts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious to know some examples of what is and isn't permitted. The flashing lights, interesting but not too interesting ding-dong-boom sounds, the loud massive amping up when you win something, all that is allowed and I believe (though don't quite have a source at hand) that these are provably enticing hooks. I'm sure there are things that aren't, but I'm curious as to what. I'm also curious about want Candy Crush…
The most basic thing Candy Crush does that slot machines can't is adapt its behavior to the user. Candy Crush can (and does) let you play freely, only to popup the "insert coin to get help" when you are stuck. It also adjusts the game play to your level (by advancing to harder levels) so that you are always challenged and possibly get stuck. If you advance by paying, you probably will need to pay more to get further…
The industry is getting too greedy these days, even paid AAA games have this microtransaction crap, they are milking gamers dry.
Ironically the gaming press barely talks about this.
I think it's less about the screen time, and more about what's on the screen. Echoing some of the existing comments: Games and sites today are vastly different than they were 20 years ago. Games like Civilization, Quake, Diablo, C&C, Mortal Kombat, Tony Hawk etc... were definitely addictive. But modern games like Fortnite and Clash of Clans are not engineered the same way. They are specifically designed to function l…
There's a increase of 'frequency' at the expense of depth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the TOS of all games say that the player does not own them Yet loads of people sell their in-game items (that they got through chance) for real money. So in a sense, they do own them.
Usually despite being banned by the TOS, as a black market kind of operation. More problematicly, im not sure how youd stop it from extending to say WoW gold-selling, or even cartridges with 100% saves on them. People will attribute value to anything for any number of reasons, but I’m not sure you can make regulation on anything beyond “encouraging” such behavior. (And I would assume these companies already actively…
There are some game developers looking at sanctioned RMT right now because it would be a huge selling point. "Make money playing video games" used to be a popular slogan on tacky banner ads. That could see a comeback in a different way.
Sanctioned RMT works through some official marketplace (think Diablo 3's ill-fated Auction House). Not only does the developer not pay out anything (all money flowing through the auction house is coming from buyers of items), but they even take a "transaction fee" cut. All while continuing to own all the items being traded. There's no downside for the "house".
Except perhaps suddenly running afoul of gambling regulations if they can no longer argue there's no "prize" element to the gambling?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are specifically designed to function like a slot machine. I work in the gambling industry, making literally slot machines. Slot machines are heavily regulated and there is a lot of "engagement" tricks that can not be used in the gambling industry. The kind of trick that Candy Crush will use. The dangerous side of gambling is for people that think that they can "win money". But the games themselves are kind of…
You've gotten me wondering: Why AREN'T certain games subject to the same regulations as slot machines? Is that a state-by-state regulation? A federal regulation? And does the regulating code specifically mention physical machines? Thanks in advance for satisfying my curiosity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was an avid gamer, and today I have a wonderful family and I manage 70 people, but I’m not sure my screen time really did me that much good. I don’t think it did me that much harm either, but I would probably have been better off being a normal kid. I think modern games absolutely do harm, I don’t think they should really be called games either, because they are build for addiction to make you play their built in s…
> They grew up much healthier than their peers and I think it was the strict rules on technology that did most of the work. I'm noticing this among my cousins, at least among social health. I've got one cousin who just entered 7th grade this year, and might be the only person in her class without a phone. One of her best friends just got one at the beginning of the year. Those two are among the only two who actually…
(Someone else said that some fifty years ago, but Cook's quote is what comes up now in a quick search ...)