"Gaming Disorder" Now A Recognized Illness According To World Health Organization

What does your post have to do with mine? Are you positive you quoted the correct person?

 

We are using the psychological definition of addiction, not the colloquial definition. The WHO is not stating that fun games are bad for you.

 

It's almost exploitation when psychologists are used to understand human behavior and the game is built with a goal of getting kids addicted. It's another thing, if its a good game which kids like to play for a long time. Intent must not be evil especially where our young are involved. Also, harsher measures are introduced when self-regulation is not enough. So, if the industry self-regulates(like many already offer warnings) we might not need more.

 

Very well. And I will do so in the public forum, lest we fall into the tyranny of defining what is permissable speech.

Presenting as a valid case comparison the cost of a hairstylist degree in a discussion about the intentional engineering of and profiteering from addictive consumerism through the use of behavioral conditioning and game theory techniques targeted upon a generation of unaware consumer marks, many of whom have just been recognized by the World Health Organization as being victims of an addictive disorder, is extremely hand-wavy and diminishing, while not really bringing anything new or interesting to the discussion either.

Plus the discussion about regulating the industry is not indirect. From Friday...

Bill to ban the sale of loot boxes to children presses forward with bipartisan support

This bill going before the U.S. Senate and the WHO decision are not isolated events; and are just the tip of an iceberg in a very important global conversation that desperately needs to take place, before we addict and enslave an entire generation of people within a virtual reality landscape of invasive biometric tracking, brain computer interfaces and rampant unchecked corporate consumerism. Those who wave this off as science fiction aren't paying attention and really aren't even in the game.

Has anyone here read through the dozens of EA Games' patents filed in the last year, of what they either intend to implement or already have? Well I have - and it's on a whole other level of this discussion.

Even a solo Unity dev can recognize what ML-Agents with Analytics and Biometrics will unlock, one day much sooner than we all expect. At the end of a frighteningly dystopic AR presentation I attended at the Unity Vision Summit two years ago, the first question asked was, "How do we prevent this future from happening?"

And no one really had an answer.

Regulations are required because not all humans have the best intentions for others and because exploitation and slavery carve a wide wake through human history. We are not as enlightened a people as we like to think we are; and it is hubris to act and move forward as a society under the illusion we have a firm grasp of the technologies we are creating.

Legislation and regulations will happen. The more important issue is how those of us reading and participating in this discussion right now choose to approach the responsibility laid before us, as the developers of this future, much of it to be built with Unity. Because this is where the future starts, right here and now - in our hands.

The real question is, where do you stand?

 

Agreed. The World Health Organization should have contacted us, the bored indie developers in the General Discussion area of the Unity forum, before just blindly and foolishly deciding to bring attention to something that is clearly a total non issue.

As far as the people arguing against regulation of any kind, I do have to wonder: Is it all government regulation and guidelines you want to see abolished, or just the ones that you personally don't care for?

 

That was an example of a tangential line of talk about why @TenKHoursDev thinks self-regulation is anti-competitive. The hair stylists thing was not meant as an argument for/against the addiction thing, which is why (s)he suggested not having that discussion in this thread.

 

Wow. Okay so we're resorting to direct insults and intentional misquotes now?

This is what I actually wrote:

...you troll. @Akshara

@Ryiah apologies if you thought that was directed at you... it was addressed to everyone.

 

There are actually people researching the benefits of gaming (specifically in regards to memory if I recall) but this does not change that 70-80% of research done around games is to maximize big corporations profits, I got into game development to make genuinely good games, not addictive ones. I don't need to be rich, just make enough to live on. Which is also part of the problem, people want to be rich not just have enough.

 

I was a kid in the eighties and early nineties , back then Swedish kids was not as good in English as now. I was way ahead of most of my fellow class mates becasue of games from Sierra and Lucasfilm games (Later Lucasarts).

Today the kids instead play games like Fortnite etc. I'm not sure it's as good for their development as the graphical adventures of my time. At the same times you have the internet and lots of educational apps etc.

Oh, games also got me interested in programming at a very early age. So there are absolutely positive things with gaming.

Addictions are a interesting subject, I'm pretty sure I'm borderlining towards alcoholism. I drink atleast one glass of red wine each day for dinner. I must always think about not drinking too much. At the same time, since I can control it I guess I'm not an alcoholic

 

What is to say that they did not, to assume that you are the only person on the forums or in these discussions and have the "I didn't see it therefore it doesn't exist" mentality is dangerous both for you and others in general.

 

I also sent a link for the discussion to a social worker/teacher I know, this is what she sent back:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...tm_source=viceadwordsdynamicus&utm_medium=cpc

 

Maybe it's my deja vu, but didn't someone post this exact same topic a year or two ago? Similar response and everything?

 

Probably based on the fact that a lot of people still think the issue hasn't been resolved

 

I don't remember / haven't seen it. But is not something new.
Similar topics have been rolled over for years.

Even decade ago, there were cases, that someone died "apparently" at keyboard, playing games, as forgot about principle body needs. A bit stretched to me.
But I could die reading books as well

 

I'm not sure what to make of this.

 

Alcohol and cigarettes have no child safety features in their product or packaging, with all age restrictions enforced at the point of sale. That would be analogous to the app stores or Steam possibly having to do something in this area, not the game developers.

 

Sorry was skimmed it while waiting for something at work... Just realized it was sarcasm

 

Tabbaco and alcohol manufacturing are both incredibly tightly regulated. As a consumer you only see the store end. That doesn't mean there isn't a lot of laws around what the manufacturer can and can't do.

Point of sale regulation is important. But its not the only place where we need regulation.

 

My point just was that the whiskey product made under a legal regime with purchase age restrictions isn't going to be different than the whiskey made in a place which did not have age restrictions on sales. Meaning the product wasn't modified specifically to comply with the age restrictions.

The packaging might be made to comply, the marketing and store shelf placement are designed to comply with age restrictions, but the actual product in the bottle is the same. If regulations on games were done similarly, then the game itself wouldn't be changed. Instead the marketing, packaging, store page, etc, would be made to comply with the regulations.

 

Wrong. If kids drinking whiskey was a socially and legally acceptable thing everywhere, you can bet we’d have candy flavored whiskey by now.

 

Candy flavored whiskey is actually a thing though. There's a bunch of them.

 

Acknowledged. I would argue these regulations are already in place for video games via the rating system. Sure its not very well enforced, but the framework is there.

I think the future laws for video games will be more akin to gambling laws then alcohol and tobacco laws.

 

Look, I absolutely agree there's a real problem with this stuff. I don't think anyone truly paying attention would fail to see that social media and games (often mixed together - apparently some people see multiplayer games as a primary form of communication!) have been and are being engineered into a form of sophisticated Skinners box of repetitive addictive reward cycles. I find about 90% of the content of 90% of games to be essentially a criminal waste of people's valuable time. I've watched videos and read about what goes on in silicon valley and elsewhere, and I have no doubt it's largely true. On the occasions that I've entertained the notion of starting a family within the decade or two, this sort of thing makes me very worried.

But how does classifying addicted people as 'ill' or having a 'disorder' help in this regard, as if they are defective?

I agree in principle with certain kinds of regulation. I am pretty much by default in favor of anything that increases information that directly influences choice. I think that parents should strictly regulate what their children are allowed to do before they have the maturity to make a good choice, so that they grow up with a good perspective on things - that's the primary parental responsibility, after all.

I am not in favor of anything that removes from an adult the agency or responsibility in choosing, with a clear perspective, what it is that they want to do with themselves. Once you become an adult and live your own life, it is up to you to build one that is worth living, or take yourself to the places and people who you think can help you do that. That's what it means to be a free and responsible human being.

 

In many cases you need to be classified with a condition in order to access appropriate medical help. You'll find this is the primary reason for the WHO adding the diagnosis.

If someone goes to the doctor and says "I have a problem with gaming. I can't stop. Its costing me inordinate amounts of money and ruining my relationships". Should the doctor respond with "Buck up dude, just make better choices".

Or should the doctor say "Sounds like you have a gaming disorder. Here is my recommended steps for you to treat it. This will all be funded by your government/insurance cover. Come back in two weeks and we will see how you are going."

The second scenario actually has a decent shot of improving people's lives. And I'm all for making people's lives better.

Remember most people aren't alcoholics or drug addicts or gambling addicts. Most people aren't epileptic or injured in a car crash or diagnosed with cancer either. But some people are. And the medical system exists to help out those exceptions.

 

* US government and insurance companies point and laugh, snickering in the corner.

 

I think there are two things going on here. Yes there are people who are essentially medically disabled by addiction, but in my opinion there's no need at all to create new terminology for an age-old psychological issue - like others have said, there are many, many forms that addiction takes, but the root problem is often the same. For example, OCD is similar to addiction in many ways, and it can take the form of switching a light on and off obsessively, does this mean that there needs to be a classification for 'light switching disorder'?

There does not need to be a new name for addiction to be able to see its effects in a new form of behavior.

What seems to be going on is an attempt to create a new victimized group, taking their individual responsibility and transforming it into another regulatory mechanism.

That's why generally I prefer regulation that is general in principle, because it's much more difficult to get people to agree to a general principle than it is to play on their conscience about a particular victimized group.

 

No one views ill people as defective, what are you talking about?

 

I keep forgetting the US produces whiskey too

You know what I mean though, if it was a normal thing to have kids drink whiskey, there would be ways the whiskey was changed in order to appeal to younger people.

 

Are you one of those people who makes moral judgements every time they attribute cause or responsibility? You know exactly what I said.

 

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

 

You just don't get it. You cannot really have responsibility over something which is outside of your willpower. I know, it's hard to imagine for someone who have never been in the situation like that.
I was a 2-packs-a-day smoker for ~20 years. Tell me about f**king responsibility, please. Come on!

Edit: And I still would be if it weren't for outside help. You need to know if you haven't learned this in life until now, there are things outside of your choices, outside of your willpower. The "why they don't just stop, they aren't responsible" is a giant BS. Especially if there are some people lurking in the shadows or in the spotlight, for the matter of fact, to prey on you.

 

Most people suffering from these kinds of addictions have made attempts to "take responsibility" for the actions. It's one of the main causes of the high rate of co-morbid depression people suffering from any form of addiction suffer. They fail to stop an addiction on their own, so their self-esteem goes down, which makes subsequent attempts at taking control harder and more likely to fail, and it creates this vicious feedback cycle.

 

I don't completely agree with this. You can have responsibility in some ways. You can have responsibility for addictions that required some act on your part to start them (within reason - people that need a prescription drug and become addicted is a different story). Likewise you can have responsibility for not seeking assistance with your addiction (whether you succeed in quitting, or reaching an equivalent point with your addiction, is irrelevant - that you are actively trying is good enough).

 

Sure, because pointing at them (or in this case us) that "you were st**id, why did you start this" will solve any problems. Yes, we had responsibility. Were we st**id? Sure. If I can turn back time would I make the same mistake? Would I light up my first cigarette on pure desperation and other mixed feelings as a teenager? Surely not. But pointing fingers that hey, you have responsibility because you were st**id does not help anyone. Not the people who are in the situation, not the people who are not in it, and not the society. Everyone loses. Nice move.

It depends. But at the bare minimum we need the proper help in place to be a place to go to seek assistance (which is what we're talking about in this thread). But it's not that simple with some other addictions.

 

Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that some people have some degree of responsibility. I don't think it should be a topic that is brought up in any major way, but telling someone that they weren't responsible for their addiction if they were responsible is not helping them in my opinion.

 

This is one of those rare cases when truth has more harmful properties for everyone than hiding it. Does not have to be told that they weren't stupid, but it's better to not tell that they were. Because of the things @bobisgod234 wrote above. It induces anxiety and depression for no good reason and may induce a vicious cycle.
After the fact, when the hard part is done, and the addicted brain is out of the swamp a little bit it may be worth to tell them (what at this point is clear for them for a long time), that they have responsibility in the events.

 

Both?

I mean, yeah, there could well be legitimate contributing factors, and getting help is a good thing. But so is taking responsibility for your own actions and putting in the hard yards to do something about it.

 

I definitely agree that it can be harmful, but I don't agree that it's necessarily that way for everyone.

 

I also suspect that the harmfulness would come from focusing on the wrong things?

In the examples given, if someone is attempting to quit smoking or has gone to someone to ask for help with an addiction to gaming, they're already taking responsibility for their actions by taking that step. Surely in that case the truth would be a reinforcing thing rather than a harmful one? "Yes, you're right, this is bad for you. Well done for recognising it and asking for help. The next steps are..."

On the flip side, if your truthfulness was just berating someone with "Yes, you're right, this is bad for you. You're being stupid and should just stop!" then yeah... what good could that ever do anyone?

 

Agreed, I'm not saying you should point at someone and berate them, I'm saying you should use it in a positive way.

 

Yeah, I agree that there has to be room for professional decision making. But those decisions (if telling someone that they suck is helpful or harmful) shouldn't fall on you, Billy or me, it should fall on the professional, who treats addiction.
Especially in the case of gaming addiction because starting it may not be deliberate. Gaming, playing is a natural thing. Playing video games is a good thing by default. One should not bear the responsibility to be f**ed for life because some corporate d**kheads <del>need</del><ins>want</ins> all the money they can count. And becoming addicted to video games _probably_ (I'm not a professional, have very limited knowledge about addictions, so it's not a professional take on the subject) is a gradual process, probably even gets unnoticed until it's easily "too late" (when it's hard to escape). So providing help may be crucial.

 

God DAMN a lot of you don't understand addiction.

 

A bunch of game developers trying to discuss the ins and outs of clinical psychology. This thread was destined to be a train wreak.

 

Not necessarily, having read through the entire discussion the mindset has steadily changed, I'm not sure if that's because the original people who were discussing left or there is an actual change

 

It's too bad you've taken such an aggressive tone, because I never said that anyone was stupid or they suck for being addicted. It's a serious issue that often needs professional help (of a specific kind). I would argue as well that smoking, drinking and drug addiction are probably not comparable to game addiction, since they involve an actual chemical substance in your blood.

What I am saying is that responsibility falls on every person to acknowledge that they have a problem, and to seek out whatever help they can - nobody is suggesting they should 'just deal with it'. If you actually read my posts, you'd see that my main point is that many things can be addictive, things that people often enjoy perfectly well in moderation. It's not right to put the onus on game developers to 'catch' those who are playing their games too much and somehow direct them into doing something else. It's inefficient and unnecessary, like some sort of unwieldy DRM for addicted gamers.

And just to make it clear in case it's not, the fact that I think another label is unnecessary does not diminish addiction as a serious problem. In fact I think it makes it worse and obscures things. Also, the fact that I think addiction often comes from living an unsatisfying life is not a moral judgement - it's hard to build a satisfying life and we fail often. I spent years in a black hole living a life I didn't enjoy in the least, and it was very hard to get out. I don't judge anyone for going down that road but I won't obscure the truth to make anyone feel better.

Anyway, that's it from me, it's clear that at least 80% of everything I say just goes by the wayside so I don't see the point of continuing this discussion.

 

Compared to discussing engines made by competitors this thread is very civil. I was expecting a lock soon.

 

At least competitors engines is something we could feasibly have expertise on. I've seen many people claim to use them.

So far noone has claimed a psychology degree. At best we have people who have seen psychologists. Which is about as useful as claiming medieval history knowledge based on watching game of thrones.

 

they do this for television, for food, for advertisements, for movies and for just about anything else they are trying to sell.

i know people who literally have the tv on for 24 hours a day, sleep on the couch with it on, and only get up to go to the bathroom, or grab food to get back on the couch with.

"for the children!" "it's not a lack of discipline, its a disease"

"please, wont somebody think of the children!"

and yeah, how people waste their lives away is their prerogative, but lots of people hate games, and gamers, and consider gaming in particular a waste of time, while ignoring their own vices. Sports are a waste of tme, and can even be physically dangerous. watching them even moreso. yet some people will insist sports are a more productive use of time. they might even consider going to a baseball game or cocert "getting out", as if going outside your house to waste time is better than spending it inside.

 

protect kids from what? Having fun?

religion harms kids. food harms kids. existing harms kids. sports harms and sometime physically destroys kids, giving them injuries that ruin their lives forever. propaganda harms kids. internet forums harm kids. pledge of allegiance harms kids... m...depending on how people define harm.


...what we are seeing is utopians, with their own visions of a good life, trying to force that vision on the world, thinking their "science" will make the world a better place... ..and finally end their own mental suffering. Yeah, most psychologists are depressed, divorced multiple times, and always changing their own medication trying to cope with their lack of center. a bunch of crazy quacks, blind leading the blind. In their mind, the good life is a world absent of technological entertainment, and more traditional "fun" like going out to eat, going to concerts and sports events, travellng, driving new cars, etc, etc....


some people, like me, want none of these things, and consider them all a complete waste of time, and boring wastes of time, at that. I own who I am, and make no apologies for it.

Real world is a dangerous place. there is risk inherent in everything.

 

next they need to ban kids from internet forums like this one.

the message that addiction is a disease, and not a lack of will power and discipline has destroyed billions of lives now.

stop preaching victimhood. you are doing far more damage than a video game ever could.

"i would apply for jobs, but my anxiety" "i have bpd, i could never do a job like that, it would ruin my self-esteem, and make my bpd even worse!" "I know I am being petty, but my ocd does not allow me to lve with some one who leaves the cupboard doors open all the time!"

preach the message of strength, of discipline, and of being the greatest champion of your own life, and you will get champions in charge of their lives. preach victimhood, and you will get victims.