Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balsamic Dragon" data-source="post: 134589" data-attributes="member: 2433">Begin rant:It is very interesting to me that this thread has gone on for five pages with only one general opinion being expressed, to various degrees of extremity.&nbsp; I am not saying that games kill people.&nbsp; But some games are more addictive in nature than others.&nbsp; Magic the Gathering and Everquest seem to me to be more addictive than is typical for games because of the collecting aspect in combination with the social aspect of the game.&nbsp; In both of these games, the source of the addictive quality is the company who produces them.&nbsp; People can't sell their D&amp;D character online because it is just words on paper.&nbsp; People can sell Magic cards and Everquest treasure because the company controls the production, creation, value and rarity of these &quot;items.&quot;&nbsp; Let me ask this:&nbsp; how many people on the list know that the game is often referred to as &quot;Evercrack&quot;?&nbsp; How many people would have disputed that designation before this article was posted?&nbsp; You may disagree with the woman in the article, and I do as well, but I think I can understand where she is coming from.&nbsp; A game is known to be different from other games.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because it has an &quot;addictive&quot; quality.&nbsp; Because it's like &quot;crack.&quot;&nbsp; Because people tie other important things in their lives (romance, social worth, money) into the game.&nbsp; The company knows this about its game.&nbsp; In fact, it is only the company that gives its game these qualities.&nbsp; The company must be constantly on guard to prevent cheating because it will reduce the addictive property of the game by making it too easy to get the really cool, rare stuff.&nbsp; Is the company to blame for everything that happens to its players?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; But should the company be aware that its game may cause problems and take reasonable steps to help reduce those problems?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; This, to me, is not a legal question, it is a common-sense decency question.&nbsp; If I worked at a gaming company and I saw an article like this about my game, it would make me think &quot;This is awful!&nbsp; What could we do to try to make sure this doesn't happen again?&quot;&nbsp; Warning labels probably aren't the answer, but they aren't out of the question.&nbsp; Perhaps not on the box, but in the game itself when you have been playing for 12 hours straight, some sort of warning should point out that this can be dangeous to your health.&nbsp; Baldur's Gate II, for example, has such a warning pop up randomly when you save your game.Again, this isn't about money and it isn't about lawsuits.&nbsp; It's about a player who obviously had mental difficulties and a game that is dangerous to people with mental difficulties of a certain kind.&nbsp; We don't have to make things &quot;safe&quot; for everyone, but we should make sure that people for whom they are not safe, and their loved ones, get the warnings they need and deserve.End rant.Balsamic Dragon</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balsamic Dragon, post: 134589, member: 2433"] Begin rant: It is very interesting to me that this thread has gone on for five pages with only one general opinion being expressed, to various degrees of extremity. I am not saying that games kill people. But some games are more addictive in nature than others. Magic the Gathering and Everquest seem to me to be more addictive than is typical for games because of the collecting aspect in combination with the social aspect of the game. In both of these games, the source of the addictive quality is the company who produces them. People can't sell their D&D character online because it is just words on paper. People can sell Magic cards and Everquest treasure because the company controls the production, creation, value and rarity of these "items." Let me ask this: how many people on the list know that the game is often referred to as "Evercrack"? How many people would have disputed that designation before this article was posted? You may disagree with the woman in the article, and I do as well, but I think I can understand where she is coming from. A game is known to be different from other games. Why? Because it has an "addictive" quality. Because it's like "crack." Because people tie other important things in their lives (romance, social worth, money) into the game. The company knows this about its game. In fact, it is only the company that gives its game these qualities. The company must be constantly on guard to prevent cheating because it will reduce the addictive property of the game by making it too easy to get the really cool, rare stuff. Is the company to blame for everything that happens to its players? No. But should the company be aware that its game may cause problems and take reasonable steps to help reduce those problems? Yes. This, to me, is not a legal question, it is a common-sense decency question. If I worked at a gaming company and I saw an article like this about my game, it would make me think "This is awful! What could we do to try to make sure this doesn't happen again?" Warning labels probably aren't the answer, but they aren't out of the question. Perhaps not on the box, but in the game itself when you have been playing for 12 hours straight, some sort of warning should point out that this can be dangeous to your health. Baldur's Gate II, for example, has such a warning pop up randomly when you save your game. Again, this isn't about money and it isn't about lawsuits. It's about a player who obviously had mental difficulties and a game that is dangerous to people with mental difficulties of a certain kind. We don't have to make things "safe" for everyone, but we should make sure that people for whom they are not safe, and their loved ones, get the warnings they need and deserve. End rant. Balsamic Dragon [/QUOTE]

Verification