This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I've been gaming for a loooong time, and I feel I can safely say that

#131imhomelessPosted 3/8/2014 3:19:38 PM
KillerTruffle posted...
Sorry, but no, I'm not addicted to gaming - I often go days in a row, or even a week or two at a time, without playing any games. I have a "normal" life and do other things besides gaming. It's a hobby, nothing more.

I'll give it to you here, you're right that I shouldn't overstep and assume you're addicted just for posting on a game forum. However, some people can manage a weekend drug habit and do the grind like everyone else (I know someone in the medical field that's been like this for the past 10 years), while others will try the same and get messed up. Yet drugs are regulated, and video games, which I consider at least as addictive as several mind-altering substances, has no regulation. Unless you take the ratings seriously, which I don't, because corporations and government don't.

KillerTruffle posted...
As for claiming that video games are addictive by design, sorry, but no - unless you view every single consumer product in existence as "addictive by design." Yes, things are made to be sold - including games - but they're not "addictive by design" any more than frisbees, bicycles, kites, cars, or anything else.

By this line of thinking, even cigarettes aren't designed to be addicting because they're just being designed to sell.

It's about the function the product serves.

Frisbees are meant to be thrown. You generate "fun" by playing with a friend by throwing a real object back and forth. A crappy frisbee won't make it to your friend, no matter how well it's thrown. I'll let "kite" fall into the same category.

Bikes and cars fall into the same category of "transportation". They can be used for fun, but that's a secondary function to safety and performance, without those, they have no merit.

Video games, on the other hand, are praised for how much replayability they provide, which goes hand in hand with compulsive, addicting gameplay. A boring game is a game that is not rewarding to play. A highly rewarding game is highly addicting. With all the games these days getting released in essentially beta states and being patched up to snuff afterwards, or even being sold as "Early Access" titles, it's obvious that "performance" and "function" are secondary to "reward". Games that are relatively broken and buggy can still be fun to play, because gamers are seeking the chemical release of "fun" in their brains, and even if a games crash, hang, or various other glitches occasionally step on that, if the "reward" factor is high enough, then the gamer will put up with the reduced "performance" and "function" to get the reward.

If we applied that to bicycles and cars, people wouldn't mind driving cars that exploded if they had fun along the way, and there'd be no fuss in the media if a kid was riding his brand new bike and a known irritant was part of the assembly and the child broke out in hives. This isn't the case, because with everything else, performance/function/safety are top tier, when it comes to games, it's secondary.

Which, if you've ever spoken to a junkie (someone who sticks needles in their arms and risks all kinds of disease just get high), is 100% identical, even though the surface isn't as ugly to look at.
#132KillerTrufflePosted 3/8/2014 3:26:09 PM
The difference you're not catching here in comparing cigarettes to gaming is that nicotine has been scientifically proven beyond any question to have chemically addicting properties. The body *physically* becomes reliant on it. That is not the same thing as gaming. Gaming would fall into the class of addictive behavior - same as anorexia. There is no *chemical* dependence - it's all psychological, and the same factors are at play as in people who develop anorexia or sex addiction. There is absolutely no basis at all to classify games as an addictive "substance," because substance implies something going into your body - being inhaled, ingested, absorbed, injected, etc.

Even addictive substances are rated on scales for both physical and psychological addiction. Addictive *behaviors* have no physical component - only psychological. That is why it's stupid to try comparing nicotine to gaming.
---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
#133imhomelessPosted 3/8/2014 3:26:49 PM
8waystomonday posted...
Doesnt mean that at all, addiction runs in my family, i come from aong line of addicts of one substance or another. There is a clear difference in a additive substance and entertainment. I didnt go from cigs to video games since i have always been a gamer. I just used video games as a way to help me quit just like some people use straws or toothpicks.

Some family trees show a trend of depression that leads to suicide, while other family trees show a trend of depression that leads to alcohol abuse, while other family trees show a trend of depression that's consistently managed without going to extremes. People are different, so yes, you using video games (something with high addictive potential) to replace your cigarette habit (something with high addictive potential) only shows that you lean one way, and someone else in the world would likely benefit from going the other way.

It sounds like your stance is "Video games aren't addicting because I've been an addict and they helped me get rid of my other addiction without becoming a new addiction, so they're fine". If that's the case, it's a very narrow line of thinking. I could easily say to you "I've tried cigarettes and I didn't like them, and quit no problem, so anyone who gets addicted is just making things up to get attention", but I don't, because I realize for some people, their first cigarette forms a lifelong habit that's difficult to break.
#134imhomelessPosted 3/8/2014 3:30:08 PM
KillerTruffle posted...
The difference you're not catching here in comparing cigarettes to gaming is that nicotine has been scientifically proven beyond any question to have chemically addicting properties. The body *physically* becomes reliant on it. That is not the same thing as gaming. Gaming would fall into the class of addictive behavior - same as anorexia. There is no *chemical* dependence - it's all psychological, and the same factors are at play as in people who develop anorexia or sex addiction. There is absolutely no basis at all to classify games as an addictive "substance," because substance implies something going into your body - being inhaled, ingested, absorbed, injected, etc.

Even addictive substances are rated on scales for both physical and psychological addiction. Addictive *behaviors* have no physical component - only psychological. That is why it's stupid to try comparing nicotine to gaming.

You're still ignoring the fact video games are something you must consume to become addicted to. A video game addict doesn't happen if they never play video games, the same way an alcoholic can't happen if they don't consume alcohol, the same way a chain smoker doesn't happen if the person never smokes.

You're anorexic whether you like it or not, because it isn't triggered by consuming anything external. It can be a response to external pressure, but it isn't like you go out into the world, consume something, and now you've begun a lifelong battle with anorexia.
#135imhomelessPosted 3/8/2014 3:32:17 PM
I've also pointed out that I recognize video games as a non-substance, I'm not comparing them directly to drugs in the sense that you can liquify game data and inject it and get the same relief you would from a hit of heroin. I've been discussing the psychological elements, which are completely identical.

And even though it's psychological, the body *can* become reliant on it. It affects brain chemistry without being consumed, brain sends signals to the body, I feel like I'm doing elementary science here. I'm just hearing more of the "I'm fine so it isn't a problem".
#136KillerTrufflePosted 3/8/2014 3:34:24 PM
imhomeless posted...
KillerTruffle posted...
The difference you're not catching here in comparing cigarettes to gaming is that nicotine has been scientifically proven beyond any question to have chemically addicting properties. The body *physically* becomes reliant on it. That is not the same thing as gaming. Gaming would fall into the class of addictive behavior - same as anorexia. There is no *chemical* dependence - it's all psychological, and the same factors are at play as in people who develop anorexia or sex addiction. There is absolutely no basis at all to classify games as an addictive "substance," because substance implies something going into your body - being inhaled, ingested, absorbed, injected, etc.

Even addictive substances are rated on scales for both physical and psychological addiction. Addictive *behaviors* have no physical component - only psychological. That is why it's stupid to try comparing nicotine to gaming.

You're still ignoring the fact video games are something you must consume to become addicted to. A video game addict doesn't happen if they never play video games, the same way an alcoholic can't happen if they don't consume alcohol, the same way a chain smoker doesn't happen if the person never smokes.

You're anorexic whether you like it or not, because it isn't triggered by consuming anything external. It can be a response to external pressure, but it isn't like you go out into the world, consume something, and now you've begun a lifelong battle with anorexia.


In the same way a compulsive eater can't become addicted if they don't buy food. I'm still not seeing how you think that alone is grounds enough to tax games as an "addictive substance." Bull**** premise.

Can you become addicted to games? Sure, just like you can become addicted to ANYTHING. That doesn't make them worth taxing and controlling as an addictive substance.
---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
#137KillerTrufflePosted 3/8/2014 3:37:51 PM
imhomeless posted...
I've also pointed out that I recognize video games as a non-substance, I'm not comparing them directly to drugs in the sense that you can liquify game data and inject it and get the same relief you would from a hit of heroin. I've been discussing the psychological elements, which are completely identical.

And even though it's psychological, the body *can* become reliant on it. It affects brain chemistry without being consumed, brain sends signals to the body, I feel like I'm doing elementary science here. I'm just hearing more of the "I'm fine so it isn't a problem".


Actually, I'd argue that the majority of gamers are not addicted, just like the majority of people who eat food are not addicted. Contrast that with the majority of drug users or smokers who *do* become addicted.

I have yet to see you show any evidence at all that gaming is somehow inherently as addictive as smoking or drinking. Because of the endorphins? Know what gives you even more endorphins than gaming? Exercise. You can get a bigger high on that. And since exercise is so readily available to nearly ANYONE, how is it that we have a country full of obese slobs who can't get off the couch?

You've simply stated a premise and I have yet to see any legitimate foundation to it.
---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
#138imhomelessPosted 3/8/2014 3:37:59 PM
KillerTruffle posted...
imhomeless posted...
KillerTruffle posted...
The difference you're not catching here in comparing cigarettes to gaming is that nicotine has been scientifically proven beyond any question to have chemically addicting properties. The body *physically* becomes reliant on it. That is not the same thing as gaming. Gaming would fall into the class of addictive behavior - same as anorexia. There is no *chemical* dependence - it's all psychological, and the same factors are at play as in people who develop anorexia or sex addiction. There is absolutely no basis at all to classify games as an addictive "substance," because substance implies something going into your body - being inhaled, ingested, absorbed, injected, etc.

Even addictive substances are rated on scales for both physical and psychological addiction. Addictive *behaviors* have no physical component - only psychological. That is why it's stupid to try comparing nicotine to gaming.

You're still ignoring the fact video games are something you must consume to become addicted to. A video game addict doesn't happen if they never play video games, the same way an alcoholic can't happen if they don't consume alcohol, the same way a chain smoker doesn't happen if the person never smokes.

You're anorexic whether you like it or not, because it isn't triggered by consuming anything external. It can be a response to external pressure, but it isn't like you go out into the world, consume something, and now you've begun a lifelong battle with anorexia.


In the same way a compulsive eater can't become addicted if they don't buy food. I'm still not seeing how you think that alone is grounds enough to tax games as an "addictive substance." Bull**** premise.

Can you become addicted to games? Sure, just like you can become addicted to ANYTHING. That doesn't make them worth taxing and controlling as an addictive substance.

You're right, we're all addicted to food because if we don't eat it we'll die, so unfortunately someone who has a pre-disposition towards eating disorders is unfairly set up for a harder life than those of us who can simply eat.

Luckily, video games aren't part of our hierarchy of needs, so moderating it so a life doesn't innocently consume and accidentally create a lifelong addiction is something we're able to do. It's the same reason we started taxing and regulating cigarettes and built up awareness to generate a social stigma - to try and prevent newcomers from potentially making an irreversible mistake.
#139imhomelessPosted 3/8/2014 3:40:52 PM
KillerTruffle posted...
imhomeless posted...
I've also pointed out that I recognize video games as a non-substance, I'm not comparing them directly to drugs in the sense that you can liquify game data and inject it and get the same relief you would from a hit of heroin. I've been discussing the psychological elements, which are completely identical.

And even though it's psychological, the body *can* become reliant on it. It affects brain chemistry without being consumed, brain sends signals to the body, I feel like I'm doing elementary science here. I'm just hearing more of the "I'm fine so it isn't a problem".


Actually, I'd argue that the majority of gamers are not addicted, just like the majority of people who eat food are not addicted. Contrast that with the majority of drug users or smokers who *do* become addicted.

I have yet to see you show any evidence at all that gaming is somehow inherently as addictive as smoking or drinking. Because of the endorphins? Know what gives you even more endorphins than gaming? Exercise. You can get a bigger high on that. And since exercise is so readily available to nearly ANYONE, how is it that we have a country full of obese slobs who can't get off the couch?

You've simply stated a premise and I have yet to see any legitimate foundation to it.

It's more that the people who do drugs or smoke and create problems get a lot of light. Most drug users do it in secret due to all the social stigma. I have one long-time friend who has a career, a wife and two kids, and uses drugs (not just marijuana) on a... not frequent, but regular basis. And is stable. Why doesn't that get attention? Because even though it's stable, if it got attention, he'd get **** all over him.

The reason video games trump exercise is because you need to work hard to get an endorphin release if you exercise, and the harder you work the greater the reward. With video games, you can twiddle your thumbs on a couch or in a chair and get a simulated response. Which for many, is good enough, which I think is contributing to the obesity epidemic.

I'd actually argue that most gamers are as addicted as the average smoker, they just don't have to admit it because we haven't crossed that social bridge yet.
#140imhomelessPosted 3/8/2014 3:44:58 PM
I also want to point out that the reason people choose games over exercise is the same reason people choose drugs over exercise or lifegoals. Escapism is okay, but some things give people too much escapism, which is bad. Not all games fall into that category, but these days, more are, because they're not only getting more realistic, designers are getting better at knowing what it takes to keep people playing, instead of shutting off and focusing on designing their own life.