• MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    You’re intentionally dumbing down the topic to make your point sound better. You’re simply describing the binary, whether addiction could be present or not. There are so many more obvious factors to consider. Addiction rate of users, personal and social impacts of that addiction, intensity of addictive behaviors, frequency of use in addicts, target demographic, marketing etc.

    There’s a reason gambling has a minimum age requirement, and loot boxes are a way around that to make money by letting children gamble.

    • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      You do have a valid point there tbh, certain mechanics should be forbidden from being linked to real or purchasable money but I don’t really think they should be forbidden in general.

      My argument for this is it’s too wide ranging and will limit positive elements in game design. I think it’s also important for people to be able to practice emotional response and regulation to such stimulus, if we don’t then advertisers and manipulators will walk all over us.

      • MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I agree with this, but we give them till the age of 21 to practice and develop those skills. The entire argument is not letting gaming companies introduce gambling to kids before their brains have fully developed.