this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
55 points (93.7% liked)
PC Gaming
8573 readers
267 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Correct. But that's not the fault of the company. Its the person not exercising self-control. Saying "no" to smoking a cigarette is much easier than trying to quit smoking, but that addiction is the fault of the person who says "yes."
Yes, but that's not what the lawsuit is primarily about. It's a small part tacked on at the very end. The primary issue is that the plaintiff argues that Epic and Microsoft intentionally make children addicted to their products. That's mental.
You cannot claim that McDonald's is responsible for diabetes because they make products high in sugar and other unhealthy ingredients. Video games are a luxury product and not a requirement for life, a person doesn't have to use them to live. I can't win a lawsuit against Konami if I get addicted to gambling because I played one of their pachislot machines and didn't control my spending.
Sony? Paradox? Creative Assembly? Konami? SEGA? Konami and SEGA Sammy literally make pachislot gambling machines.
Nintendo is just as guilty, like the time when they only sold Mario All Stars for a limited time. Nintendo sure loves their FOMO oriented time limited products. NES mini and SNES mini are other recent ones, continual low stock problems for time limited products. Sounds predatory to me.
Regardless, the answer to all that is the adult just saying no. It's literally that easy. That's not to say your kid can never play video games, but the parent neglecting to monitor their kid's screen time is not the game company's fault. I hate to defend a game company, but this woman is mental.
You're not wrong.
But most parents don't keep up with the standards of the gaming industry. And it's targeted towards kids, the most vulnerable and impressionable demographic.
So when they're kid spends 3000 dollars on vbucks, my first thought is "how the FUCK is that even allowed to happen in the first place???"
Game companies have greasily been pushing the limits of what they can get away with, and it NEEDS to stop. Games used to just be games, not a fucking 5 year long planned out live service experience with DLC and battlepass that pressures you to play every day, or else you lose your progress.
I agree but from the perspective of "why is the parent allowing this to happen or not knowing this is happening?" A business exists to make money, the business will never turn you away if you're trying to pay them. Race, age, gender is not important as long as you have money. It's not their responsibility to know that the person logged into an account is actually a child and to limit that account's ability to spend money. That's up to the parent to not allow the child to buy anything without their permission.
Obviously, sometimes a kid will steal money or your credit card, I mean, they're kids they usually don't know better. But that's a time to sit down with your kid and teach them that stealing is wrong, especially from family, and to put in place discipline that will help the kid to make better choices, etc. But if the kid is routinely stealing from a parent, there are much more significant problems going on there and the most likely cause is parental neglect, or possibly worse.
To me, it just keeps on cycling back to being the parent's responsibility. Sure, without gambling it would be easier for parents, but gambling is literally never going away, sadly.
Yes I agree. Though I worry that this particular lawsuit could cause a problem with legal precedent since the primary issue is so legally unsound. It may bolster the company's ability to defend against a real lawsuit over predatory business practices. And that is not a future I want to see.
It is the fault of the company.
It's their sole design goal. There is no part of the addiction process that's in any way less than deliberate and intentional.