Games

16390 readers

1203 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc..
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.

Comments.

No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

135

You can't sue us for making games 'too entertaining,' say major game developers in response to addiction lawsuits (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Don't regulate actual gameplay which is entertaining, but regulate strongly microtransactions and the like.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Not sure I totally agree. The idea of researching and applying addictive traits to anything feels like something to be regulated. It's not literally brainwashing but applying pressure to these topic can make anything positive into a negative. Even something like getting people to exercise could turn into someone collapsing if addictive qualities were applied.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Ok, but you can't actually isolate 'knowledge of addictive behaviour' into a regulatable thing without an absurd amount of government oversight i.e. examing every employees work to check they aren't using that pesky psyschology degree.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Ok, but what would be the legal precendent there? We regulate tabacco precisely because of it's psychological and medical effects, not because it's bad for your wallet. This lawsuit depends upon a claim of addiction because you can't just regulate something for annoying you.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Call it what it is. At the very least, loot boxes and the like should be considered outright gambling – which is highly regulated.