Be a Parent. Turn it OFF!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
Feb 14, 2004

Mutahar's take on it.

TL;DR: Exert some parental responsibility!!

He summed it up right here:

"Learn to take those games away and actually sit down and talk to them."

I think there are like, 4 stages:

1. Kids are kids. It's the parent's responsibility to manage their kids. There are LOTS of addictive things out there: gambling, drugs, alcohol, smoking, etc. It's the parent's job to manage both overall exposure & frequency of exposure, whether it's candy or video games or anything really.

2. Kids like candy, whether it's real candy or brain candy. Given the choice, they're going to play video games instead of doing their homework or their chores.

3. Games are literally designed to be addictive. In the software world, we literally have a step-by-step manual for how to create addiction through software. Childhood gambling addiction is disguised as lootbox & microtransaction addiction. Free-to-play games are designed for perpetual interaction. There's an entire psychology model behind freemium games. All kinds of companies use "dark patterns" to create deceptive designs.

4. Some kids literally have an addictive personality. This is a different subset than kids playing video games instead of getting their work done first & is also different from addiction mechanics that suck you in, but that you're not actually addicted to.

I do agree with Mutahar that there should be legislation about what kids get exposed to, especially in terms of addiction mechanics, but how that would actually play out in the real world, I mean...plenty of parents expose their kids to adult-rated games without thinking twice about it, so the onus is really on the parents first to control what their kids are exposed to, rather than pulling the victim card to sue the video game companies. Like in this story:

"Three parents sued Epic Games for getting their children addicted to its popular video game “Fortnite,” leading their kids to stop sleeping, eating and showering."

Here's a novel idea: TAKE AWAY THE VIDEO GAMES! YOU ARE THE PARENTS! Remove the gaming systems from the house! You have the power to do that!! That's like giving kids vape pens every week & then suing the companies for creating addictive products! OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE ADDICTING! I feel like George Carlin needs to do a bit on this lol.


Nov 4, 2004
Yea, so it's really a two piece puzzle. As noted, game makers are trying to keep people hooked. And parents should be involved in limited time at the game as well as discussing why.

This is how I do it for my kids. There's no games M-TH, and Friday is typically skate night at the rink....which no games and *maybe* some tv afterwards. Video games for them are pretty much Saturday or Sunday, 2 hours each day. Saturday is chore day, so those get done before TV or games.

I take every opportunity to discuss addiction of any kind is a net negative, and staying active is more important than virtual items.

That's all you can really do. Be as open about your humanity as possible, no shame or guilt needed. glhf

But this doesn't mean that addiction isn't real, because it certainly is. And I definitely see the parents stance as legitimate at this point.

Torn Mind

Nov 25, 2012
Having had my experience with far more trivial games....not purchased and obtained via mechanism of illegal conivinience....yes video games can be addictive.

But, for it to be a lawsuit, violations of law must not only be alleged, but there must be facts alleged that constitute such a violation of law.

Having read part of the original filing, which is in Quebec French, and putting it through Google Translate, alleged violations of law pertain to another "Consumer Protection Act" and the violation of rights life, security, integrity, and liberty (an interesting quirk to the Quebec's code that differs from what I think is the English approach to civil rights).

140) Voici le texte des dispositions de la Charte des droits et liberté du Québec
applicables au présent dossier:
1. Tout être humain a droit à la vie, ainsi qu’à la sûreté, à l’intégrité et à la liberté
de sa personne.
Il possède également la personnalité juridique.
49. Une atteinte illicite à un droit ou à une liberté reconnu par la présente Charte
confère à la victime le droit d’obtenir la cessation de cette atteinte et la réparation
du préjudice moral ou matériel qui en résulte.
En cas d’atteinte illicite et intentionnelle, le tribunal peut en outre condamner
son auteur à des dommages-intérêts punitifs.

From a legal standpoint, "personal responsibility" is a pro-company, pro-business legal axiom used to avoid liability in matters such as smoking, food, etc and other products sold by companies that are indeed addictive in quality and the public is more than receptive let the companies win due to their schema developed by messaging and the secular morality they developed in response to said messaging.

In fact, the public is so adverse to suing, they would, when asked blindly, rid the world of that right rather than see it exercised. Not realizing that, a civil suit exists for the purpose of making the plaintiff whole again and restoration of damages because misconduct exists, humans are more than willing to engage in it, and sometimes only restored what is taken because "they have to". But, with the education system shoving down the likes that "man is innately good" and other feel good axioms, laypeople are raised with a excessively optimistic assumption that every man and woman is incapable of acting in bad faith. At least amongst some, companies are properly treated as devils in disguise, but they also hold the incorrect presumption that government is innately a holy saint or that individuals with flesh and blood can't be just as devilish as a big corporation.

Something being addictive is not a tort in and of itself. Thus, the suit is actually a matter about sufficient advertising of a particular fact when "using" the product, hence it cites Quebec's Consumer Protection Act.

Torn Mind

Nov 25, 2012
With tobacco, you're dealing mostly with adults making their own choices. With this, it's lack of parental supervision and action.

Parents who say their kids won't eat or shower because they're addicted to Fortnite slam Epic Games with lawsuit
Business Insider|20 minutes ago
Plaintiffs argued Epic Games was legally responsible for their children's dependency on Fortnite in the same way a tobacco manufacturer would be.
Lay folks may not appreciate or be aware of the blood and sweat it took to get the knowledge of tobacco to its current state, which included plenty of tort actions, some of which failed but even those corpses proved useful in the battle with tobacco companies.

The battle was by no means easy, as the company lawyers would do the underhanded things to make sure the industry was protected.

Jeffrey Wigand was a key whistleblower but getting him to talk was not easy and getting the information he knew out was also not easy, with plenty of corruption all over the place.


Oct 20, 2003
I recall the "controversy" over the original adding of warning labels to cigarettes..... seems crazy with what we know now.


At this point I feel the need to remind everyone that "addiction" to video games or a link to making people/kids do violent stuff more often from playing violent games has NEVER been proven in any kind of reputable study.

Of course you also never know exactly what is being shown to us subliminally in digital video content!

:p :oops:

Last edited: