# data[].attributes.body
https://vce.usc.edu/volume-5-issue-1/pay-to-play-the-ethics-of-video-game-economics/

Main idea: Gaming can become addictive and can cause serious financial problems.

Arguments/facts:
-Games are made to manipulate you into spending money in them.
-They are extremely addictive
-Games like candy crush are extremely addictive, they know this and therefore add the concept of ‘lifes’ which makes it so you can’t continue playing unless you pay.
-They manipulate the player by using micro-transactions which makes the player not realise the amount of money being spent.
-They use something called reward removal in order to make the players spend more money to get back their ‘wealth’
-Gaming can become gambling with the selling of ‘loot boxes’ which gives you SOMETHING that can range from a really basic item to an amazing one, people spend all of their money trying ‘one more box’.
-Revenue from boxes alone was an estimated of
$30 BILLION in 2018.

Dialogue:
This article makes an excellent point and shows a lot of factual proof, the things that they show really open your eyes to the amount of many being spent on video games.
The industry is designed in a way to make you want to spend money.
The candy crush example was so true and made so much sense, the lifes are presented to you after you have failed too many times, at that point you are frustrated and will do anything to beat the level, which includes spending money.
Something that has shocked me is the selling of loot boxes, there really is not much of a difference between gambling and loot boxes because at the end of the day the spender is left buying more and more because they’re sure they’ll hit the jackpot on the next try.

Summary:
The gaming industry is designed to make you become addicted to their games before manipulating you into spending more money.
They dress it up as harmless little fun rewards and quirks that can’t hurt you when in reality they are just making you buy more and more. They use tactics like blocking you from the game for a short amount of time UNLESS you decide to pay a small price. They start of with micro transactions to make you think you really aren’t spending money at all and then little by little they get you to spend more and more.
It has gotten to the point where gambling has made its way into gaming in the form of loot boxes.
Gaming can seriously affect your bank account in a way where you won’t notice until its too late.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract
Video games provide endless hours of fun for people of all ages, races, and genders. Gamers may not realize, however, that certain elements of their favorite form of entertainment may pose a serious threat to their wallets-and even their mental health. Game developers employ various techniques to manipulate users into purchasing items in the in-game store, including lockouts, reward removal, and loot boxes; considering virtue ethics and computer scientists' ethical code emphasizes the need to remedy this exploitation.
Introduction

It's no secret that the video game industry is profitable: one popular Massive Multiplayer Online (MMO) game, Fortnite, raked in 1.2 billion dollars of revenue within less than a year of its July 2017 launch [2]. Candy Crush Saga, a prominent mobile game, earned 945 million in one year at the height of its fame [3]. These games are actually free of charge to download and instead make their profit via in-game purchases (commonly referred to as "microtransactions"). The results of these microtransactions can range from outfit or weapons modifications to more functional elements like larger inventories or access to higher levels [4].

Games nowadays shy away from outright forcing players to make purchases to continue progression in the game, instead making it merely frustrating-but not impossible-to never use the in-game store. When examining both addictive gameplay and the exploitative nature of in-game purchases, however, the toll on gamers' wellbeing becomes clear. Game designers therefore have a responsibility to implement preventative measures, ensuring that their desire to make a profit does not inflict harm on users.

Candy Crush: Designing Addicting Games

Beginning in 2012, the entertainment company King developed a mobile game that rendered the world helpless against colorful images of candies. Candy Crush had a fairly simple objective-match candies together in rows within a time limit and in fewer than a set number of swaps-yet managed to ensnare millions [5]. The game's secret: its developers constructed the basis of the game itself to be addicting. Its theme is one reminiscent of childhood; the "chocolate river," "swimming pool full of gumdrops," or even brightly colored jelly bean- and hard candy-shaped game pieces evoke the affectionate feelings many have towards sweets [4]. The actual gameplay itself is very simple as well, for it consists of a handful of swipes. Most importantly, however, it implements the "near-miss" phenomenon that slot machines rely on. Candy Crush is designed to ramp up in difficulty as the player progresses, but not so much that they become frustrated to the point of quitting-just enough to feel the agony of almost meeting the objective. The game then highlights when players have reached this state, displaying messages like "Out of moves! You only needed 2 more jellies" [5]. Studies have found that situations in which a player nearly misses the goal result in an increased heart rate, increased frustration, and increased motivation to continue playing compared to times when the player experiences a loss [6].

Candy Crush's emphasis on the player reaching a near-miss highlights developers' intention to aggravate the frustration they experience as well as encourage dependence on the game. Its implementation of a feature that locks the player out if they surpass a certain number of attempts may seem like a preventative measure against addiction, but likely only serves as an additional money-making strategy-the user can remove this barrier for a small fee, of course [6]. Deliberately designing a game to be addictive is therefore unethical in multiple ways, the first of which being that the developers of the game intend to make the game addictive. Not only have they designed their creation so that the user develops an unhealthy dependence, but they also enable their company to profit from users' potential addictions by drawing money out of them if they feel they cannot wait for the lockout period to end. Secondly, the developers also openly violate the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) Code of Ethics' second principle: do no harm; video game addiction has been shown to have detrimental effects such as "increased stress," "decreased academic achievement," problems sleeping, and, in extreme cases, hallucinations [7]. While not every Candy Crush player will become addicted to the game, those who do will face these harmful consequences; developers therefore must take steps to protect the latter group.

Microtransactions and Mind Games

Beyond gearing the whole game towards ensnaring players, game developers implement more subtle money-making tactics as well. These tactics are akin to a stranger in a suspicious-looking van offering candy: the companies offer shiny, attractive rewards in order to entice the user into spending their money. One common ploy is the use of virtual currency, in which players must use their real money to purchase lump sums of virtual currency that can then be used to acquire items in the in-game shop [8]. The vast majority of game currencies have a higher numerical value than the real-world counterpart, which may mislead the player; while they can see the conversion rate, the large difference masks the true financial weight of each purchase. The popular MMO game League of Legends (LoL) utilizes a currency called Riot Points (RP); the cheapest bundle, 650 RP, costs $5, and the most expensive, 13,000 RP, costs $100. Game companies also lure players into buying higher priced bundles by implementing bonuses proportional to the price, making more expensive bundles seem like a bargain [8]. LoL begins offering bonus RP at the $10 level, an extra 200 RP added to the 1,300 that the bundle already includes, and grants up to a maximum of 2,000 bonus RP. Virtual currency does not explicitly lie about how much real money players spend, but it does add a nonessential extra conversion step that indicates intent to deceive in order to make a profit. This feature therefore strays into potential unethicality when utilizing agent-based virtue ethics, where ethicality of a given action is determined by the good or bad intentions behind said action.

Video games sometimes employ a more psychologically manipulative strategy called reward removal to motivate players to spend money, although the implementation varies more widely from game to game. The mobile game Puzzle and Dragons, for example, requires players to match sets of 3 or more gems of the same color; over the course of each level, the player receives a certain number of "dragon eggs" as rewards. The catch: the player can only carry so many eggs within their inventory, and all eggs that exceed this capacity are taken away [4]. Herein lies the concept of reward removal, as the game promises a certain number of eggs but ultimately takes away some of those earnings that the player worked so hard to earn-only allowing them to keep more eggs if they pay a fee. By offering players the experience of basking in greater spoils before returning to a less wealthy state, game developers instill an unnecessary sense of unhappiness in players that motivates them to spend money. The game could very well stop updating the eggs the player earns once they hit the maximum instead. This inventory limitation is also highly artificial, as the game doesn't physically store dragon eggs within the mobile device and could therefore "hold" an infinite number of eggs. In this way, the implementation of reward removal in Puzzle and Dragons clearly indicates the game developers' desire to manipulate users solely for profit, rendering the act unethical in the view of agent-based virtue ethics. Reward removal also harms video game players, as doing such financial and psychological harm violates players' wellbeing.

When Gaming Becomes Gambling

Another dangerous feature in many video games is the loot box, which consists of a random assortment of the aforementioned virtual items such as "skins" (avatar outfit variations), user icons, or power-ups. These items do not actually have any monetary value, nor can they be resold; moreover, the player does not actually own these items, for they can be revoked or erased from the user's account under extreme circumstances [8]. Loot boxes remain ever-popular despite these drawbacks, however, and total revenue from loot box purchases alone has been estimated to total nearly $30 billion over the course of 2018 [9]. Loot boxes can be particularly dangerous due to the low probability that a box contains a given item-players must therefore purchase an "indeterminate amount" of boxes in order to obtain a specific item they desire [8]. Because the outcome of loot boxes is totally independent of player skill and based on complete chance, utilizing these features resembles gambling; just as one pays to spin a slot machine in hopes of the unlikely event of landing three like symbols, one similarly can pay for a loot box in hopes of getting a certain outfit for their avatar. One study conducted in 2018 found that problem gambling is strongly linked to purchasing loot boxes; the more intense gambling addiction a given subject had, the more often they purchased loot boxes in video games [9]. The Belgian and Dutch governments have even gone so far as to ban loot boxes from video games on the basis that the items violate the countries' anti-gambling legislation [9].

Game developers therefore exhibit suspicious intention in their implementation of loot boxes. Of course, some companies in the gaming industry maintain that they intend loot boxes to be a "surprise and delight" developed to make games more enjoyable [8]. Game companies would not state outright their intentions to attract potential gambling addicts even if they did harbor said motivations, though; in this way, it is important to examine the dangers of gambling that may be associated with loot boxes. First and foremost, gambling takes a toll on the gambler's finances: the US gambling industry was valued at nearly $54 billion in 2008 [10]. Its behavioral consequences are even more severe, as pathological gambling has been linked to increased impulsivity and "impaired" decision-making; essentially, participating in gambling may increase tendencies that would cause one to gamble again, repeatedly [10]. Lastly, gambling addiction can potentially increase risk for obsessive-compulsive disorder, paranoia, depression, and anxiety [11]. According to the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, all programmers must "contribute to... human wellbeing" and "avoid harm"; game developers must therefore be careful to avoid creating games that resemble gambling too closely [7]. Given that gambling can cause so many financial, behavioral, and psychological problems, implementing features in games that resemble gambling therefore violates the code of ACM.

Conclusion

Merriam-Webster defines a game as an activity that one "[engages] in for fun or amusement"; it would therefore be reasonable to assume video games should give their users joy [12]. In turn, causing gamers mental and financial harm-by way of addiction, overspending, and psychological manipulation-seems to be the antithesis of this purpose. Creating a game that people become addicted to or that manipulates people into spending money does not inherently instigate an ethical dilemma; however, intentionality introduces a new perspective on the issue. Merely introducing in-game store items may just be a game company's method of staying afloat in our capitalist economy-and if a few users spend a good amount of money on the game, that is the result of their individual will. If a game developer were to add a loot box system intending to take advantage of the feature's strong correlation to gambling, however, they would put forth the effort to actively manipulate users and thus make playing the game that much more dangerous. Gamers outside the minority group that would overinvest in a game regardless of developers' actions are therefore at risk as well, incurring an increased urgency for developers to actively avoid any intention to knowingly deceive gamers.
By Tyler Amano-Smerling, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California
About the Author

At the time of writing this paper, Tyler was a sophomore majoring in Computer Science: Games at USC. Her favorite video games include Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, and League of Legends.

References

[1] T. Nazerian, "Educators Share How Video Games Can Help Kids Build SEL Skills," EdSurge, Jan. 2019. [Online]. Available: h ttps://www.edsurge.com/news/2019-01-22-educators-share-how-video-games-can-help-kids-build-sel-skills

[2] Anonymous "Investopedia Stock Analysis: How Does Fortnite Make Money?" Newstex Finance & Accounting Blogs, 2018. Available: https://www.investopedia.com/tech/how-does-fortnite-make-money/.

[3] "Player spending in Candy Crush mobile games worldwide in 2018 (in million U.S. dollars)," Statista. [Online].

[4] E. Geissinger, Gamer Nation: The Rise of Modern Gaming and the Compulsion to Play Again. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2018. [E-book] Available: EBSCOhost Ebooks.

[5] C. J. Larche, N. Musielak and M. J. Dixon, "The Candy Crush Sweet Tooth: How 'Near-misses' in Candy Crush Increase Frustration, and the Urge to Continue Gameplay," Journal of Gambling Studies (Online), vol. 33, (2), pp. 599-615, 2017. Available: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27435416/. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-016-9633-7.

[6] R. Kowert and T. Quandt, The Video Game Debate: Unravelling the Physical, Social, and Psychological Effects of Video Games. New York, NY: Routledge, 2016.

[7] "ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct," Association for Computing Machinery. [Online]. Available: https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics.

[8] D. L. King and P. H. Delfabbro, "Video game monetization (e.G., 'loot boxes'): A blueprint for practical social responsibility measures," International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 2018. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11469-018-0009-3.

[9] D. Zendle and P. Cairns, "Video game loot boxes are linked to problem gambling: Results of a large-scale survey," PLoS One, vol. 13, (11), 2018. Available: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0206767.

[10] Y. Zhang et al, "Process addictions in 2012: food, internet and gambling," Neuropsychiatry, vol. 2, (2), pp. 155-161, 2012. Available: https://www.jneuropsychiatry.org/abstract/process-addictions-in-2012-food-internet-and-gambling-6041.html.

[11] A. Estevez, D. Herrero-Fernández, I. Sarabia, and P. Jauregui, "The Impulsivity and Sensation-Seeking Mediators of the Psychological Consequences of Pathological Gambling in Adolescence," Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 32, (1), p. 91, 2015. [12] "Game," Merriam-Webster. 2019. Available: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/game?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld

Related Links

What is (Scientifically!) the Most Addicting Game Ever?:
https://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2013-03/gamesci-what-scientifically-most-addictive-game-ever

Why We Spend Real Money on Fake Clothes in Free Games:
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/5/17193156/fortnite-skins-pubg-league-of-legends-dota-2

Fortnite Addiction is Forcing Kids Into Video-Game Rehab:
https://www.latimes.com/ct-fortnite-addiction-kids-video-game-rehab-20181203-story.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pay to Play: The Ethics of Video Game Economics - Viterbi Conversations in Ethics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Video games provide endless hours of fun for people of all ages, races, and genders. Gamers may not realize, however, that certain elements of their favorite form of entertainment may pose a serious threat to their wallets-and even their mental health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Articles, interviews, and announcements on topics related to the intersection of neuroscience and society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Skinner Box - How Games Condition People to Play More - Extra Credits

# data[].attributes.body
no oficial⚠️
Main idea: The video game industry promotes violence and inappropriate behaviour.

Arguments/ facts:
-Most video games are violent.
-Sex and sexual scenes are vey common in video games.
-ESA created ESRB in order to continue selling inappropriate games without the government interfering.
-Video game developers lie about the content of their games in order from them not to be labeled as AO (adults only).
-Video games glorify and promote discrimination.

Dialogue:
While I think many of the points this article makes are true and make sense I also think its only viewing one side of the video game industry, totally forgetting about games like animal crossing, unpacking, Minecraft, overcooked and many more.
Yes many games are violent, but most of the things said in this article only apply to a small amount.

Summary:
Video games include and promote violence, sexual scenes and discrimination. The game developers making them hide the truth in order to be able to sell them to more people, including children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Welcome to the video game industry, worth in $35 billion in 2005 and grows at about 11% each year, (Hill 2006) which makes the industry one of the biggest in the world. In Australia the industry is just as popular with game sales crossing the $1 billion mark in 2007 financial year up 30% from 2006 (Hill 2007). An average person plays 7.5 hours of video games per week. (ESA 2007)

With an industry that is so big and still growing so fast you would think they have a standard code of ethics in control of there content, well you will be wrong. While many individual gaming companies have an internal code there is nothing regulating the content other then than the rating boards like the ESRB in the US and OFLC in Australia. The problem with using the rating boards to classify and restrict games is it does not stop the moral breeches in the game content like games used for propaganda and discrimination in games with many other things. With contents of violence and sexual elements in games getting much more realistic as we go into the new generation of video game consoles and new cutting edge PCs, the question is are game developers and gaming companies doing enough to control there content. This is what I hope to find out.

When you talk about the questionable content in game the first thing that comes to mind in most people in the level of violence in games and there effect on young children. To be precise there has been many studies on the effect of violence on children and there has been no conclusive evidence that it has an effect at all (ESA 2006)however, this was concluded by the biggest advocator of this is Entertainment Software Association (ESA) which is in it best interest to promote this as explained below. One of the biggest studies done which was done by Douglas A. Gentile et el (2004) concluded "Students who play more violent video games are more likely to have been involved in physical fights and get into arguments with teachers more frequently." However it was not concluded that the adolescents where attracted to the violent media because of there violent nature or vice versa. Regardless of the studies when it comes to violence in video games it is generally concluded that it should be kept out of reach of children.

Unlike movies sex related content such as nudity, sex scenes/references, and prosecution is not that common in games. In the game industry, the common term of sex sells is untrue for games as it mostly does the opposite. Due to the strict rating boards most sexual material will get a rating of AO (stopping the sale of the game in many shops) in America and been banned in Australia. Why? It's a well known fact that kids get there hands on video games regardless of the rating and it is important that kids are not exposed to sex and sex related content. Some game developers are not happy with the ESRB stance on sex in game saying to be truly classified as art this rating must be less strict. In order to do this according to the lawyer Lawrence G. Walters (2006) game developers must educate parents about not letting kids play adult games that contain sexual content much like you wouldn't show your kids a pornographic movie and calls for the industry to stop targeting minors for M17+ games.

When it comes to violent content the ESRB in America and OFLC in Australia evaluate the games content and in some cases not recommend, restrict some age groups or ban it completely. However, the ESRB unlike the OFLC is a private organisation run by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA). The ESA is a large organisation that has members with the all the major video game software and hardware manufactures including Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft. They defend all the best interests of the video gaming in the government, combating software copyright infringement and running of large events like Electronic Entertainment Expo (E ³). It is in the ESA best interest to keep the Video Game Industry profitable. As the graphics of video games got better and the violence and other questionable material became more realistic the government stepped in and told the industry if you are not going to regulate the games, we are. The ESA not wanting government regulation on video games created a body now known as ESRB. Been a private organization the government has no power to restrict the sale of M17+ and AO (Adults Only) rating so anyone can buy the game regardless of age. (ESRB 2007) However, this will be in violation of the Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) code of ethics (EMA 2007), nevertheless 69% of teens can still buy M17+ games (Federal Trade Commission 2004). In a survey in the US it is found that just under half (48.8%) of the grades eight and nine children plays a violent video game regularly (Olson, C et el 2007) showing that the current regulations are not working.

In 2005 California governor Gov Schwarzenegger signed a law prohibiting the sale and rent of violent video games to minors in California using a rating system of there own. In August 2007 by the VSDA and ESA overturned the law for been a violation of the First Amendment rights as video games are conceded a form of art and all ages have a right to see this 'art' (Nealon & Tanglao 2007). This has been repeated in many states across America. It makes you think if the ESA is truly concerned about the young's exposure to the violence or about the game industry profits. It also raises questions about the ESRB integrity in evaluating games. The ESRB know of the conflict of interest concerning them and there parent, ESA, and state that the ratings are done by independent part-time staff that are no way connected to the ESA.

Since the ESRB is private organisation it does not have the power to ban the sale of video games so extremely violent games like Postal that has been banned in 13 other countries. What the ESRB can do however is to give the game an AO rating that prevents the sale of the game to major retailers like Wal-mart. Game developers hate this as sales of the game go down dramatically unless they are aiming for that rating.

In order to get an ESRB rating it requires the game developer to send in a video of the game content at the worst point and a long questionnaire of the games content. It is easy for a game developer lie to ESRB about the games content and prior to 2005 this went unpunished, even with this most game developers do the right thing and declare all there content.

In 2005 hackers found a secret mini-game in Take Two's game Grand Theft Auto - San Andreas (GTA SA) that allowed the player to have sex in a mini-game which was dubbed 'Hot Coffee' (Feldman 2005). Initially Take Two denied that they had this content in the game and the extra was coded by modders but this was quickly proven incorrect (McLean 2005).The ESRB increased the rating of the game to an AO rating therefore many shops took the game of the shelf. This ethical violation got investigated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to see if they have broken any criminal laws by not declaring this content to ESRB. The investigation concluded that no laws where broken but if they do it again they will be fined US$11,000. This is not the last time this has happened. In 2006 Bethesda game The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion got re-rated as M from a T (Teen) as ERSB found that the due to understating the level of blood and gore in the game and having a nude female model that can me accessed by modders. (Sinclair 2006).

It was found that in a study that 81% of M rated games lacked content descriptions that were found with 1 hour of game play (Haninger, Tepichin, & Thompson 2006), however it is unsure if it was the game publishers failing to submit information to ESRB or ESRB failing to describe all content that the publishers submitted.

In Australia, we use the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) for the video game ratings. Unlike America, the OFLC is a government body that has the power to ban games as well as restrict the sale of the game to certain age groups. Also the OFLC R18+ (Restricted to 18 and over) rating is not accepted for video games to the disappointment to gamers. Any game that gets an AO rating in America will most likely to get an ban in Australia on top of this any game that indorses crime or other unaccepted act can be banned even though the levels of sex and violence is within the accepted MA15+ (Mature Audience 15 and over) limits. In Victoria, the government is pushing to introduce an R-rating to games to make it more on a level standard with the film industry (Smith 2004).
Propaganda
The Game UnderAsh and its sequel Under Siege, released to the local market in 2002 and 2006 respectfully by a mostly unknown publisher Afkar Media from the Middle East. The game is a First Person Shooter (FPS) based in the West Bank and is about a young Palestinian Arab trying to stop the invading Israeli Army in an array of real life locations and battles. The main character starts fighting with only stones and builds up better weapons as the game progresses. This game is honourably politicly motivated to bring support to the Palestinian course as with most of the other TV shows and games that Afkar Media make. When asked "DO WE SUPPORT VIOLENCE OR CONDEMN IT?" on the UnderAsh official website the General Manager M. Adnan Salim response is "Under Ash is a call to justice, realizing truth, preventing wronging and aggression. This idea, accompanied by the best available technology, is still handy to our youth, trying to dry up their tears; heal their wounds; remove all the feelings of humiliation, humbleness and wretchedness from their souls, and draw the smile of hope and the sense of dignity and efficiency on their faces." (Salim n.d.) This may be shocking but what if the same thing is happing on U.S. soil.

A game named Americas Army by U.S. Army where after going though the initial training the player can go online and work together with real army personal that encourage the players to do it for real. In the game, you work for the U.S. Army to fight enemies like the Taliban and the insurgents and do things like attacking enemies and stopping car bomb attacks. Is this any better than the UnderAsh where should the line be drawn.

What if you were killing Middle Eastern people just for entertainment? So many games deal with the 'evil' people been of a certain race or religion that is seen negatively by the American people. A yet to be released game (as of September 2007) called Ghost Recon 3 by Ubisoft is about a fictional war between America and Mexico with the Mexicans been the bad guys. Fictional wars with real countries is repeated across hundreds of games and when it takes an average game about 40 hours to compete and been exposed to killing people of a certain race or religion will have an effect on the way we view them. With game developers wanting to make there games more immersive they pick real enemies that the general population does not look favourably upon and make them an enemy.

It has taken the video game industry about 20 years to get to the same stage what the movie industry took about 100 years to develop and it does not show any signs of slowing down. The game developers, with the exception of a few bad apples, happily follow the rules that are enforced upon them. The problem lies in the fact that this all they do anything that is not a rule maximum profits or maximum impact is the next thing in there lists. What the industry needs for the sake of the millions of gamers (and there parents) is ethics, what is the moral thing to do. The game designers should every once in a while take a step back and stop thinking about how cool this game will be and think what impact will this game have. Questions like should I make it clear that this game is for adults only and not target kids, should I not put Muslims as the enemy given the current tension towards them. The best way for this action to start is to have a unified body such as the ESA to make a code of ethics and to encourage the industry to use it and stop fighting the government regulations and saying how safe violence is to kids. Only after the industry proves they can do this they can get its way and acquire the AO in all shops and an R-rating in Australia. Then the gamers, parents, and industry can move happily into the future.

Americas Army: Special Forces 2007, U.S Army, viewed 30 September 2007,

EMA 2007, Entertainment Merchant Association, viewed 21 September 2007,

ESRB 2007, Entertainment Software Ratings Board, viewed 21 September 2007,

McLean, B. 2005, Sex, Lies, and Videogames , CNN Money & Fortune Magazine, viewed 25 September 2007,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ethics in the Video Game Industry - beetle120

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to the video game industry, worth in $35 billion in 2005 and grows at about 11% each year, (Hill 2006) which makes the industry one of the biggest in the world. In Australia the industry is just as popular with game sales crossing the $1 billion mark in 2007 financial year up 30% from 2006 (Hill 2007).

# data[].attributes.body
oficial

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article on ethics in video games is an enhanced write-up of the talk I gave at the Game Developers Conference (GDC) in March 2019.
Videogames are one of the most popular forms of recreation in the world and they will generate over 150 billion US dollars in 2019, yet they often generate terrible press. For example, some games are accused of making players violent, or to turning them into addicts. I've been in the videogame industry for over 10 years and the latest game I've worked on (as director of user experience at Epic Games until I left on October 2017), Fortnite, is played by about 250 million players. It's also under scrutiny by many concerned parents who fear that the game might have some negative impact on their children. Some parents have been reporting, for example, that their children play Fortnite at the expense of their education, health, or even personal hygiene. It saddens me that videogames can have a negative impact on some people's lives but I'm also frustrated by the fearmongering I've been witnessing, most of it with no solid scientific ground. This fearmongering - and sometimes even scapegoating - around videogames can distract the public and lawmakers from identifying and addressing the real potential of videogame play, and tech in general. As a result the game industry is often defensive when responding to the horrible things it's accused of, which is understandable but fails to build a constructive dialog. We, videogame developers (i.e. all the professionals participating in crafting a game), have a responsibility as content providers to foster this dialog.

Here I offer my perspective on ethics in the game industry from a cognitive science standpoint (given my doctorate in cognitive and developmental psychology) coupled with my expertise in game user experience through my work at Ubisoft, LucasArts, Epic Games, and current experience as an independent game ux consultant. Below, I will discuss addiction (and attention economy), loot boxes, dark patterns, and violence. For each of these topics I will identify the main public concern, what science has to say about it, and then offer some suggestions on what game developers could do to address the related concerns.

Tldr: This piece is long, because all the topics are nuanced and often complex, so the tldr (too long, didn't read) takeaway is: be careful of shortcuts claiming that videogames have an effect (whatever effect this might be). I encourage you to read the long story...

The Guardian: Are video games really addictive? - June 20, 2018

1. Videogame "addiction"
o Main public concern regarding "addiction" to games
Many parents are worried because they see their children spending a lot of time playing video games. They hear about a "gaming addiction" that is affecting some players and fear that their loved ones will become addicts and suffer in their school and work performance and in their social relationships. There is also concern that games are "designed to be addictive" and to provide "dopamine shots" to the brain. In some countries, such as South Korea and China, video gaming has been recognized as a disorder and treatment programs have been established. In fact, China has recently introduced a curfew on online gaming for minors (even though the shutdown policy in South Korea was not found to impact sleeping hours in teenagers).
o What science says about addiction
What is crucial to determine here is the following: is there a specific type of addiction related to videogames requiring a specific treatment, and can games create such an addiction? Before tackling these questions, let's first assess what an addiction is, because simply being engaged with a game and playing for several hours per day is not enough to be considered an addiction. Addiction refers to pathological behavior that has a precise definition. There are addictions tied to the use of a substance, such as alcohol, opioids, or tobacco. In these addictions, the substance generally creates a physical dependence. For example, heroin binds to opioid receptors in the brain, creating a surge of pleasurable sensation. It is extremely addictive as it is disturbing the balance of hormonal and neuronal systems, and its impact cannot easily be reversed, creating a profound tolerance and physical dependence. Other substances don't create such a dramatic physical dependence, or can create a dependence that is mainly psychological, which of course does not mean that their effects are less concerning.

Other addictions are said to be "behavioral," which means that they are not substance-related, such as addiction to sex, shopping, or sports. As I'm writing these lines, only " gambling disorder" is mentioned as a behavioral addiction in the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), the manual used by mental health professionals to diagnose mental disorders. There is also mention of an "Internet gaming disorder" in the DSM-5 but as a condition requiring further research, along with caffeine use disorder. Nonetheless, the proposed symptoms to diagnose an Internet gaming disorder are the following:

Preoccupation with gaming;

Withdrawal symptoms when gaming is taken away or not possible (sadness, anxiety, irritability);

Tolerance: need to spend more time gaming to satisfy the urge;

Inability to reduce playing, unsuccessful attempts to quit gaming;

Giving up other activities, loss of interest in previously enjoyed activities due to gaming;

Continuing to game despite problems;

Deceiving family members or others about the amount of time spent on gaming;

The use of gaming to relieve negative moods, such as guilt or hopelessness;

Risk, having jeopardized or lost a job or relationship due to gaming.

A diagnosis of Internet gaming disorder requires gaming causing "significant impairment or distress" and experiencing at least five or more of the listed symptoms within a year. It is worth noting that there is no consensus on these "Internet gaming disorder" symptoms, pulled from substance addiction, and they are in fact currently heavily debated.

In late 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that in the upcoming edition (11 th Revision) of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), gaming disorder would be identified as a new disorder. I do not debate that some people experience problematic gaming that might distress them, and that they need help. However, the larger question is whether gaming disorder is a specific type of addiction requiring a specific treatment. Some people have problematic behavior with sports, yet there is no specific sports disorder recognized by the DSM-5 or the ICD. Some researchers estimated that only 0.3 to 1% of the general population might qualify for a potential diagnosis of Internet disorder (Przybylski et al., 2016), while it is estimated that there are over two billion gamers across the world. Among those who play videogames, it was found that more than 2 out of 3 players did not report any symptoms of Internet gaming disorder. Many researchers claim that problematic gaming should be best viewed as a coping mechanism associated with underlying problems such as depression and anxiety that arise from neuro-chemistry independent of game play. While it is important to recognize and help people suffering from problematic gaming, the concern according to those researchers is that focusing on a "gaming disorder" would create a moral panic, and would stigmatize billions of gamers. The risk would then be creating a mental "illness" that didn't previously exist, as neuroscientist Mark Lewis puts it. This is why the creation of the first gaming detox camps are raising concerns for many: the strong focus on videogames could distract from the real origins of the symptoms, such as child negligence or anxiety, while many of these videogame rehab programs are extremely expensive. Of course, other researchers and health professionals find that having now a recognized "gaming disorder" will raise awareness on the suffering of those addicted to games and will encourage more research to ultimately help them more adequately.

Lastly, some scientists suggest that videogames are designed to be addictive and compare some game mechanics to machine gambling, which they say could activate the brain's so-called "reward system" in the same way as drugs like cocaine or heroin do. I will leave aside the behavioral psychology aspect of gambling (conditioning and variable rewards) for now, as I will tackle these notions in the next section. I will stay focused on explaining here why some people are concerned that videogames might give "addictive dopamine shots" to players. The term "brain-reward circuitry" (deemed a gross oversimplification by some neuroscientists who deplore the increase of "neuroquackery") is used to describe what is going on in our brains when we learn, for example, that an action can lead to a "reward". A reward is anything that we perceive as being a good outcome, from enjoying a tasty meal to receiving a love message from someone we care about. When we want such a reward, dopamine is slowly released in the brain to motivate us, which is overall useful since we have survived so far by seeking good outcomes and avoiding pain. However, according to neuroscientist Mark Humphries, suggesting that dopamine is released when we receive a reward is not exact. He explains that dopamine is released fast when we didn't expect to receive a reward, yet get one. Mark explains that dopamine "signals the error between what you predicted and what you got. That error can be positive, negative, or zero. It is not reward. Dopamine neurons do not fire when you get something good. They fire when you get something unexpected. And they sulk when you don't get something you expected."

So it's not a surprise, nor it is a brain malfunction, to have dopamine released when we play a fun videogame that makes you want to reach goals in a challenging environment that can also make you experience setbacks, or unexpected good outcomes. Because if it wasn't the case, it would mean that playing games was a boring activity. Dopamine is present in our brains all day long as we learn about our environment, are motivated in doing something, receive messages from friends, do our daily meditation, play games, or even move around. Parkinson's disease is due to a low level of dopamine in the brain, for example. So the new Silicon Valley " dopamine fasting" trend does not make any sense. You do not want to get lower dopamine levels in your brain. What is true though, is that certain drugs, like methamphetamines, give a massive surge of dopamine in the brain, which is why they are so addictive. It's not having dopamine released in the brain that can be a problem, it's the amount released. A study by Koepp et al. published in Nature in 1998 showed that playing video games increased the levels of dopamine in the brain by about 100%. Which can seem a lot, but so does sex. Meditation was also found to increase dopamine levels by 65%. As a comparison, an illicit drug like methamphetamine increases dopamine levels by over 1000%. As Markey and Ferguson (2017) point out, if videogames that are enjoyed across the world by over 2 billion people were as addictive as illicit drugs, we would have a massive epidemic to address.

In sum, pathologic gaming does exist and some people do need help. However, the scientific debate around the existence of a specific addiction to videogames, and its causes and treatments is far from resolution. This sensitive topic requires further research, especially given the attention it gets from policy makers. In the meantime, distinguishing between excessive gaming, problematic gaming, and addictive gaming (Kuss et al. 2017) can help avoiding stigmas, downplaying true addiction suffering, and overall dispeling the moral panic.
o What could the game industry do regarding problematic gaming?
First and foremost, game studios could collaborate with researchers and mental health professionals to understand problematic gaming better and ideally find ways to identify and help struggling gamers (all the while respecting privacy laws). Especially the few game studios blessed with a hugely successful game (since most game creators struggle to make a living), and even more so if said game is massively played by children. It's completely understandable for parents to be concerned when their child plays videogames for long hours every day. It's particularly important in this case to help distinguish between passionate engagement with a game and pathologic gaming.

Beyond the problem of pathological overuse of games, we need to look into certain mechanics the game industry (and overall the tech industry) often uses. Ethicist and ex-Googler Tristan Harris has been raising awareness (albeit powdered with some non-scientifically-based fearmongering) on how technology exploits " our psychological vulnerabilities." Mechanics like bottomless scrolling (such as on Facebook or Twitter), autoplay (such as on Youtube or Netflix), or push notifications (used by all social media and many mobile games) could encourage us to engage or stay engaged with a platform even if we didn't have a clear intention to do so initially. This is what we call the "attention economy:" all platforms are competing to grab and keep people's attention and some questionable techniques are sometimes used to this end. Moreover, some techniques are downright unethical and labeled as dark patterns, which I address later. A compelling example of such engagement-sustaining technique described by Harris is the snapstreak feature on Snapchat. This feature shows the number of days in a row that two Snapchat users have communicated with each other. Snapchat users are then encouraged to keep the streak growing as breaking it will ultimately be seen as a punishment. Tweens and teenagers are particularly vulnerable to this feature, because connecting with friends is very important, no one wants to be the jerk that breaks a 150-day streak, and because the brain is immature until adulthood. One area of the brain keeps developing until about 25 years of age: the prefrontal cortex. This part of the brain, among other things, controls impulses and automatic behaviors. Thus, those persuasive techniques that aim to keep people engaged with a platform are somewhat more difficult for children and teenagers to resist, and the younger they are, the harder it is for them. The Marshmallow Test is a good example illustrating how difficult it can be for some children to resist the temptation of eating candy and to delay gratification, which is why they need their parents and educators to set limits for them (note: the Marshmallow study was recently put into question regarding the links it claimed between early delay of gratification and later outcomes; I'm only referring here to the fact that children can have difficulty delaying gratification). This is not to say that adults can efficiently resist these persuasive mechanics; human irrationality and susceptibility to bias is very well documented. The Persuasive Tech Lab at Stanford, for example, studies computers as persuasive technology (aka "captology"), including design and ethics of interactive products. If we can maybe debate whether adults should have full responsibility over their decision-making, I would argue that it's clearly unethical to deliberately use persuasive techniques on children, who are less equipped than adults to resist them efficiently, when the intention behind is business-oriented. In many cases, game developers do not intentionally try to exploit children's immaturity, yet when such concern is uncovered, the issue must be addressed. Even if it's not unhealthy for children to spend reasonable time playing videogames (and play is very important overall to keep our brains sharp), the brain typically needs a variety of activities to develop in the best conditions. Children should therefore be encouraged to take part in various activities instead of being encouraged to only play one type of game for too long.

Game developers need to have a better understanding of the psychological impact of certain mechanics they use - sometimes simply because they saw it used in another game they played or because some telemetry data revealed they resulted in better retention or conversion - especially if their games are not rated M for Mature or AO for Adults Only in the ESRB rating system (or 18+ in the European PEGI rating system). Yet it would be a better user experience (UX) practice for developers to rethink for all audiences how some games constantly reward engagement or even punish disengagement. Some games punish players when they do not play every day, for example by making them miss out on a highly desirable reward because they didn't log in enough consecutive days, or if they didn't gather enough currency by playing every day to earn a reward that will expire by the end of a season. We could encourage a healthier gaming behavior by rewarding disengagement, such as the rest system in World of Warcraft allowing players who took a break to gain additional experience points when they resume playing. At the very least we should avoid punishing disengagement in all our games, and think of ways to genuinely encourage breaks in games played by children (even if the game wasn't initially targeted to children). By "genuinely encouraging breaks" I mean designing games to reward breaks like in WoW, not merely displaying a message telling kids they should consider taking a break since such messaging is largely ineffective.

Lastly, game studios and game journalists should stop abusing the term "addiction". Many games are described as being "addictive" as if this was a good thing, to express that the game is fun and engaging. Engagement is critical to the success and enjoyment of a game; if we're not engaged it means that we are not motivated to play a certain game, which likely means that the game is boring or has too many barriers to its enjoyment (aka "user experience" issues, or UX issues). However, good UX has nothing to do with "dark patterns" (designs that have a purposely deceptive functionality that are not in users' best interest) which I will describe below. And, sure, addiction doesn't occur with something that is not perceived as pleasurable. But addiction is a pathology; there is nothing fun about it. Some people need help to get out of an addiction, let's not downplay their suffering by using this term lightly.

Business Insider UK - "Games with loot boxes should carry gambling warning, say UK lawmakers" - September 13, 2019

o Main public concern regarding loot boxes
There is a general concern that loot boxes are a form of gambling. Parents fear that they could "condition" their children to playing and spending more, and that it could participate in an increase of problem gambling among children and teenagers.
o What science says about loot boxes
We first need to establish the difference between the legal definition of gambling and the psychological mechanism behind it. The legal definition of gambling in the United States is registering a bet in exchange for something of value (such as buying a lottery ticket) or playing a game of chance in the hope of getting anything of value (such as money). Per this definition, loot boxes (or loot crates, or gasha) that can be redeemed with an in-game currency (such as gems, or coins) to receive a randomized selection of virtual loot (such as a rare weapon or skin), could be considered a form of gambling, although legal wrangling over this continues internationally. One might argue that the in-game currency required to buy loot boxes is not necessarily tied to real-life money (for example if players obtain said currency -or are awarded loot boxes directly- through gameplay) and that most games do not allow cashing out (gain real money from an item received). Although most loot boxes can be obtained by spending hard currencies that can in turn be bought with real money, and secondary markets allowing players to trade loot in exchange for money do exist, the important notion in the legal definition is, in both cases, "something of value". I would argue that a rare item, if desired by players, will also be felt as valuable within the game system even if it's virtual.

Whether or not we agree that loot boxes are gambling, the psychological mechanism behind both is nonetheless the same although the outcome is not: they are a form of intermittent rewards with a variable ratio reinforcement schedule (aka variable rewards). Before explaining what this is, let's take a step back to explain human motivation. There is no behavior without motivation, which means that if you're not motivated to do something, you will simply not do it. There are a lot of theories about human motivation but we currently do not have one unified theory that can explain all of our behaviors. For the sake of simplicity, let's focus here on two main types of motivation: extrinsic and intrinsic motivations. Extrinsic motivation is when you do something in order to get something else; such as accomplishing a mission to get a loot, or take a job you don't find particularly interesting to earn money, or work on a school assignment you're not excited about to get a good grade. It's all about doing a specific behavior (a task or an action) to obtain a reward that is extrinsic to the task. Whereas intrinsic motivation is when you do something for the sake of doing it, such as learning to play the guitar because you love music, or playing a videogame you enjoy.

Let's now take a deeper dive on extrinsic motivation: accomplishing a task to get a reward. This type of motivation is possible because we implicitly learn to associate a stimulus to reinforcement, either rewarding or aversive. The learned association between a stimulus and a response is called conditioning. We distinguish between classical conditioning, which happens passively (e.g. learning to associate the sound of a fire alarm to imminent danger), and operant conditioning, which requires an action from the individual (e.g. a snack in a vending machine can lead to a pleasurable experience if we put money in the machine and press the correct button). Thus, operant conditioning is when you learn the connection between one stimulus and the probability of getting a reward if you make the appropriate action. Sometimes a long time elapses between the behavior and the reward (e.g. solving a math problem in a school exam and getting the result from the professor a few days later), sometimes the reward is immediate (e.g. solving the same math problem on an interactive platform and getting a good grade right away). The closer in time the reward from the action, the more efficiently we learn the association. This is one of the reasons why videogames can be beneficial in education: because they give immediate feedback on players' actions. Throughout our lives, we learn enormously through conditioning. Just consider road safety: you're conditioned to fasten your seatbelt when you hear your car beeping, you've learned that another type of beep (associated with a light on the dashboard) means that you are low on gas and motivates you to go to the nearest gas station to avoid a punishment (running out of gas), you've been conditioned to stop at a red light to avoid getting a ticket or, worse, provoking an accident, and so on. And yes, the brain releases "fast" dopamine (i.e. a big fluctuation) when we learn that an action leads to a reward, so that we can later anticipate getting this reward again: this is how we may become motivated to do certain things in life (which seems to then involve slow dopamine changes). As mentioned in the previous section, dopamine is, among many other things, the neurochemical involved in motivation and learning. So dopamine is released in your brain right before eating a square of chocolate, having sex, seeing a friend, doing your morning mediation, and as you hope to redeem something cool in a loot boxes.

Although conditioning is everywhere in humans and other animals, and help us survive by seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, it has a bad reputation and is widely misunderstood in the public today. This is mainly because of an infamous behavioral psychologist called B.F. Skinner who did a lot of research on operant conditioning in the middle of the twentieth century. The typical apparatus that Skinner used to conduct his experiments is the operant conditioning chamber, now called a "Skinner box". An animal (usually a rat or a pigeon) would be isolated in the chamber that contained a food dispenser and a lever. After a specific stimulus occurred (such as a light or a sound), if the rat pressed the lever a food pellet would be delivered into the food dispenser. Skinner discovered that, as you can imagine, rewarding a specific behavior (giving food if the correct lever is pressed) will have a tendency to motivate the rat to increase this behavior (i.e. press this lever more often), while punishing a behavior (giving an electrical shock if the wrong lever is pressed) will have a tendency to decrease that behavior.

Conditioning is not controversial by itself, it's just an efficient way to learn how to avoid what we consider as undesirable outcomes and how to get more of the rewards we care about. This instrumental learning certainly has a lot of merits and was largely used in the 20 th century in the education, military, or work environment (and still is today). However, it has been also widely criticized because this paradigm ignores important unobservable aspects of learning (such as attention or memory) and behaviorism enthusiasts often overlooked undesirable side effects. For instance, punishments can induce stress or aggression and can ultimately be detrimental to learning (see for example Galea et al., 2015, for the impact of punishment on retention for motor learning and Vogel and Schwabe, 2016, for the impact of stress in the classroom). Not to mention that stress and anxiety can also damage someone's health (rat or human). Skinner used physical punishments to torture the poor rats and pigeons in his lab in the name of science. Even when the punishment is not physical (say, being shamed for eating a massive steak in the context of climate emergency), it is not as efficient to learn than being rewarded for the opposite behavior (getting a token of appreciation for choosing the vegan option). Physical punishments have obvious heavy consequences on well-being and are thus clearly intolerable.

Let's get back to rewards (I promise you I'm soon circling back to loot boxes, just bear with me a little bit more): what Skinner discovered is that intermittent rewards (when the behavior is sometimes rewarded) led to more engagement with the lever than continuous rewards (when the rat always got a pellet of food each time it pressed the lever). Those rewards can be intermittent based off of time, which we call interval, or based on someone's action, which we call ratio. And both can be either predictable (fixed) or unpredictable (variable). Here are examples of each in videogames:

Fixed interval rewards: daily rewards (you can log in every day to get a new reward) or time-based rewards (you know that your building in Clash of Clans will take 10 minutes to build).

Variable interval rewards: the cherry bonus in Pac-Man that appeared at certain times and was not, as far as I could tell, based on the player's actions in the game, or the rare spawn in a MMO that will appear in an area at an unpredictable moment.

Fixed ratio rewards: you need to kill 10 zombies to get an achievement, or you need to buy two skills in a skill tree in order to reach the one you are actually interested in.

Variable ratio rewards: any reward implying chance. So loot boxes of course, card packs, but also procedurally generated loots on a map (e.g. finding a hidden treasure as we explore the world), and anytime RNG (random number generation) is used (e.g. getting a critical hit when fighting an enemy). Outside of video games, it means any game using some randomness (so... quite a lot), such as all card games and all games using dice.

In sum, there are four types of intermittent rewards and the table below describes their influence on the rat's engagement with the lever. When rewards are predictable (fixed), there is often a pause after the reward is obtained. We got what we came for or worked a specific amount of time for, so we can take a break. But when rewards are unpredictable (variable), we observe a steadier engagement, because maybe we might get it again if we stick around or continue to open loot boxes. And when the reward is both unpredictable and depending on behavior (variable ratio), the engagement is both high and steady. This is why, since Skinner's experiments, we absolutely know that variable rewards such as loot boxes are usually more engaging than other rewards. Our level of engagement will depend on how valuable we perceive the reward to be, our odds of gaining it, and many other factors (since, after all, we are not exactly like rats and our brains are a bit more complex). Getting unpredictable rewards are exciting and can be of different kinds: a surprise visit of your best friend, a surprise gift from your loved one, a surprise bonus at work, draw a royal flush, throw double sixes, etc. Here again, variable rewards are not necessarily a bad thing per se. What begins to be highly questionable ethically speaking is when those variable rewards are tied to monetization, because we know that they will have a tendency to engage players to pay more to increase their odds of getting something cool. Thus, loot boxes (and charity bids but these are for a good cause and the feedback is not immediate) are similar to gambling.

That being said, we can decide as a society that, for example, casinos are legal in certain places and only accessible to adults. Humans, after all, still have some free will and it's not as if variable rewards made a certain behavior absolutely compulsive all the time with everyone. Sure, it might take more willpower to refrain from engaging or stop when a variable reward is at play but most of us adults manage to do so (even if our will fails us from time to time). However, let's not forget that gambling disorder is recognized as an impulse control disorder in the DSM-5 and that some people do suffer from pathological gambling. This is why gambling laws are quite strict and individuals can ask to be barred from entering casinos when they are compulsive gamblers. No such option exists with videogame loot boxes and since many countries do not recognize loot boxes as gambling, they are often not regulated.

What is much more concerning is the potential impact of loot boxes on children and teenagers, although still not clear today. Like I mentioned in the previous section on addiction, children and teenagers do not have a mature prefrontal cortex, which can make automatic and conditioned responses much harder for them to control when need be. If you were wondering why children are so bad at refraining from doing an action if they didn't hear "Simon says" first, this is why. This is also why your teenagers have a greater tendency to partake in risky behaviors than adults past 25 years of age (approximately). So loot boxes tied to monetization in a game can potentially, in my opinion, be an issue if children or even teenagers play this game, especially when the game is popular and they feel particularly compelled to buy loot boxes until they obtain a price that is fashionable at school. Peer pressure or even bullying, which could happen yesteryear if a teenager wasn't wearing the fashionable brands, can happen today with trendy virtual goods. The issue is that game developers cannot easily control who's playing their games. Unlike casinos, studios cannot easily ID players before letting them access their monetized variable rewards (there are some privacy concerns and it's easy to cheat when there is an age gate).

But what about physical card packs you might ask? Aren't they also monetized variable rewards? Indeed they are! Yet most of us grew up with those card packs in our environment and it didn't seem to be such a big deal. This is true, but mostly because there are many natural obstacles between the initial desire of getting a physical card pack and actually getting it: as a kid you need to ask your parents for money, then if they agree you need to go to the store, those card packs need to be in stock, and lastly you need to give away physical money in exchange for them (money which you could use for something else that also feels rewarding, like a delicious treat at the ice-cream place you walked past on your way to the store). At last! you can open your card pack and see if you received the cards you were seeking. If you didn't get what you were hoping for and you do not have any money left, well you can only go back home and hope to convince your parents to give you money again. In this fictional scenario, all these steps are forcing the child to be patient, perseverant, and to delay gratification. Those steps do not exist in games where you can pay with a virtual currency, which is often very emotionally disconnected from actual money. The effort to obtain a loot box often boils down to just a click. To be clear, this is just an anecdotal example, not scientifically based, to explain one main difference between physical card packs and loot boxes, but some researchers are looking into their impact beyond the mere absence of physical frictions. For example, it is possible (although not recommended if we are concerned by ethical practices) within a videogame system to decide that players will receive an awesome reward the first time they open a loot box (thus creating an expectation that this could happen again). In physical card packs this cannot be controlled and in casinos this is regulated and monetary rewards are dropped randomly at a certain rate (although they can control the level of fanfare -sound and visual effects- players get as they receive even a small reward, such as 50 cents).

This is why some countries like Belgium are banning loot boxes in games altogether, since they can be considered as gambling -at least on a psychological level- and studios cannot possibly control if underage players are going to access the game and sink both time and money to get those desirable variable rewards.
o What could the game industry do regarding loot boxes?
It is my opinion that avoiding loot boxes in all games that aren't rated Adults Only or Mature within the ESRB rating system (or 18+ with PEGI) is the most ethical option, given the issues described above. And when loot boxes are used, they should really be completely random (e.g. players can get them at a certain rate that is not manipulated, and this rate should be transparent). Gambling advertising should also be banned in games that children can play. It seems that child gambling has quadrupled in the past 2 years according to the Gambling Commission in Great Britain, in a study conducted on 11-16 year olds. Although it's hard to have a clear understanding of the impact of such ads on child gambling (correlation does not mean causation), it would be a good ethical practice to protect children from adult content. Of course this isn't as simple as it seems since game studios often have no visibility on what ads will be displayed in the space they sell to a third party. But raising awareness and pressuring ad companies will probably work.

For adult games, unless their game is about gambling and is regulated as such, game studios might want to severely control secondary marketplaces, and explore more transparent and less enticing monetization techniques. Here again, this is easier to consider for studios that are getting big revenues from a highly popular game. Smaller studios and indie developers will have a hard time cutting down what sometimes is the only way that they have found to stay afloat. It's worth noting that rewards given randomly have to be perceived as desirable. Throwing dice in the context of maybe winning 1,000 dollars in a casino game won't have the same impact for players than casually throwing dice at home outside of any context (although clicking on cows seems to be perceived enough of a reward to keep on clicking). Thus, getting a chance to unlock cool characters from the latest Star Wars movie in a popular game will likely feel more rewarding (but also more controlling, which is why it can backfire) than winning a character from an obscure movie no one knows about, in a game that few people play. It's therefore for the big players to lead by example, which will hopefully set ethical standards for our whole industry.

Fast Company - "Senators present Deceptive Experiences bill to stop dark patterns" April 9, 2019

3. Dark patterns
o Main public concern regarding dark patterns
There is a general concern that tech and videogames "manipulate" us into doing something that we didn't want to do. This topic overlaps with the concept of attention economy, which I described in the section about addiction, with the idea that tech companies "force" us to engage with a platform longer than we initially intended.
o What science says about dark patterns
A dark pattern describes a design with a purposely deceptive functionality that is not in users' best interest. But before diving into the topic of dark patterns, let's play a little game: Imagine that in a store a bat and a ball cost eleven dollars total. Knowing that the bat costs ten dollars more than ball, how much does the ball cost? Try to think about an answer fast. If you replied that the ball costs one dollar, it means that you fell into a common trap. This puzzle was part of the " Cognitive Reflection Test " (CRT) by Shane Frederick (2005) and that included two more questions. Frederick found that 83% of MIT students answered wrongly to at least one question (the correct answer is 50 cents by the way). Although we consider ourselves as logical beings capable of rational thinking, we are actually tricked by the many limitations of our mental processes and unconscious biases in our daily decisions and when solving problems.

In his book Thinking Fast and Slow, PhD in psychology, researcher, and Nobel laureate in economics Daniel Kahneman explains that the human mind has two operating modes, so to speak: System 1 and System 2. System 1 is fast, instinctive, and emotional thinking. System 2 is much slower, deliberate, logical, and involves effortful mental activities such as complex computations. Both systems are active whenever we are awake and they influence one another. Irrational thinking occurs mostly because System 1 operates automatically and is prone to errors of intuitive thoughts and because System 2 might not be aware that these errors are being made.

To explain what these cognitive biases are, let me take the more familiar example of optical illusions. In the illusion presented above the two central purple circles have the same size, although we perceive the central circle on the left as being smaller than the one on the right because of their relative size compared to the other circles surrounding them. Well, the same principle applies to cognitive biases. Cognitive biases -or cognitive illusions- are patterns of thought that bias our judgment and our decision making. Just like optical illusions, they are very difficult to avoid even if we are aware of them. Professor of psychology and behavioral economics Dan Ariely in his book Predictably Irrational (2008) went into greater detail on how cognitive biases impact our everyday lives, inducing systematic errors in our reasoning and our financial decision making. For example, "anchoring" is a cognitive bias that is somewhat comparable to the optical illusion presented above: we have a tendency to rely on previous information (the anchor - such as the size of the circles surrounding the purple central circle in the optical illusion) to make a judgment about a new piece of information by comparing them to one another. Marketers use anchoring to influence our decisions. For example: if you see a video game blockbuster on sale for $29 with an initial price of $59 next to it. In that case, the $59 price tag represents the anchor (emphasized by the strikethrough effect applied to it) to which you compare the current price. This makes you recognize that it is a good deal and it might sway you into buying this title over another one of the same price of $29 but that is not on sale. Even though the cost is the same, the game that is not on sale might seem less interesting because it doesn't make you feel that you are saving money ($30) compared to the game on sale. Similarly, the same price of $29 can appear less of a good deal if there are other blockbusters on sale sold at $19, therefore representing an even better deal. Maybe you will end up buying a game that you were less interested in just because it offered a better deal, or maybe you will buy more games instead of the one(s) you were initially interested in, because you just cannot miss this compelling opportunity to make such a good transaction. In the end, you might even spend much more money than your video game budget allows you to buy. We tend to compare things to one another to make decisions and it influences our judgment. The worst part is that we are mostly unaware of being influenced by these biases. I'm not going to list them all here since there are too many but the product manager Buster Benson and the engineer John Manoogian created the chart shown below in an effort to sort and categorize the cognitive biases listed on the dedicated Wikipedia page.

User experience (UX) is a mindset that allows creators such as game developers to offer a better experience to their players by taking into account human brain limitations and cognitive biases. When considering UX, we place players first and ensure that they will have an engaging and usable experience, which also implies consideration of inclusion, accessibility, and protection against antisocial behaviors that can occur in multiplayer games. Dark patterns occur when, instead of placing players at the center of the creation process, companies place their business goals at the center, and when brain limitations and implicit biases are exploited to make more money at the expense of players. The difference between UX and dark patterns is similar to the difference between a magician manipulating our brain limitations to entertain us, and the pickpocket that does so to steal your smartphone or wallet surreptitiously. Psychology researchers have been studying how certain marketing tricks work. Let's take the example described by Dan Ariely in the aforementioned book (2008) regarding a subscription offer for a magazine as seen on its website. Three options were proposed:

One-year subscription to the online version, for $59.

One-year subscription to the print edition, for $125.

One-year subscription to both online and print versions, for $125.

Options B and C have the same price ($125) although option C has clearly more value than B. Intrigued by this offer, Ariely ran a test on 100 students from MIT to see which option they would pick. Most students chose option C (84 students), 16 students chose option A and none of them chose option B, which therefore seems a useless option; who would want to pay the same price for less value anyway? So Ariely removed option B and ran the test again using new participants. This time, most students chose option A (68 students) while 32 students chose option C. People's behavior can be influenced by the environment, and this specific case is called the "decoy effect", whereby a distracting (decoy) option (B) makes one other option (C) seem more attractive than it would be without the presence of the decoy. We could therefore argue that the decoy effect very often use in free-to-play videogame stores (for example gem package offers), but also use by many other industries and businesses, is an example of a dark pattern because it's influencing people to buy a more expensive option than most of them would have if no decoy was present.

Some situations can clearly be labeled as dark patterns (to increase the company's revenue at the expense of users) while others can be defined as a "nudge" (benevolent, such as the beep from your car nudging you to fasten your seatbelt). On the other hand, "good UX" is when users can accomplish what they want with a system without unnecessary frictions (such as confusion or frustration), while "bad UX" (or "UX fail") is when users encounter issues and frictions that are not by design. Here is a clear example of a dark pattern from Amazon: Let's say you placed a few items in your cart and are ready to check out, so you click on the "check out" button, which leads you to the screen below. Given that human attention is scarce, we have a tendency to not read the fine prints. This is why in UX we make sure the calls to action are clear and visible. But what is happening here is, if you click on the big orange button inviting you to "Get Started", thinking that you are getting started in checking out, you actually sign up for Amazon Prime. On this screen, if you just want to check out without signing up for Amazon Prime, you need to click on the small link on the bottom left, which is shaming you on top of it because "you won't save $18.95 on this order, you fool," while you don't have any information on how much Amazon Prime subscription costs. I'm guessing that a lot of people enrolled to Amazon Prime unwillingly, and then maybe kept their subscription because it's quite a hassle to unsubscribe. If you are interested in dark patterns, you can take a look at the website darkpatterns.org which shows a lot of examples (to avoid, of course).

UX is not about tricking users into doing something that is arguably detrimental to them while being clearly beneficial to the business. In fact, most dark patterns violate one or more of the ten usability heuristics put together by Jakob Nielsen. The Amazon example violates the "visibility of system status" heuristic, for example; users cannot easily tell what clicking on the "Get Started" button will lead to, which means that the status of the system is not transparent. The issue regarding dark patterns is that, in most cases, they aren't as clear-cut. For example, look below at an old screenshot from World of Warcraft. If they want to delete a character in WoW, players not only get a confirmation screen but they have to type in 'DELETE'. Is this a dark pattern to make people think twice before deleting a character? It's clearly not beneficial for Blizzard when players delete characters, as maybe it means that they are done with the game. So, are they adding additional steps to make it harder to delete a character, just like Amazon makes it hard to unsubscribe to Amazon Prime? Well, in the case of WoW, I would actually argue that it's just good UX. One of the usability heuristics is "error prevention". To prevent users from making actions that could have a negative impact for them (e.g. closing a software after having been working for two hours in it without saving first), it is usually a good practice to increase the "physical load" (i.e. adding a click in the process) via a confirmation screen to ensure that this is really what they wanted to do. The confirmation screen in WoW where players have to type in 'DELETE' is good UX: players can spend hours, weeks, months, or even years developing a character, it's thus important to add extra steps to avoid accidental deletion. Of course, if the character had a sad face or was crying on this screen as the player is about to get rid of it, then we could argue that the emotional guilt trip would make it a dark pattern.

o What could the game industry do regarding dark patterns?
As Thaler and Sustein say in their book Nudge, "there is no such thing as 'neutral' design". Every design, system implementation, art direction, or choice offered manipulates users one way or another. It's understandable that parents fear their kids might be manipulated by videogames, but manipulation is everywhere. Magicians manipulate our attention to entertain us, our car manipulates us into fastening our seatbelts or get gas, our microwave manipulates us into getting out our food once the program we started has ended, an artist manipulates our emotions with their art, journalists manipulate us by telling a story and presenting information in a certain way (as I'm currently doing), and so on. There is no question that videogames manipulate players, rather the question is whether this manipulation is detrimental to players. Are videogames exploiting our brain limitations for the sole purpose of making benefits at the expense of players' well being? This is the real question that we, as an industry, need to address.

Manipulation can be benevolent (e.g. designing a mug with a handle to influence users to grab it by the handle and thus lift it without burning themselves when it contains a hot beverage, aka "good UX" or "nudge" when it's for the user's own good or for the greater good), careless (e.g. a mug designed without a handle because it was deemed more aesthetically pleasing, with no consideration of usability or user's health, aka "bad UX"), or malevolent (e.g. in a pharmacy, offering a hot beverage in a badly designed mug with the intention to sell a soothing cream to the burnt customers afterwards, aka "dark pattern"). It's not always clear if a design is a dark pattern or not: it depends on the context and mostly on the intention behind. We could argue that the environment humans live in, for the most part, is designed in such a way that it discriminates against disabled people, underrepresented minorities, or women (see the excellent book Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez for many examples of the latter). In some cases, it's intentional (e.g. making it more difficult to people of color to register to vote), but in most cases it's a careless oversight due to implicit biases and blind spots that people who are shaping our world and technology (mostly white abled-bodied cis heterosexual men) necessarily have, like the rest of us. Which does not mean it should not be fixed even if it's not intentional, but it's a different problematic (hence the popularity of unconscious bias trainings and the importance of accessibility awareness).

When companies place their business and revenues first without considering all users' well being, then they are going to lean more towards dark pattern practices. Companies who think about users first, in a win-win mindset (beneficial to both users and the business), then they are leaning towards a UX strategy and culture. This is why we need to think about ethics and define, at the studio level and the industry level, what is the line that we should not cross. Making games is a hard endeavor: most free-to-play games are barely surviving while gamers are increasingly demanding. If the game doesn't provide new content at a regular pace, players get bored and move on to another game, which could mean the end of the project or even the studio (see for example the demise of Telltale). As a result, many studios often copy a business model (e.g. seasons) or feature (e.g. loot boxes) that seemed to work well in a certain game to keep it afloat, without asking themselves if it's ethical or not. Most unethical practices are (I hope!) in the careless manipulation bucket (bad UX) rather than full on dark patterns (i.e. meant to intentionally deceive or harm users for business benefits), which means we need to better understand the impact of our decisions on our players, especially on the youngest ones. Here are a few examples for your consideration.

- Guilt tripping. For example, when users avoid choosing a paid option or a more expensive one (e.g. a character that cries if players do not buy it, or do not buy gems to keep playing after losing all their lives).

- Capitalizing on loss aversion. For example, letting players invest time in a character or environment for free first, then asking them to pay otherwise they will lose all of their progression.

- Capitalizing on the fear of missing out (FoMO). If players are not in the game at a certain time, or do not play enough, they will miss out on something (such as a desirable loot) that is available only for a limited amount of time. For example, if the players want to obtain a very desirable item (character, skin, emote, etc.) they have to play everyday for the duration of a season in order to obtain it before it's gone forever. Another example would be daily chests with a cumulative bonus (i.e. if you log in cumulative days, you gain a better reward).

- Insidious pay to win. For example, players cannot fully be competent in the game unless they pay to obtain an otherwise very hard item to obtain and that has gameplay value (unlike cosmetic items), and it's not clearly communicated to them.

- Pay to remove friction. For example, a desirable gameplay item is taking a long time to obtain, unless player pays to get it sooner, or back in the day, add another coin to the arcade game to keep playing and overcome the "game over".

- Social obligation. For example, telling players that if they do not join a mission or play at a certain cadence, they will let their teammates down.

Many of these tactics are used by free-to-play games (and increasingly by paid-upfront games), and were refined in other industries long before arriving in the videogame industry (and even long before researchers tried to understand why they were so compelling). They are widely used in our society. And in certain cases, these techniques can even foster good UX. For example, putting an emphasis on social obligation in team-based games like MOBAs (multiplayer online battle arena) is important to avoid anti-social behaviors (such as leaving the game before a match is over because you feel that your team is not going to win, thereby effectively letting down everyone else on the team). Like mentioned above, it's not the design by itself that can be deemed a dark pattern or not. We need to consider the intention behind the design, and the context in which it takes part. When these techniques are directly tied to monetization, this is when we can argue that they are ethically debatable. And if these games are targeted to children or teenagers I would argue that it's more clearly unethical given that, as I mentioned earlier, this population does not have a mature prefrontal cortex which makes it harder for them to resist temptation. And in the case of games that were initially targeted to adults but are rated T for Teens or E for Everyone, and it turns out that many children are playing it, then a reassessment of the monetization technique is necessary if the company cares about ethics.

As a general rule of thumb I would recommend companies to never punish disengagement in all their games. For example, there is an important difference between a daily reward design which allows players to get a very desirable item if they log in, say, 15 non-cumulative days in a 30-day season, and one that forces players to log in every single day to obtain such item. No design is ever neutral. Placing the humans at the center of what we are creating is thus critical when considering ethics. This is why UX practitioners, while not solely responsible for being the guardians of ethical practices, can raise awareness and point out possible unethical practices when they spot them, in the same way that they are advocating for accessibility, inclusion, and fair play in games. Since UX should be the concern of everyone, and that a UX strategy and culture cannot be accomplished without having the top management on board, UX practitioners need support, and game studios should define their values and consider having an ethical committee, preferably open to public scrutiny.

"No evidence that violent video games are causing mass shootings, despite politicians' claims" CNBC - August 9, 2019

4. Violence
o Main public concern regarding violence in games
There is a common concern that violent videogames can make players more aggressive in real life.
o What science says about violent videogames
Despite the numerous studies on the impact of violent videogames in the past fifteen years, there is no evidence that violent videogames cause players to commit acts of violence. In fact, videogames were found not to be associated with aggressive behavior in teenagers (not even among "vulnerable" populations). I will therefore not waste anymore of your time and mine with this aspect. Instead, I would like to discuss the ethics of certain topics or contents portrayed in videogames. Violent video games may not be associated with real-life aggression, but that does not mean their content is not problematic. I mentioned earlier that the human brain has two "operating modes", System 1 (automatic and effortless) and System 2 (slow and effortful). System 1, while very useful to accomplish the countless tasks and decisions we need have to go through our days, is also heavily biased. And these biases are implicit (unconscious, so to speak). When our implicit biases go unchecked, we can make irrational decisions for ourselves (see the example of the ultimatum game in game theory), or perpetuate discriminations with others. For example, in the context of recruitment, women are discriminated against as compared to men even though resumes are exactly the same (see Harvard Business Review's many articles on the topic of gender discrimination). Keep in mind this topic is also complicated and nuanced and that some studies are discussing the often unclear impact on implicit biases in perpetuating discrimination. That being said, here's another example: the Doll Test. In the 1940s, PhD in psychology Mamie and Kenneth Clark explored the impact of segregation on African-American children. They demonstrated that black children deemed dark-skinned dolls more "bad" and white-skinned dolls looking "more like them". The worst part in this story is that a similar impact is still found in the 21st century. This is one of the reasons why it is so important to have diversity in our society and cultural products. To be clear, the science of this aspect is not clear at all, this is why I will move on to discussing the ethical aspects of videogame content.
o What could the game industry do regarding violence?
I hope that you will agree that women are not biologically less competent than men, and that having a white skin does not biologically lead someone to being better. Thus we need to explore the origin of these biases in our culture and society. Our culture has an impact on the stereotypes and overall implicit biases reinforced and perpetuated, although we do not currently understand this impact well. However, if you consistently witness women portrayed as being less competent than men, you might implicitly integrate this harmful stereotype as being generally true. This is how classical (Pavlov) conditioning works: if repeated enough times, we can learn to associate two stimuli (e.g. 'being a woman' and 'not being good at math'). In a similar way that if you constantly see in advertisements and movies that toothpaste is spread on the entire length of the toothbrush, you might integrate that this is the expected and correct behavior to have (it's not, using a pea-sized amount of toothpaste is what is actually recommended). Of course, how we are supposed to behave with women, people of color, or disabled people is nowhere near comparable to our behavior with toothpaste. My point is that we are constantly conditioned, influenced, manipulated by our environment and culture; sometimes in good ways, sometimes in harmful ways. And videogames represent today a big market share in our entertainment consumption. Although any given game doesn't by itself have an impact on, say, how women perceive their body, it is hard to argue against the fact that women are objectified overall in our culture, which in turn has necessarily some sort of impact on the implicit biases reinforced in the population. It is therefore my contention that videogames, being part of our culture, have some level of responsibility to consider.

I will reiterate here that no design is neutral. A game necessarily encourages some behaviors (i.e. rewards, or doesn't punish), while it discourages other behaviors (punishes, or doesn't reward). Game developers use this knowledge to help players navigate the game and overall have fun. However, some behaviors that aren't desired or by design, such as antisocial behaviors, can sometimes happen in games when they were not anticipated or controlled for. This is why multiplayer games have codes of conduct and punish players who behaved in a harmful way against other players (e.g. harassing them) by banning them for a certain amount of time, for example. And this is why an organization like the Fair Play Alliance exists to promote safe game environments and help game developers protect their players from anti-social behaviors.

Game studios should monitor what behaviors they are encouraging and discouraging in their games, at the very least to ensure that all players can have fun while being safe within the game and on their community management platforms. Moreover, game developers need to reflect on what they are normalizing (or worse, glorifying) in the name of fun. As Miguel Sicart puts it in his book The Ethics of Computer Games, "games force behaviors by rules". My point here is not within a virtue ethics perspective that would define playing games with immoral actions content (such as killing virtual people) as being an unethical activity. Rather, my contention is aligned with Sicart in considering the player as a moral agent who can make choices within the game environment. For example, players can choose to drive over and kill pedestrians in GTA V, while this is not a choice that players of Driver: San Francisco have (pedestrians in the latter game always end up avoiding cars). So-called "sandbox games" surely offer players more agency than scripted games, yet players' agency is still limited with what was planned by game designers. For example, players in GTA: Vice City can choose to have sex with a prostitute to gain extra health, and can decide to kill the prostitute afterwards to regain their money. Within the system of the game and given its virtual aspect, this action is not necessarily immoral, and gamers will argue that this is a good way to maximize in-game benefits while it minimizes in-game costs (behavior usually called "min-maxing"). However, the game does not offer another way to min-max health in the prostitute example. The game system doesn't allow players to make friends or fall in love with the prostitute, which could in turn diminish the cost of getting increased health. Therefore the "sandbox" aspect of the game is still limited by what behaviors are allowed, rewarded, and punished by game designers. When unethical actions are rewarded in a game while their moral opposites are not even a possibility (for example, both ethical and unethical actions are possible in the game Black & White), we can argue that these games have an unethical content.

Arguing that some games have unethical content is not the same as saying that these games have a real-life immoral impact on society. The problem is that researching such impact is very difficult, if at all possible, given that we cannot in an experiment isolate players from the rest of society to measure the sole impact of specific games on their beliefs and real-life behaviors. However, whether condoning certain harmful behaviors has a negative impact on society (by virtue of conditioning) or not, we should still consider the ethics of our contents. Am I arguing that playing a videogame with unethical content will lead to real-life harmful behaviors? No. My contention is that videogames can participate in condoning or glorifying certain harmful behaviors, such as antisocial behaviors or harassment (or worse) against women or minorities.

If we believe that videogames can be a force for good, then we cannot shy away from discussing if they can also be harmful. In the preface of his book Persuasive Games, Ian Bogost says "In addition to becoming instrumental tools for institutional goals, videogames can also disrupt and change fundamentals attitudes and beliefs about the world, leading to potentially significant social change." We cannot celebrate videogames bringing a positive impact to society, like at the Games for Change Festival every year, without considering the negative impact they might also have. Therefore, we should:

* Be held accountable for the content in our games. Consider if your game is perpetuating discrimination or, worse, glorifying harmful behaviors.

* Protect players from antisocial behaviors (see Fair Play Alliance).

* Be conscious that people with bad intentions might use our games and social platforms to harm others.

If you're interested in the topic, you can for example look at the Human rights guidelines for online games providers, developed by the Council of Europe in co-operation with the Interactive Software Federation of Europe (although I would argue that it needs a better definition of "harmful behaviors" and "excessive use of online games", as well as a scientific approach to reassess certain claims). You can also explore the website Humane By Design created by designer Jon Yablonski.

Conclusion

Videogames are increasingly popular. It is thus becoming imperative that game developers and studios spend more time and effort in reflecting on the responsibilities and moral duties of the game industry. As Miguel Sicart says, "[Game developers] should not just be told that they are morally accountable, but also understand why and how they are morally accountable." This is why I humbly gave my cognitive science perspective on this topic, otherwise tackled by others with different angles, to help advance ethics in videogames. My point was also to debunk the many misconceptions and myths around videogames and the brain, that are not only distracting the public and potentially creating moral panics, but also slowing down ethical considerations by game studios that are more likely to instead be defensive in reaction to the numerous negative impacts they are accused of. And while the public is focused on the potential negative impact of videogames, people forget that games can promote emotional resilience, can have positive effects on many different aspects of our behavior (such as vision, attention, or mental rotation), be educational, or be used for rehabilitation. While critical to consider when scrutinizing the potential negative impact of videogames, we cannot as an industry respond to criticism only by emphasizing the benefits of playing games. We must also face those criticisms, debunk the pseudoscience, and understand the truth behind the public concern so we cannot address the real issues. Maybe PEGI and ESRB ratings could evolve to further inform parents, and parental control could be made easier and more efficient by understanding the psychology behind problematic gaming. Lastly, it might be time for our industry to openly and seriously reflect on ethics, and maybe even elaborate an ethics code we could all pledge to follow, just like some major game companies (sadly not enough) pledged to take action on the climate crisis.

About the Author: Celia Hodent, PhD is an expert in video games UX (user experience) and cognitive psychology. She is a speaker, writer, and acclaimed author of The Gamer's Brain: How Neuroscience and UX can Impact Video Game Design.

More information about Celia can be found here.
Many thanks to Fran Blumberg, Séverine Erhel, Yann Leroux, Chris Ferguson, and Mark Humphries for their precious feedback on this piece.
Do you have a video games UX or other project you'd like to discuss with me?
Get in touch via Twitter or Linkedin
- or fill out this form.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ethics in the Videogame Industry: A Mythbusting and Scientific Approach - Celia Hodent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Insights on ethics in video games from a cognitive science viewpoint. By former director of UX at Epic Games (Fortnite), now ux consultant.

# data[].attributes.body
https://idoupsicologia.com/psicologia/psicologia-videojuegos-responsabilidad-etica/

Main idea:
people shouldn't blame video games for things like the waste of money on them
Arguments/facts:
-video games can help you on a psychological level
-

Dialogue:
I think what the article says makes a lot of sense but it should talk more about the bright side of gaming
Summary:
people(mostly parents) shouldn't blame videogames for topics such as money waste, bad education, and waste of time because normally its the parent's fault for not giving their children restrictions and not teaching them about what they shouldn't do

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hace un tiempo que no colgamos entradas, hemos tenido un principio de año bastante ajetreado. Sin embargo, también hemos tenido tiempo para pensar en cómo mejorar la experiencia de nuestros lectores, es decir, vosotros. En adelante, Mª del Mar y yo crearemos pequeñas secciones (como por ejemplo la sección recurrente de Alimentos de Temporada), en que os pondremos al día y os informaremos sobre nuestros ámbitos de maestría.

[custom_frame_center] [/custom_frame_center]

Esta que nos ocupa es la primera entrada de una sección que hoy inauguro: Psicología y Videojuegos. En esta sección os hablaré de mi ámbito de investigación, tratando las últimas novedades sobre psicología dentro del mundo del videojuego y las nuevas tecnologías. Asimismo, aclararé ciertos fenómenos que preocupan a padres y adolescentes, y desmitificaré ciertas creencias en torno a este tema. ¡Así pues, empecemos!

Adicción a videojuegos

[custom_frame_right] [/custom_frame_right]

Hoy os hablo de los MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games). Bajo el paraguas de este enrevesado acrónimo se encuentran los videojuegos online masivos, es decir, juegos multi-jugador para un gran número de usuarios en entornos persistentes (el mundo permanece aunque los usuarios se desconecten). Estos juegos han ido acompañados de mucha polémica en la última década. Riesgo de adicción, exclusión social y conflictos familiares, son solo algunos de los fenómenos que preocupan a padres y jóvenes. Es cierto que existe un riesgo de psicopatología en torno a estos videojuegos, sin embargo i tal como expuse en 8tv hace unos meses, éste riesgo no es mayor al de otras actividades susceptibles de crear una conducta adictiva.

Con todo, es cierto que algunos aspectos del diseño de estos videojuegos pueden provocar un uso problemático o "adicción" (entre un 7% y un 11% de los jugadores según diferentes estudios). A este respecto, los doctores Zaheer Hussain, Mark Griffiths y Yasheer Ackburally, realizaron un editorial en la revista Addiction Research and Theory, en el que trataban el tema de la ética y la responsabilidad de los diseñadores de MMORPG; un tema que me resultó interesante porque surge recurrentemente en el diálogo con mis alumnos en ENTI.

Ética y videojuegos

En este editorial, pese a centrarse en MMORPG, se pueden extraer conclusiones de la industria del videojuego en general. Los autores afirman que cualquier industria que actúe en un campo controvertido (y el de los videojuegos lo es), tiene una responsabilidad social corporativa (RSC) a tres niveles:

[custom_list style="list-10″]

Instrumental: habilidad y competencia necesarias para entregar productos o servicios con la calidad esperada por sus consumidores, obteniendo un benefició en el proceso. Tal como afirma Peter Smith, director del Brodway Lodge, el primer centro del Reino Unido en ofrecer tratamiento para la "adicción" a videojuegos: " los diseñadores de videojuegos tan solo intentan crear un buen producto de entretenimiento. No tiene sentido crear un videojuego que no enganche, tal como lo hace un buen libro o una buena película ".

Este tema dispara diferentes preguntas: ¿Son los diseñadores responsables de "enganchar en demasía"? ¿Deberían existir unas "buenas prácticas" que aseguren un diseño ético de videojuegos? ¿Existe un conflicto ético entre el objetivo de la empresa (obtener beneficios) y el objetivo del diseñador (crear una experiencia atractiva)?

Transaccional: las compañías pueden mostrar integridad al mantener la consistencia y transparencia dentro de un marco legal y moral. En este caso, la industria del videojuego ha sido poco reglamentada o, des del punto de vista que se mire, poco coartada por regulaciones y leyes gubernamentales. Los únicos ejemplos de esto los tenemos en China, donde se han introducido controles para evitar que los usuarios jueguen durante más de 3 horas al día; y en países como Tailandia o Australia, donde la censura respecto de los videojuegos es algo común.

A este respecto, cabe preguntarse si no sería mejor que la propia industria tomase cartas en el asunto, y actuase de forma transparente redactando sus propios códigos éticos y morales. Muchas profesiones disponen de su código deontológico (por ejemplo, nosotros los psicólogos) y, teniendo en cuenta el potencial tanto positivo como negativo de los videojuegos, parece algo imprescindible. Es cierto que los videojuegos disponen de sus propios sistemas de ratio de contenidos ( PEGI en Europa, y ESRB en Estados Unidos y Canadá), pero estos se están quedando obsoletos a marchas forzadas. Cabe preguntarse si no sería mejor para todos (desarrolladores y usuarios) que la propia industria empezase a redactar estas regulaciones antes de que nos encontremos con medidas draconianas como en Australia o China. Al fin y al cabo, como psicólogo también me beneficio del uso de estas herramientas en consulta para el tratamiento de ciertas condiciones, y su censura no sería productiva para nadie.

Transformacional: cuando una organización está dispuesta a mostrar su benevolencia, demostrando que antepone el bien común al interés personal. Este es tal vez el punto en que más desencantado con la industria me encuentro yo y aquellos que vemos su potencial para la salud y la educación. El potencial del videojuego como experiencia es inmenso y, con pequeños sacrificios, el componente pro-social que pueden ofrecer es enorme (ya lo es, aunque empañado por algunas prácticas poco éticas). A este respecto ya hemos hablado algunas veces de los videojuegos como apoyo a cambios psicológicos (el ejemplo más claro son los serious games), pero hay que tener en cuenta que estos cambios pueden ser positivos o negativos.

En la editorial de Hussain, Griffiths y Ackburally apuntan a factores como acortar las quests de los MMORPG (las misiones), de modo que no exijan tanto tiempo de juego; balancear las recompensas asociadas a ciertas conductas compulsivas dentro del juego; etcétera.

[custom_frame_center] [/custom_frame_center]
Riesgo vs. beneficio

Con todo, y pese a que creo que es evidente que a los desarrolladores no intentan crear "addictos" de forma intencionada, como se suele decir el camino al infierno está pavimentado de buenas intenciones. Por ello, y dado el poder que esgrimen los desarrolladores con sus productos, estos deben empezar a responsabilizar-se del efecto que pueden tener ciertas decisiones de diseño. Como ya dije, creo que se empieza a notar la falta de una regulación o código de buenas conductas, así como el remozado de los sistemas de ranking de contenidos.

Por otro lado, falta educar a la población. No son pocos los padres que ven al videojuego como un enemigo cuando, en realidad, pueden ser una herramienta inestimable para la educación y el crecimiento personal. Y sí, esto incluye a videojuegos violentos, MMORPG, y otros géneros controvertidos, siempre y cuando los usuarios y los padres se responsabilicen de aquello que compran y el objetivo con que lo compran.

En conjunto este tema me parece interesante para inaugurar la sección Psicología y Videojuegos, dado que establece un marco de referencia de responsabilidad: la de los diseñadores sobre su producto, la de los usuarios en el uso del mismo, y la de los profesionales de la salud en la divulgación.
Y vosotros ¿qué pensáis?
[starbox]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Psicología y videojuegos: responsabilidad y ética - Idou Psicología y Nutrición

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hace un tiempo que no colgamos entradas, hemos tenido un principio de año bastante ajetreado. Sin embargo, también hemos tenido tiempo para pensar en cómo mejorar la experiencia de nuestros lectores, es decir, vosotros.

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea: Minecraft is an excellent example of how video games are able to educate you.

Arguments/facts:
-more than 7,000 classrooms around the world already use Minecraft
-Minecraft improves your reading and writing skills
-Minecraft can improve your child's curiosity about the world
-Minecraft teaches how to be productive in teamwork

Dialogue: I believe that this article is really informative and explains the benefits of gaming in a really engaging way, and you won't get bored while reading it which is really helpful for the reader to maintain interest while reading

Summary: now a day a lot of schools use video games such as Minecraft to show kids useful information and improve their skills such as math problem solutions, their confidence, teamwork, resource management, reading and writing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's a unique computer game. But did you know that it can also be a great learning tool? From academic to social skills, Minecraft can help children reach their full potential.

What is Minecraft?

Minecraft is a child-friendly computer game that combines exploration and survival skills. It tests children's imagination and creativity.

In simple terms, it's like digital LEGO - your child can create anything from a small hut to a huge, sprawling metropolis. When you throw in monsters and other challenging characters it begins to get really interesting. The player has to quickly learn how to survive and adapt in the Minecraft world!

Is Minecraft Educational?

Yes, we believe it is! But it's not just us, research suggests the same. We'll look into that later in this guide.

Some schools in the UK have started to use it in the classroom. According to this 2016 BBC News report, more than 7,000 classrooms around the world already use Minecraft in some form.

Here are our top 11 reasons why we believe Minecraft is educational, and why you don't need to worry if your child loves this game.

Is Minecraft safe for kids?

Yes, if used correctly and responsibly. Minecraft is perfectly safe for children, providing the correct parental controls have been set.

Children can write their own story, team-up with friends, and build whatever they want to do in a safe and secure environment.

We do advise that you read this guide from the NSPPC tells parents what settings and modes to set, plus versions of the game you should let your child have access to.

#1: Minecraft helps kids l earn problem-solving techniques

The ability to problem-solve dictates how well a child can navigate obstacles, both hypothetical and in real life. Minecraft can encourage and expand this type of thinking.

As an example, we can look to the game's "survival mode". In it, the player must maintain their hunger and health levels in the face of dangerous monsters and other obstacles. They'll have to quickly figure out how escape, find cover and learn to survive in these quick 10-minute scenes.

This can encourage critical thinking and teach your child how to react quickly and efficiently to solve real-world problems.

#2: Minecraft can support reading and writing skills

So why is Minecraft already being used in school classrooms?

It is commonly understood that children best learn when having fun, and with Minecraft that's exactly what they do.

If a child is motivated to advance in the game of Minecraft, they'll need to have a good understanding of the written guides that appear on-screen.

If they're also playing with classmates, they'll need to use the chat function to read and write messages back and forth as part of team play.

#3: Minecraft supports a curious mind

After a Minecraft session, you might find that your child gets a lot more curious. Maybe they even want to research things for themselves.

Part of the game requires children to overcome challenges. To progress, they'll need to find hints and tricks to help them.

That could mean online research, such as Wikipedia or YouTube, or even a trip to the local library! There are many books on Minecraft tutorials out there. Your child will have to analyse it all to find the best information.

It almost sounds like the kind of thing you'd do for a school project or paper, doesn't it?

#4: Minecraft helps kids with maths problems

Minecraft is already being used in classrooms to support learning in maths.

Here's just one example from a teacher in the United States who used Minecraft to give his students a boost. This is what he had to say about the educational benefits of Minecraft:

"I was teaching third grade that year in inner-city Los Angeles and was determined to teach math with Minecraft. I was glad I did. Over a span of six months, my class's benchmark test scores shot up from 18 percent to 84 percent in math and from 24 percent to 81 percent in English."

When playing Minecraft, children develop complex shapes, tackle geometric problems, and manipulate blocks. All of these are key mathematical concepts that will form part of your child's curriculum.

#5: Minecraft teaches children how to manage resources

In Minecraft, children learn how to calculate how much things cost, and the time required for certain tasks.

For example, they could have to gather wood to build part of a dwelling. They could do it by hand, but using an axe is quicker... The only problem is that the axe will need to be paid for and will eventually become blunt.

Learning how to pay for and use resources efficiently is a key aspect to a child's educational and practical development.

#6: Minecraft teaches kids the benefits of teamwork

Minecraft games involve collaboration with other children and teammates. In fact, sometimes it's the only way a player can achieve certain goals.

By pooling and sharing resources whilst they plan together, children will learn to rely on each other. They'll have to work together positively to achieve their common goal!

#7: Minecraft can help to improve a child's confidence

There's every chance Minecraft could help to impr ove how confident your child is. ve learned impressive Minecraft skills they can share this with friends and fo rge new friendships!

#8: Minecraft can help kids learn about history

Reconstructing famous and historical landmarks in Minecraft is a popular educational use of the game.

Children can complete tasks involving a huge amount of research into history. This includes understanding the major points in human civilisation, mapping locations and recreating famous events.

Your child will need to understand maths and scale as they populate these landmarks with the experiences that took place over time.

For example, in 2016 the Museum of London used Minecraft to recreate the Great Fire of 1666. You can see how they did it on their website and this YouTube video for a walkthrough on the scene.

#9: Minecraft can improve a child's creativity and imagination

Minecraft truly excels in the limits of the game - there are none!

If your child wants to build an amusement park, then they can do it. Or perhaps they want to build a 100-foot high version of their grandma... it's all possible - the Minecraft world is an unlimited one.

The Minecraft platform lets children imagine and build anything that they want, real or not. The only restriction is that it needs to be created with small building blocks.

#10: Minecraft can help a child learn to code

Minecraft contributes into this potentially key learning skill with its huge degree of customisation. Children can edit the original Minecraft code as mods to make the game behave in different ways. This can be as small as altering the weather or as huge as creating an invincible flying squid! This is all possible using Minecraft's command blocks.

If they want to take it further, your child can modify the program using Java code. They can also develop further coding skills such as de-bugging. Once they're finished, they can share those mods with their friends and teammates for a totally unique, sharable experience.

#11: Minecraft offers valuable future work skills

All of the educational aspects we've spoken about will no doubt put your child in good stead for their future employment prospects.

The elements involved with Minecraft can help to teach not just technical skills, but also simulate business skills including trading and relationship-building.

Used the correct way, Minecraft could help give your child a solid background in core STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects; all of which are critical in the 21st century workplace.

When you also consider the social skills that Minecraft can help develop, your child could also become very proficient at negotiation, project planning and teamwork. These are all skills which employers today, and in the future, will always be looking for.

How FunTech Can Help

If you have a child who already loves Minecraft, or wants to take it 'beyond the basics', then please explore the Minecraft camps at Summer Camps

We are running Minecraft summer camps at various locations across London and the UK , including Minecraft with Mods for ages 7 to 10, Minecraft Redstone for ages 9 to 12 and Minecraft Bedwars Builder for ages 11 to 15.

We are Ofsted registered and offer a fun and structured leading environment over the summer holidays, with classes sizes being an average of one to eight pupil tutor ratio.

Our one-week Minecraft camps run from 9am to 5pm, Mon-Fri.

Keep me informed

Be the first to know about Flash and Early Bird Sales as well as new courses, summer locations and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
11 Reasons why Minecraft is educational for kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a parent, you've no doubt heard of Minecraft. It's a unique computer game. But did you know that it can also be a great learning tool? From academic to social skills, Minecraft can help children reach their full potential.

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea: Video games like the sims are able to improve your daily adult life skills and give you more consciousness about the real world.

Arguments/Facts:

-games can teach you new things
-The Sims is able to teach you different daily tips

- show you how life works when you're an adult
Dialogue:

- it's really useful to use games such as The Sims to develop the comprehension of kids about the world
-you can learn important moral lessons about life from games
Summary:

There are many games such as The sims that are able to show you things that you maybe weren't expecting to learn from games. things such as moral lessons, friendship advice, how to enjoy your day a day and be more productive through it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU5K3DU_4Dk&w=584&h=390]

1. Upgrading some household goods can improve your quality of life dramatically.
The Sims is supposed to be anti-consumerist and teach you that the most valuable resource is time. However, one of the things I learned was that by spending some money to upgrade things in the home, you can buy more time.

The most obviously important household item any Sims player learns to upgrade is the bed. Beds range in price from §100-§1,000 and increase energy and comfort. Cheap beds generally have a lower Energy status, meaning they require Sims to sleep for a longer period of time before they are fully rested. You can try to save money by buying a cheaper bed, but by spending more money on a bed of higher quality, you can gain in time and energy.

When my husband and I were in the market for a new bed a couple of years ago, we decided not to skimp on a quality mattress. Also, appliances that are well-made and smartly-designed can save you headache and hassle.
2. "Friendships are like plants. If you don't care for them, they wither and die."
Repeated interactions between Sim acquaintances tends to increase their relationship level. Over time the relationship level decreases. In the Sims, if you have a relationship that is decreasing to a low level, your Sim receives a phone call reminder with the above quote.

The Sim can maintain an ailing friendship by calling up or emailing the friend. If the friendship is too weak, they may decline an invitation to come over or hang out. However, regular communication can nurse the friendship back to health, after which point your Sim can try inviting them over or out some time again.

Real life friendships are not as straightforward, of course, but the general principle still applies. Maintaining a friendship requires at least one of the participants to put forth some effort and both participants to give of their time.

Since most of us don't get automated reminders in real life when we are starting to lose touch with friends, it's important to make note of the ones you'd like to keep and be sure to check in with them from time to time.
3. Certain activities fulfill only one need; others fulfill multiple needs at once. By engaging in the latter type of activities, you can get more out of the limited number of hours in the day.
For example, eating alone remedies hunger. However, eating with other people around remedies both Hunger and Social needs. The more needs an activity or situation fulfills, the better the use of your time. By this standard, for Sims, soaking in a hot tub with friends is the crème de la crème of need fulfillment and therefore time use. This activity satisfies four needs at once!! Fun, Hygiene, Social, and Comfort.

Similarly, some activities both fulfill a need and allow you to develop a skill. Or fulfill a need, build skills, and allow you to earn money! Sims example: drawing or painting on the easel. It fulfills the need for Fun, increases one's Creativity or Painting skill, and completed paintings can be sold for Simoleans (the in-game currency).

Your mileage may vary on which activities are best for you, but once you figure out what they are, you should feel free to spend a good chunk of your time on them. For me, it's tennis - fulfills Fun and Social, improves Body. (Unfortunately, it decreases Hygiene.)
Some other random observations/lessons:

People are motivated by different things. Some people are motivated primarily by relationships, whereas others are primarily motivated by the pursuit of knowledge, or a wish to make money. These different motives can drive a lot of day-to-day wants and desires.

Having a baby destroys your sleep schedule and can really ruin your work life. I have since learned this lesson from observing friends who have become new parents, but I saw it first in The Sims.

Needing to use the bathroom badly ("bladder urgency" in The Sims) is really not fun for anyone.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyYuKx5D4AQ&w=584&h=390]

Will Wright once said that the real lesson of the game was supposed to be anti-consumerist: it teaches you that the most precious resource you have is time. You can acquire more and more stuff until the need to go from thing to thing, keeping them in working order, rules your life and your time. You become owned by your things.

I'm pretty sure most people didn't get this message from the game. :)

1. Things learned from The Sims that have turned out to be totally true in life:

2. Clowns annoy or scare pretty much everyone.

3. If you don't lock your front door, you could have anything from burglars to people dressed as llamas, to random crazy old ladies going through your fridge.

4. You can get a greater appreciation of things and sometimes have deep thoughts by just pausing to view random objects.

5. Lightning actually can strike the same place twice.

6. Having a fire extinguisher contains the damage and staves off those pesky firefighters.

7. Every home should have a disco ball somewhere.

8. If you live with others, odds are you'll have to re-tune your stereo settings each time you turn it on.

9. There really are people out there, maybe not actually named Goopy, who have equally ridiculous, unlikely names.

10. Plumbers are expensive, but convenient.

11. Labor hurts like hell and things will go a lot better for everyone if you get your ass to the hospital, tout suite.

12. If you leave food and dirty dishes around for long enough, you'll attract flies.

13. Some people really do sound like they're talking in gibberish every time they open their mouths.

14. If a plant releases milk, chances are it's gonna be gross.

15. At first, people will boo you when you play music. But stick with it, and you'll get more confident and skilled, and people will eventually appreciate it.

16. If someone claims to have been abducted by aliens, how can you really be sure they're lying?

17. The longer you sit on your ass, the fatter it gets.

18. Bloodsuckers aren't always obvious.

19. Stomping grapes can relieve a lot of frustration.

20. If you don't personally sit there and make sure your kids do their homework, they totally won't.

21. Some fish really will actually respond to a piece of potato on a hook.

22. If you ever actually find drywall for $10 a panel, or attractive flooring for $2 per square foot, installed...BUY IT IMMEDIATELY.

23. Lawn flamingoes are seriously fun to kick.

24. Getting laid takes a lot of time and schmooze.

25. Some people really do cheat death. Just not using rock, paper, scissors.

26. If the phone rings at an incredibly inconvenient time, it's OK to say you're not available to talk. If the person was worth talking to, they'll call back.

27. You seriously can learn useful things from TV.

28. Birthday parties are important.

29. If you don't take pictures and videos of those you love while they're alive, you'll miss them worse when they're gone.

30. Line dances look ridiculous from every angle.

31. You actually can, in real life, eventually get a job as a video game designer by initially starting as a playtester!

Relationships are complicated and Jerry Springer is a showman.

Do not neglect your children, pay attention to them and care for them.

Go to the bathroom or you will wet your pants.

Remember to sleep, otherwise you will pass out in random locations.

People are obsessed with owning stuff, and can be slightly narcissistic.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4QI8FGCWHY&w=584&h=390]

It's complicated to give gifts.

In The Sims, it's quite common for someone to reject a gift that you give them, even if you have the best of intentions. While this does not explicitly happen as often in real life, the fact is - that somehow - giving gifts often doesn't have the effect that you intend them to have. Sometimes, you might give a gift that tells them that you don't really understand them. Or alternatively, you might learn that they didn't like it that much, and get hurt. Whatever it is, it's something that's pretty complicated to dissect (I'm not sure what it is - but I'd be happy if someone can give ideas).

Always reticulate your splines!

A few more good gems:

1. Multi- generational households are ideal for working parents. Elders and teens are good with children.

2. Showers are faster than tubs. You only really need a tub to wash your flea-bitten dog.

3. You only need friends and charisma, not skills, to succeed in politics.

4. If your primary goal is to increase lifetime happiness, spend as much as you can afford at the spa every week.

5. Even with a hamper in every room, there's usually dirty laundry on the floor.

6. Brushing your teeth increases your mood more than your hygiene.

7. Everything gets better with practice.

8. There are many lifetime goals that aren't career-based.

9. Compatibility is related to personality, not horoscope (sorry, my beloved Sims 2... This is a major Sims 3 improvement).

10. And less true: Just go over to celebrities' houses unannounced and you will become famous if you have money, skill, or a good job.

11. Getting promoted is easier than getting on the honor roll in school.

12. Listening to kids' music while pregnant increases likelihood of multiples.

13. One of the first things every new teenager wants is to get a part-time job.

14. Left unattended, about 30% of your town will become vampires (?!?!?)

That it is actually incredibly dangerous to be in water if there is no ladder to use to get out.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSsvyW7whjo&w=584&h=390]

1. Always flush the toilet after use.

2. Never sit in an outdoor hot tub during a thunderstorm

The Sims have taught me that if you have not built up the right skills, it can lead to disaster and waste a lot of time.

Don't sleep with the maid while your wife is at home.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
11 People On Valuable Real Life Lessons Learned From The Sims

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU5K3DU_4Dk&w=584&h=390] 1. Upgrading some household goods can improve your quality of life dramatically. The Sims is supposed to be anti-consumerist and teach you that the most valuable resource is time. However, one of the things I learned was that by spending some money to upgrade things in the home, you can buy more time.

# data[].attributes.body
https://idoupsicologia.com/psicologia/psicologia-videojuegos-responsabilidad-etica/

(this one is both for & against so therefore there isn’t that much to write here)

Main idea: Just because video games developers don’t INTEND to make their games addictive it doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t take responsibility for it.

Arguments/facts:
-Video games MUST be responsible on social and moral subjects.
-Video game developers should acknowledge that intended or not video games are addictive.

Dialogue:
I think this article makes excellent points and is completely right when it comes to the way game developers should take responsibility and by held accountable, doesn’t matter if the addictive factor was intended or not. This article also says that parents should ALSO be responsible for what their children buy which I couldn’t agree with more.

Summary:
Video game developers must be ethical and transparent when it comes to making and selling games, they must also be responsible for the addictions and problems that they cause even if it wasn’t intentional (which it usually isn’t)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hace un tiempo que no colgamos entradas, hemos tenido un principio de año bastante ajetreado. Sin embargo, también hemos tenido tiempo para pensar en cómo mejorar la experiencia de nuestros lectores, es decir, vosotros. En adelante, Mª del Mar y yo crearemos pequeñas secciones (como por ejemplo la sección recurrente de Alimentos de Temporada), en que os pondremos al día y os informaremos sobre nuestros ámbitos de maestría.

[custom_frame_center] [/custom_frame_center]

Esta que nos ocupa es la primera entrada de una sección que hoy inauguro: Psicología y Videojuegos. En esta sección os hablaré de mi ámbito de investigación, tratando las últimas novedades sobre psicología dentro del mundo del videojuego y las nuevas tecnologías. Asimismo, aclararé ciertos fenómenos que preocupan a padres y adolescentes, y desmitificaré ciertas creencias en torno a este tema. ¡Así pues, empecemos!

Adicción a videojuegos

[custom_frame_right] [/custom_frame_right]

Hoy os hablo de los MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games). Bajo el paraguas de este enrevesado acrónimo se encuentran los videojuegos online masivos, es decir, juegos multi-jugador para un gran número de usuarios en entornos persistentes (el mundo permanece aunque los usuarios se desconecten). Estos juegos han ido acompañados de mucha polémica en la última década. Riesgo de adicción, exclusión social y conflictos familiares, son solo algunos de los fenómenos que preocupan a padres y jóvenes. Es cierto que existe un riesgo de psicopatología en torno a estos videojuegos, sin embargo i tal como expuse en 8tv hace unos meses, éste riesgo no es mayor al de otras actividades susceptibles de crear una conducta adictiva.

Con todo, es cierto que algunos aspectos del diseño de estos videojuegos pueden provocar un uso problemático o "adicción" (entre un 7% y un 11% de los jugadores según diferentes estudios). A este respecto, los doctores Zaheer Hussain, Mark Griffiths y Yasheer Ackburally, realizaron un editorial en la revista Addiction Research and Theory, en el que trataban el tema de la ética y la responsabilidad de los diseñadores de MMORPG; un tema que me resultó interesante porque surge recurrentemente en el diálogo con mis alumnos en ENTI.

Ética y videojuegos

En este editorial, pese a centrarse en MMORPG, se pueden extraer conclusiones de la industria del videojuego en general. Los autores afirman que cualquier industria que actúe en un campo controvertido (y el de los videojuegos lo es), tiene una responsabilidad social corporativa (RSC) a tres niveles:

[custom_list style="list-10″]

Instrumental: habilidad y competencia necesarias para entregar productos o servicios con la calidad esperada por sus consumidores, obteniendo un benefició en el proceso. Tal como afirma Peter Smith, director del Brodway Lodge, el primer centro del Reino Unido en ofrecer tratamiento para la "adicción" a videojuegos: " los diseñadores de videojuegos tan solo intentan crear un buen producto de entretenimiento. No tiene sentido crear un videojuego que no enganche, tal como lo hace un buen libro o una buena película ".

Este tema dispara diferentes preguntas: ¿Son los diseñadores responsables de "enganchar en demasía"? ¿Deberían existir unas "buenas prácticas" que aseguren un diseño ético de videojuegos? ¿Existe un conflicto ético entre el objetivo de la empresa (obtener beneficios) y el objetivo del diseñador (crear una experiencia atractiva)?

Transaccional: las compañías pueden mostrar integridad al mantener la consistencia y transparencia dentro de un marco legal y moral. En este caso, la industria del videojuego ha sido poco reglamentada o, des del punto de vista que se mire, poco coartada por regulaciones y leyes gubernamentales. Los únicos ejemplos de esto los tenemos en China, donde se han introducido controles para evitar que los usuarios jueguen durante más de 3 horas al día; y en países como Tailandia o Australia, donde la censura respecto de los videojuegos es algo común.

A este respecto, cabe preguntarse si no sería mejor que la propia industria tomase cartas en el asunto, y actuase de forma transparente redactando sus propios códigos éticos y morales. Muchas profesiones disponen de su código deontológico (por ejemplo, nosotros los psicólogos) y, teniendo en cuenta el potencial tanto positivo como negativo de los videojuegos, parece algo imprescindible. Es cierto que los videojuegos disponen de sus propios sistemas de ratio de contenidos ( PEGI en Europa, y ESRB en Estados Unidos y Canadá), pero estos se están quedando obsoletos a marchas forzadas. Cabe preguntarse si no sería mejor para todos (desarrolladores y usuarios) que la propia industria empezase a redactar estas regulaciones antes de que nos encontremos con medidas draconianas como en Australia o China. Al fin y al cabo, como psicólogo también me beneficio del uso de estas herramientas en consulta para el tratamiento de ciertas condiciones, y su censura no sería productiva para nadie.

Transformacional: cuando una organización está dispuesta a mostrar su benevolencia, demostrando que antepone el bien común al interés personal. Este es tal vez el punto en que más desencantado con la industria me encuentro yo y aquellos que vemos su potencial para la salud y la educación. El potencial del videojuego como experiencia es inmenso y, con pequeños sacrificios, el componente pro-social que pueden ofrecer es enorme (ya lo es, aunque empañado por algunas prácticas poco éticas). A este respecto ya hemos hablado algunas veces de los videojuegos como apoyo a cambios psicológicos (el ejemplo más claro son los serious games), pero hay que tener en cuenta que estos cambios pueden ser positivos o negativos.

En la editorial de Hussain, Griffiths y Ackburally apuntan a factores como acortar las quests de los MMORPG (las misiones), de modo que no exijan tanto tiempo de juego; balancear las recompensas asociadas a ciertas conductas compulsivas dentro del juego; etcétera.

[custom_frame_center] [/custom_frame_center]
Riesgo vs. beneficio

Con todo, y pese a que creo que es evidente que a los desarrolladores no intentan crear "addictos" de forma intencionada, como se suele decir el camino al infierno está pavimentado de buenas intenciones. Por ello, y dado el poder que esgrimen los desarrolladores con sus productos, estos deben empezar a responsabilizar-se del efecto que pueden tener ciertas decisiones de diseño. Como ya dije, creo que se empieza a notar la falta de una regulación o código de buenas conductas, así como el remozado de los sistemas de ranking de contenidos.

Por otro lado, falta educar a la población. No son pocos los padres que ven al videojuego como un enemigo cuando, en realidad, pueden ser una herramienta inestimable para la educación y el crecimiento personal. Y sí, esto incluye a videojuegos violentos, MMORPG, y otros géneros controvertidos, siempre y cuando los usuarios y los padres se responsabilicen de aquello que compran y el objetivo con que lo compran.

En conjunto este tema me parece interesante para inaugurar la sección Psicología y Videojuegos, dado que establece un marco de referencia de responsabilidad: la de los diseñadores sobre su producto, la de los usuarios en el uso del mismo, y la de los profesionales de la salud en la divulgación.
Y vosotros ¿qué pensáis?
[starbox]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Psicología y videojuegos: responsabilidad y ética - Idou Psicología y Nutrición

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hace un tiempo que no colgamos entradas, hemos tenido un principio de año bastante ajetreado. Sin embargo, también hemos tenido tiempo para pensar en cómo mejorar la experiencia de nuestros lectores, es decir, vosotros.

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea: Video game companies care little about morals and ethics, since the main purpose is to squeeze as much money as possible from them and if that implies making video games without sense and/or moral.

Arguments/facts:
->
->

Dialogue:

Summary:

https://www.chicasgamers.com/2020/11/etica-moral-deontologia.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Los videojuegos intentan, día a día, acercarse más y más a la realidad. Sin embargo, hay un aspecto en el que a mi juicio- nuestro querido medio jamás podrá aproximarse: las consideraciones éticas, deontológicas y morales de la Humanidad misma.

Pero antes de tratar este asunto, primero debemos saber qué son la Ética, la Deontología y la Moral para la raza humana.

Conceptos básicos

Los tres términos más arriba citados se mueven en un ámbito muy parecido, aunque son diferentes entre sí. A pesar de que una definición común concrete su significado para este caso, de ninguna manera es así: estas definiciones -a menudo encontradas en los diccionarios- son el resultado del análisis de las visiones de generaciones enteras de pensadores que trabajaron sobre este tema.

La Ética podría considerarse como la disciplina filosófica encargada de estudiar el bien y el mal en el comportamiento humano. Aristóteles -el padre fundador de la Ética- entendía que esta disciplina está estructurada en base a la virtud -llamada por él felicidad-; mientras que el pensador Inmanuel Kant -(1724-1804)- unía la Ética con la Moral.

La Moral, al contrario que la Ética, se centra exclusivamente en observar el comportamiento humano respecto del bien y del mal, del mismo modo que los científicos observan el comportamiento de los ratones en un laboratorio.

La Deontología es la más desligada de esta tríada de conceptos filosóficos, y se conoce como la rama de la Ética que afecta a los deberes y principios de una profesión. Ejemplos notables de códigos deontológicos son el juramento hipocrático de los médicos o los manuales de estilo de los medios de comunicación -libros que resumen las formas de trabajar y el ideario del medio en cuestión-.

Superada esta fase introductoria, es hora de buscar en la realidad del medio ejemplos que cuadren con los conceptos aquí expuestos.

La integridad del periodista

Una de las virtudes que se suponen de los periodistas es la independencia de cualquier poder político y económico, especialmente en la época de la posverdad en la que nos hallamos inmersos.

Aunque eso cambia radicalmente en el futuro, en concreto en el año 2287.

La intrépida reportera Piper es una de las compañeras disponibles en Fallout 4. Actúa como una mujer orquesta, puesto que es la única que escribe, edita e imprime el diario de Diamond City. Es una periodista de pleno derecho, e incluso se permite el lujo de crear una sección semejante a las cartas al director que algunos periódicos de nuestro tiempo todavía mantienen en sus páginas.

A pesar de que Piper no deba rendir cuentas a ninguna poderosa multinacional que podría acabar con su carrera en un abrir y cerrar de ojos, sí afronta su particular batalla contra el poder: una lucha por demostrar que el alcalde de Diamond City -McDonough- es en realidad un synth controlado por el Instituto.

Las pocas apariciones del código deontológico de la periodista en Fallout 4 son en la misión secundariaLa historia del siglo y en los diálogos que el Único Superviviente pueda tener con la afable reportera.

Lo realmente interesante es cómo los ideales personales de Piper -Ética- y sus ideales profesionales -Deontología- encajan a la perfección. Su voluntad por ayudar a los demás y por situarse en el lado correcto de la vida, siguiendo las normas legales y lo aceptable socialmente es lo que convierte a Piper en uno de los personajes mejor escritos de todo el título.

Piper es la perfecta encarnación del bien por naturaleza, y los comportamientos malévolos y desconsiderados -como robar, matar inocentes o escoger ciertas opciones en misiones y diálogos- puede granjear el enfado de la reportera e incluso puede ponerse en contra del Último Superviviente e intentar acabar con su vida.

Poderoso caballero es don Dinero...

Quien conozca el verso de Francisco de Quevedo sabe de qué estoy hablando. En muchas ocasiones, el estereotipo de una persona con dinero suele ser el de un hombre -o mujer- que ha amasado su fortuna durante muchos años, usando trampas, triquiñuelas y un amplio rango de los métodos más sórdidos y oscuros. Este esquema mental es recurrente en las obras de ficción escritas y en las series y películas de televisión. Los videojuegos -por supuesto- también tienen sus multimillonarios locos de atar y carentes de toda Ética y Moral.

Continuemos en el universo de Fallout. El propio Fallout 4 nos da la oportunidad de conocer a uno de estos personajes estrafalarios: John-Caleb Bradberton.

El DLC Nuka-World lleva al Único Superviviente a un parque de atracciones destrozado por las bombas atómicas y erosionado por doscientos años de radiación, en el que se refugian todo tipo de aberraciones surgidas tras el apocalipsis nuclear. Por todas las instalaciones del parque, en ciertos terminales, se pueden encontrar notas de empleados de antes de las bombas que se quejan por la falta de dinero y las precarias condiciones en las que se encuentran algunas atracciones -con el peligro que ello conlleva para las personas-.

En una de las misiones secundarias de este contenido extra, el Único Superviviente se encuentra con Sierra Petrovita -la dueña del museo Nuka-Cola de Fallout 3-. La fanática de la Nuka-Cola presenta al Superviviente el juego de preguerra que quedó sin completar: encontrar un código -disperso por todo el parque- para poder conocer al propio Bradberton, inventor de la Nuka-Cola, multimillonario y loco a partes iguales.

Cuando el Superviviente logra acceder a la cámara donde se oculta Bradberton todo cobra sentido. El inventor del refresco desvió el presupuesto del parque para financiar un programa militar de alargamiento de la vida: SALTO-X. Bradberton accedió a este programa gracias a un trato con el Ejército de los Estados Unidos: su equipo químico fabricaría potentes armas de destrucción masiva para el Ejército, y ellos se asegurarían de alargar la vida del magnate. Así, SALTO-X le dotaría de un bio-traje con el que preservar su cuerpo más allá del holocausto nuclear.

Bradberton aceptó participar del proyecto, y continuó desviando fondos del parque. A pesar de las aportaciones del magnate, el bio-traje resultaba imposible de construir, por lo que solo se podría preservar una limitada cantidad de materia orgánica. El genio de la Nuka-Cola, en lugar de echarse atrás, decidió conservar su cabeza un año antes de que estallaran las bombas, en 2076. Desde su Refugio personal -ubicado bajo su oficina- Bradberton controló por un breve tiempo su chispeante imperio.

Con la llegada de la explosión, Bradberton logró su objetivo; aunque lo hizo pagando un precio muy elevado: la soledad que ocasiona estar encerrado en un búnker mirando la misma pared durante más de doscientos años y los deseos de venganza contra el general Baxton -responsable de SALTO-X que, según Bradberton, le engañó para que siguiera adelante con el proyecto-.

En presencia del Superviviente y de Petrovita, Bradberton se da cuenta del error que cometió en el año 2076: no desea seguir viviendo aislado del mundo y sin un cuerpo que habitar. Pero no muestra ni el más mínimo remordimiento por los heridos leves y graves y por las personas que fallecieron en su parque como consecuencia de los recortes de presupuesto. La falta de Moral de Bradberton es realmente escalofriante, despreciando absolutamente cualquier vida humana con el único propósito de alargar su tiempo vital.

Los dados de la Moral

Siempre hemos sentido fascinación por las disyuntivas, por el qué haríamos en tal o cual situación hipotética. Gracias a este rasgo de la naturaleza humana, el mítico juego de mesa Dragones y Mazmorras establece el sistema de moralidad de los personajes involucrados en una partida.

La traslación al videojuego de esa idea corrió a cargo de los chicos de Owlcat Games. Partiendo desde el universo de fantasía -similar al de Dragones y Mazmorras- creado por Paizo en sus juegos de mesa,Pathfinder: Kingmaker es el ejemplo perfecto de la traslación del sistema de moralidad propia de los juegos de mesa a los videojuegos.

Usualmente, los efectos que las decisiones de los jugadores tienen sobre ellos mismos y el mundo que les rodea son determinados por una persona humana -el llamado Dungeon Master-, pero en Kingmaker es el propio videojuego el que determina -en gran medida- el devenir de la partida.

El sistema de alineamiento moral es el clásico que todos amamos y conocemos de los juegos de mesa del género, y está regido por las mismas normas que entrarían en juego en una partida de Dragones y Mazmorras común y corriente.

La clave de este sistema es que obliga al protagonista a decidirse por acciones o frases que debe decir en los diálogos, desencadenando consecuencias que difícilmente pueden revertirse. Así, si el protagonista decide aniquilar a unos cazadores inocentes durante una misión principal, luego será emboscado por compañeros de esos cazadores que buscan venganza. Por no hablar del lío diplomático que puede desencadenarse si el protagonista opta por asesinar a sangre fría a un embajador de un país rival...

A pesar de que el sistema de moralidad de Pathfinder esté bien delimitado, su carácter encorsetado es precisamente el gran problema. Resulta realmente difícil hacer cambiar al personaje protagonista de alineamiento moral. Los jugadores que deseen hacer evolucionar a su personaje hacia una mentalidad radicalmente opuesta respecto de la inicial puede que no vean satisfecho su deseo, a menos que se empeñen en no cambiar .

Habiendo dedicado un amplio número de horas a este título -dejando de lado su horroroso rendimiento-, sale muy a cuenta permanecer del lado de los buenos: el alineamiento Legal Bueno -Lawful Good en su terminología inglesa- abre posibilidades a opciones que benefician mayormente al jugador y a sus territorios mediante edificios, tratos con naciones vecinas o favores intercambiables con otros personajes no jugables.

Conclusión

Como hemos podido comprobar, los videojuegos tienen diversas formas de acercarse al espinoso tema de las decisiones que tienen que ver con la Ética, la Moral y la Deontología; aunque algunos lo hagan de manera más acertada o fiel a la realidad que otros.

Pese a que muchos se resistan a creerlo, los videojuegos también educan.

Además de enseñar Historia o lenguas extranjeras a quienes juegan, son una poderosa herramienta sobre la que asentar una educación moral acertada, pudiendo utilizar los productos de nuestra industria como otro complemento a las lecciones de civismo y educación para la ciudadanía que permitan formar a hombres y mujeres de futuro y que tan necesarias son hoy en día.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ÉTICA, MORAL Y DEONTOLOGÍA EN LOS VIDEOJUEGOS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Los videojuegos intentan, día a día, acercarse más y más a la realidad. Sin embargo, hay un aspecto en el que a mi juicio- nuestro querido medio jamás podrá aproximarse: las consideraciones éticas, deontológicas y morales de la Humanidad misma.

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea: Video games are beginning to be a very important part of people's lives and that’s quite dangerous.

Arguments/facts:
->6.8 thousand million dollars per year only in hispanic america.
->Video games can lead to really violent situations; not only between friends but with strangers too.
->Video games, however video gamer can help people socialize and make more friends.
->If we ignore the toxic side of the "gamer" community, playing video games are really nice

Dialogue:

Summary: The gamer community has gained a really bad reputation, but the non-toxic side of it made it a really fun and sociable place. The gaming industry gains billions per year, which makes it one o

https://www.infobae.com/america/tecno/2021/12/02/la-etica-en-el-mundo-de-los-videojuegos-gamers-en-camino-a-ser-deportistas-olimpicos/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Foto de archivo| Crédito: Colin Young-Wolff/Riot Games

La era de los videojuegos está en uno de los tiempos más interesantes de toda su historia porque está generando cambios a nivel mundial, sin embargo, el impacto del fenómeno 'gamer' es tal, que muchas veces este formato es noticia a causa de problemáticas complejas como casos de acoso, misoginia y conductas antideportivas que empañan el panorama general de una industria que constantemente evoluciona y busca romper paradigmas creados en el pasado.

El mundo de los videojuegos sigue creciendo a pasos agigantados, rápidamente ha dejado de ser un hobbie para convertirse en una de las industrias más grandes de la actualidad, pues según un estudio de la firma Newzoo, solo en América Latina este sector generó en 2020 alrededor de 6.8 mil millones de dólares.

Detrás de todo este crecimiento económico viene una evolución del concepto mismo de los videojuegos, pues en sus inicios en la década de 1950, resultaba difícil imaginar cómo juegos tan sencillos como Noughts and Crosses (una versión digital del ya conocido tres en línea) en 1952 y Tennis for Two en 1958, sentarían las bases de un sector que actualmente llena estadios y reúne deportistas, narradores, patrocinadores, desarrolladores y millones de espectadores a nivel mundial.

Actualmente, según otra investigación de la consultora especializada en videojuegos Newzoo, existen alrededor de 3.000 millones de jugadores es decir, aproximadamente el 40 por ciento de la población mundial interactúa, de manera casual o más dedicada, en un ecosistema digital que se está expandiendo cada día más.

En ese 'mundo digital' confluyen a diario millones de usuarios en diferentes videojuegos y desde muchas latitudes, tal magnitud ha hecho que esas comunidades de jugadores se vuelvan más y más complejas hasta el punto de generar dinámicas muy parecidas al "mundo real" o como a Luis Fernando Jaimes de la Fundación Gamers le gusta llamar, el 'mundo no digital', pues para él los videojuegos suscitan emociones tan reales como en cualquier otro espacio.

Estas dinámicas de las comunidades de juego han sido objeto de noticias a nivel mundial, no obstante, hay que reconocer que alrededor de estas se han creado una serie de estigmas negativos relacionados a casos específicos de bullying y de violencia que se han gestado dentro de los juegos y han salido a la vida real.

¿Cuántos no hemos escuchado de generaciones anteriores que los videojuegos son malos?, pues precisamente para entender esto es necesario hacer un repaso sobre la evolución que el fenómeno 'gamer' ha tenido en torno a sus comunidades de juego y cómo estas han impactado en la sociedad también, de manera positiva.
De las máquinas de arcade a los estadios
Dentro de la historia de los videojuegos, la aparición de los juegos en línea marcó un hito y permitió el encuentro de personas de diferentes partes del mundo; sin embargo, este no fue el inicio de la interacción entre jugadores ni la creación de comunidades en torno a los juegos, pues esta historia tendría un inicio más "retro".

Luis Fernando Jaimes Rozo, es director general de la Fundación Gamers en Colombia, un espacio dedicado a la promoción y educación sobre de los videojuegos como herramienta educativa y como un método sano de entretenimiento.

Según Jaimes, "antes de los juegos en línea, la interacción entre jugadores comenzó dentro de los hogares, reuniendo a pequeños grupos de familiares o amigos que se reunían a jugar, sin embargo, ya el juego competitivo se materializó en las salas de arcade, por ejemplo, los jóvenes jugaban Pac-Man y competían entre sí para romper el récord local, lentamente eso fue evolucionando y juntando más gente hasta traer los primeros torneos y un bosquejo de lo que hoy son los eSports".

Confirmando las palabras del experto, el fenómeno se extendió de tal manera que fue la compañía Atari quien celebró en 1980 la primera competencia de videojuegos, el Torneo Space Invaders celebrado en Estados Unidos, el cual atrajo a más de 10.000 participantes en la actualidad, la undécima versión del Torneo Mundial de League of Legends (Worlds 2021) atrajo a aproximadamente 73 millones de espectadores a nivel mundial.

Con la llegada de los juegos en línea impulsados por los juegos en PC como 'Quake', la interacción constante entre los jugadores generó que muchas dinámicas sociales del mundo no digital traspasaran a los videojuegos, "es normal que en medio de la emoción se salten algunas palabras un poco subidas, pero es a partir de aquí cuando se empiezan a ver los primeros grupos que empiezan a amenazar a otros jugadores y trasladar ese bullying o violencia digital a entornos físicos como las escuelas o las calles y se empezó a convertir en un fenómeno que no se podía dejar pasar por alto" asegura Luis Fernando.

Casi desde el inicio, los juegos en línea han implementado una herramienta de chat o salas de voz que les permite a los usuarios interactuar entre sí, si bien no existía un control estricto sobre estos canales, ahora las desarrolladoras de videojuegos han configurado estrictos patrones de detección de malas conductas con el fin de bloquear o advertir a los jugadores para que no se repitan.

Más allá de lo negativo, las comunidades alrededor de este fenómeno 'gamer' se han configurado para enriquecer la experiencia de los jugadores pues también, los juegos en línea generaron la aparición de foros en internet para ayudarse mutuamente y crear grupos, hermandades o 'guilds', "Muchas veces existen amistades que inician en el mundo digital y después de mucho tiempo se conocen en el mundo no digital, obviamente atendiendo recomendaciones de no compartir información personal con cualquier persona, del mismo modo que lo haríamos en el mundo no digital, incluso hay muchos casos de personas que se han llegado a casar" explica Jaimes Rozo.

Es precisamente con la evolución de estos entornos y comunidades virtuales que nacen los eSports o deportes electrónicos, grandes torneos donde equipos de un país o de una agrupación de países compiten por premios y reconocimientos en torno a un videojuego, es aquí donde se concentra el grueso de la industria actualmente y refleja un panorama positivo respecto a la solución de las problemáticas mencionadas.

"Cada vez los equipos y las ligas como tal promueven un comportamiento más deportivo y sano, y no solo dentro de las competencias, pues los reglamentos exigen que los jugadores o deportistas electrónicos sean excelentes personas tanto dentro como fuera del juego, es claro que existen comportamientos antideportivos como hackers que utilizan códigos para obtener ventajas dentro de las competencias, esto sería el equivalente virtual al 'dopping"

Y agregó: esto es algo en lo que se trabaja cada vez más fuerte, además de una constante pedagogía, pues si un joven cambia su actitud dentro del juego, probablemente lo hará en el mundo no digital.
Los creadores de videojuegos no se quedan de brazos cruzados
Conscientes de las problemáticas existentes dentro de las comunidades de juego, las marcas desarrolladoras de videojuegos, lejos de desentenderse de estas dinámicas, acompañan y brindan apoyo a sus jugadores.

League of Legends es actualmente uno de los juegos en línea más jugados en el mundo y el principal videojuego competitivo, ante esta situación, Riot Games, compañía desarrolladora de este videojuego, busca trabajar constantemente en mejorar la experiencia para todos, así lo explica Juan José Moreno, gerente de relaciones públicas de Riot para Latinoamérica.

¡Gracias a nuestra comunidad por ayudar a Runaterra a alcanzar nuevas metas! 180 millones de jugadores en octubre y seguimos creciendo. pic.twitter.com/puuvsPgHix
- League of Legends ES (@lol_es) November 1, 2021

"En muchos juegos de la industria y específicamente en los nuestros, tenemos una serie de herramientas y sistemas para detectar automáticamente ciertas palabras ofensivas o ciertas conductas antideportivas, además de lo anterior, los jugadores tienen la posibilidad de reportar a otro usuario en ese mismo instante, además de solicitar ayuda directa de un moderador en caso de ser necesario, y además de esto, no solo nos quedamos aquí , generamos campañas constantes para incentivar el buen trato dentro de nuestra comunidad, por ejemplo, en VALORANT, que es otro de nuestros juegos, tuvimos una campaña con NIVEA llamada 'Game Changers' con el fin de impulsar nuestras mujeres gamers" explicó Moreno.

Bajo esa misma línea, no solo las empresas de videojuegos se han enfocado en trabajar por promover estas 'buenas prácticas', son muchas las empresas que se han sumado a campañas pedagógicas con el fin de contribuir a reducir los casos negativos y promocionar las experiencias positivas que trae la industria 'gamer'.
Los videojuegos como un sano entretenimiento y un motivador pegadógico
Para Sandra Castro Pinzón, directora y fundadora de la organización Tan Grande y Jugando, el mundo de los videojuegos es una "experiencia educativa por excelencia" pues, el potencial que tienen estos mundos para generar curiosidad y suscitar pasiones es muy grande".

Castro es fundadora de la organización 'Tan Grande y Jugando', grupo colombiano encargado de promover el desarrollo de videojuegos en América Latina.

"Creo que como desarrolladores de videojuegos, más allá de entregar un título, la consolidación de las buenas prácticas nos corresponde a nosotros también, es un trabajo conjunto que genera un entorno de posibilidades muy positivas".

En el ámbito educativo, también la Fundación Gamers se encarga de mostrarle a los padres el fenómeno de los videojuegos desde una perspectiva positiva, mostrándolo como herramienta para el desarrollo de los hijos y una pedagogía constante para que los padres mismos hagan uso de las funciones de control parental dentro de las consolas de juegos y escojan los videojuegos que jugarán sus hijos acorde a la edad.

Frente a el futuro de la industria 'gamer' , Jaimes también asegura que "son los jugadores los que cada vez se dan cuenta del impacto que tienen sus acciones dentro del entorno digital, además, lejos de ser un hobbie, muchos jóvenes ven esto como su estilo de vida o una profesión que requiere igual atención".

Finalmente, les decimos que no es raro que veamos en unos años un mundial de eSports, pues ya se está hablando de incluir esta categoría en los Juegos Olímpicos. Según el análisis realizado en infobae, el mundo gaming va por buen camino a pesar de los estigmas sociales y las problemáticas alrededor de la industria. Los deportes electrónicos están ad portas de ser un deporte reconocido y valorado por el mundo bajo unas reglas éticas establecidas por sus líderes.
SEGUIR LEYENDO:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
La ética en el mundo de los videojuegos: gamers, en camino a ser deportistas olímpicos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Foto de archivo| Crédito: Colin Young-Wolff/Riot Games La era de los videojuegos está en uno de los tiempos más interesantes de toda su historia porque está generando cambios a nivel mundial, sin embargo, el impacto del fenómeno 'gamer' es tal, que muchas veces este formato es noticia a causa de problemáticas complejas como casos de acoso, misoginia y conductas antideportivas que empañan el panorama general de una industria que constantemente evoluciona y busca romper paradigmas creados en el pasado.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/12/ethical-video-gaming-games-for-change-festival

Main idea: In the future video games could become a tool to solve social conflicts

Arguments/facts:
-Gaming can be persuasive in changing people's attitudes and actions in a way other mediums cannot
- The average age of players is now 30, 10 years older than it was a decade ago
-Many of the new studies claim a wide variety of benefits from gaming, including improved attention, higher creativity, and improved ability to manage difficult emotions, such as fear and anger
Dialogue: I really liked the view that this article gives you about video games and that it proves that video games are actually not childish which is a really common misunderstanding.

Summary: someday in the future, it's really possible that games could become excellent tools for solving social conflicts based on how they already affect us by entertaining and teaching us something new every day,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ethical gaming: can video games be a force for good?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The online Games for Change Festival is linking with the Tribeca Film Festival to promote peace and creativity

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea: Gaming negatively affects your health.

Arguments/facts
-Gaming causes addiction

-2-3% of gamers become clinically disordered, this affects their hygiene, health and metal state (which can even lead to suicidal thoughts).

-Video games also lead to you neglecting your needs and other aspects of your life such as your family, career, relationships (both romantic and platonic) and mental stability.

-It affects your physical health by forcing you to sit in front of a screen for hours, this messes up your sleep schedule, causes obesity and health problems as well as many other problems due to the lack of activity.

-Your diet can be negatively affected due to the lack of motivation do anything that ISN’T gaming

-Can cause anxiety, depression poor emotional regulation

-Aggression occurs as one of the withdrawal symptoms of gaming disorder

-Causes a lack of motivation

Dialogue:
I believe this article makes valid points and is able to show a lot of factual evidence, the points it makes are quite concerning but definitely not hard to believe. It’s true that gaming addiction is a serious problem and the health problems that come with it can be extremely damaging to you life, body and relationships. I think this is a problem everyone should keep in mind when gaming due to the fact that anyone can fall into this trap.

Summary:
Gaming addictions can cause serious health problems, both mental and physical. Gaming disorder can lead to serious mental health issues like depression, social anxiety, poor emotional regulation and suicidal thoughts. Gaming can also lead to physical problems like obesity, poor hygiene, bad diet, heart problems and more. Gaming addictions can make you neglect anything in your life that isn’t games, even things that are good and important for you.