Poll of the Day > China to Restrict Kids Online Gaming to only 3Hrs A Week...

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-cuts-kids-gaming-time-132539606.html

Do you think that's too extreme? (Poll Question)

That limit seems too extreme, but on paper I kinda like the concept of anti-addiction systems alluded to later in the article. I have no faith that any government in the world could ever implement one properly, since they're all run by old men who can't comprehend any gaming experience more complex than Pong, but implementing something to counteract the blatant predation of publishers on those prone to addiction could help with how much of a problem lootboxes and microtransactions can be.

---

I would be interested to know how many hours the average Chinese kid can play video games already.

Anecdotally the Chinese people I know studied late into the evenings and weren't allowed to play video games as children, but I don't know if that's changed in the intervening decades.

---

I think the Gacha game devs will fight this

---

Zareth posted...

I think the Gacha game devs will fight this

In China? Good luck with that.

rjsilverthorn posted...

In China? Good luck with that.

Many of them are based in China.
If they can convince the government that it will significantly reduce their profits, they might change their mind.

---

Ash, just what the Chinese people need, their government controlling even more of their lives

---

Gamers are a truly repressed class

---

A lot of children who live here spend almost all of their time studying. They would be lucky to have time for a quick half hour session after all the homework they have to do.

---

They can play games online?

My buddy (who subsequently killed himself after living in China and going to jail there for seven months) told me he had to use blockers to play games there. He even had to play not-proper discs. He went there to teach English to underprivileged children in a small coastal town.

---

My co-worker was mentioning this earlier... Sounds dumb...
---

zebatov posted...

They can play games online?

My buddy (who subsequently killed himself after living in China and going to jail there for seven months) told me he had to use blockers to play games there. He even had to play not-proper discs. He went there to teach English to underprivileged children in a small coastal town.

Yes they can. They have things like Steam and PSN and all that stuff here. The limit is just imposed on minors, those under 18, so it doesn't really effect most of us.

From experience I lived here 10 years, and I've never used a blocker to play games online here. In the PS3 days, I could fire up a game of COD with no problems. The server was a little slower than usual but nothing major.


---

Blighboy posted...

I would be interested to know how many hours the average Chinese kid can play video games already.

Few years ago it was changed to 1.5 hours a day. So now it's 1 hour total during the week between the hours of 8pm-9pm and then 2 hours during the weekend.

---

I don't think the government should be doing this at all, but it's China so I guess this is par for the course there.
Even so, 1 hour a day on weekends only is way too strict.
I hope the policy backfires on China as spectacularly as the one child policy did.

I got straight A's and never got in trouble while playing WAY more than 3 hours a week, when I was a kid. If the government came along and restricted my playing time, I'd probably have started getting into trouble just out of spite (gotta do something with that extra spare time...). Hopefully the kids in China are smart enough to understand, too. If their behavior gets WORSE after the change, China will relent. China like to act tough, but if they see the youth falling into delinquency and threatening long term prosperity, they'll cave.

I doubt it will backfire, but it won't achieve what they want either. So instead of playing video games for the miniscule amount of time in between cram school sessions they will now watch tv and browse the internet. Honestly, the later is probably worse, but whatevs, the Chinese government is full of boomers and boomers love thinking that by ending video games everyone will be the next Steve Jobs or something

---

Absolutely inhumane.

---

i think 'free to play' online games marketed at kids should be illegal

---

going to bee hard to enforce but i support it

---

---

How is this enforceable?

It seems like there will be no end of workarounds. The thing about China is there are a lot of laws, but -- unlike Western nations -- they don't get followed as much. And much of the time it's almost brazenly ignored, except when government officials are visiting an area.

---

Death Commander posted...

going to bee hard to enforce but i support it

it's okay, once it stings someone it will most likely die
---

Go gettem China. Show those proud gamers who's boss.

---

Imagine being ok with this, imagine growing up playing video games, and STILL do, and dare to vote on "yes", you damn sad hypocrites.

Can't believe so many people are voting No. Three hours a week is fucking absurd.

---

So i guess china is gonna completely drop out of the esports scene?

kind9 posted...

Can't believe so many people are voting No. Three hours a week is fucking absurd.

There's a pathetic amount of self-hating gamers on this website. This is hardly the first time I've seen it happen.
I'm sure there's also a bunch of people that voted w/o reading the poll question, "Is this too extreme". Like this guy:

AntonSaidWhat posted...

Imagine being ok with this, imagine growing up playing video games, and STILL do, and dare to vote on "yes", you damn sad hypocrites.

In any case, TC sucks and doesn't put the poll question in the poll while purposefully structuring his posts to be misleading (natural assumption would be a "Yup" is agreeing w/ the policy and "Nah" is disagreeing w/ it, so of course he words the question in his post to be the opposite).

https://youtu.be/s-09gNDsPzQ

---

Lmao yall know you wouldn't be ok with that lawlz at all the yay votes

xcrimx posted...

Lmao yall know you wouldn't be ok with that lawlz at all the yay votes

Go back, re-read the first post, and then report back, ok?

AntonSaidWhat posted...

Imagine being ok with this, imagine growing up playing video games, and STILL do, and dare to vote on "yes", you damn sad hypocrites.

First, there's nothing "hypocritical" about that. There's a lot of shit people did as kids that they realize they don't want kids doing.

Second, the "yes" respondents might have played responsibly in the first place. You don't know their lives.

Third, this is an arbitrary to be outraged about. There are countless things kids can't do any more than earlier generations could. An easy case-in-point would be the fact that many schools had rifle clubs. You don't really see schools putting guns in the hands of students these days.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, you read the fucking poll wrong. "Yes" is for people who feel it's too extreme. So on top of all of your other stupidity, your entire response was prompted by not understanding what the fuck people actually answered. (Although that's partly Pionear's fault because he NEVER puts the poll question in the poll question, which is why people routinely get mixed up and I *still* can't figure out why he does that, unless it's just intended as straight-up trolling)


---

*cops bust in*
"We determined that there has been 30+ hours of weekly online gaming happening in this household!"

35 year old nerdy father: "...I can explain"

---

AntonSaidWhat posted...

Imagine being ok with this, imagine growing up playing video games, and STILL do, and dare to vote on "yes", you damn sad hypocrites.

Probably because TC is too dumb to figure out polls. Or thinks he's cool or something. I really can't begin to understand why he does things the way he does, but my default is that it's out of stupidity.

---

AntonSaidWhat posted...

Imagine being ok with this, imagine growing up playing video games, and STILL do, and dare to vote on "yes", you damn sad hypocrites.

"do you think that's too extreme?"
"yes"
"no"

please read....
---

Zeus posted...

First, there's nothing "hypocritical" about that. There's a lot of s*** people did as kids that they realize they don't want kids doing.

Second, the "yes" respondents might have played responsibly in the first place. You don't know their lives.

Is Zeus really trying to suggest that 3 hours/week is a reasonable metric for "playing responsibly"?

---

When I was a kid I was limited to 30 minutes a day.
That was in the 90s.

---

Judgmenl posted...

When I was a kid I was limited to 30 minutes a day.
That was in the 90s.

and you turned out great

---

And only an hour a day.

That's not long enough to clear Praetorium.

---

zebatov posted...

who subsequently killed himself after living in China and going to jail there for seven months

Care to elaborate on this? Sounds like a Sad Story

Smarkil posted...

Probably because TC is too dumb to figure out polls. Or thinks he's cool or something. I really can't begin to understand why he does things the way he does, but my default is that it's out of stupidity.

Yea ok...

Krazy_Kirby posted...

"do you think that's too extreme?"
"yes"
"no"

please read...

Thanks

This is very extreme but hardly surprising.

---

adjl posted...

Is Zeus really trying to suggest that 3 hours/week is a reasonable metric for "playing responsibly"?

If you're only playing 3 hours a week, you're almost certainly playing responsibly.

---

Zeus posted...

If you're only playing 3 hours a week, you're almost certainly playing responsibly.

Sure, but that's not what you said.

---

But its only like 1 hour a day on the weekend. That is not enough time to play any extensive game. An MMO or RPG you wouldn't get anywhere.. hell you'd probably just spend that time fiddling in the auction house.

Thats only like what 1 full Warzone Verdasnk drop and 1 Rebirth Island drop and your done for the day.

Its too strict. If you are a kid and you've done your homework and your chores, I don't see the problem to play for a few hours.

At least its restricted to online games. These kids can pick up some old school single player or split screen offline games and play those... for now...

---

adjl posted...

Sure, but that's not what you said.

I'm not sure what you *think* I said and how it compares to what I actually said.

Sequiro posted...

But its only like 1 hour a day on the weekend. That is not enough time to play any extensive game. An MMO or RPG you wouldn't get anywhere.. hell you'd probably just spend that time fiddling in the auction house.

Thats only like what 1 full Warzone Verdasnk drop and 1 Rebirth Island drop and your done for the day.

Its too strict. If you are a kid and you've done your homework and your chores, I don't see the problem to play for a few hours.

At least its restricted to online games. These kids can pick up some old school single player or split screen offline games and play those... for now...

Then those genres aren't a good fit for the policy? A lot of those genres only exist to cater to a subsection of gamers who play for absurd lengths of time. That's not really a good benchmark for anything.

---

Zeus posted...

Then those genres aren't a good fit for the policy? A lot of those genres only exist to cater to a subsection of gamers who play for absurd lengths of time. That's not really a good benchmark for anything.

Maybe not. But many online games take practice to pay well And some arent if you dont know how to do everything. And if you can only play online, then thats not going to be a good game for them. And many online games probanly fit that
---

Zeus posted...

I'm not sure what you *think* I said and how it compares to what I actually said.

I "think" you said this:
Zeus posted...

First, there's nothing "hypocritical" about that. There's a lot of s*** people did as kids that they realize they don't want kids doing.

Second, the "yes" respondents might have played responsibly in the first place. You don't know their lives.

Of course, to make sense of that, we need to modify the quote a bit to insert the actual subjects/objects and eliminate some of the ambiguity that pronouns suffer without context, so let's do that:

Zeus posted...

First, there's nothing "hypocritical" about [thinking a 3 hour weekly limit isn't too extreme despite growing up and/or currently playing games]. There's a lot of s*** people did as kids that they realize they don't want kids doing.

Second, the [people saying a 3 hour weekly limit isn't too extreme] might have played responsibly in the first place. You don't know their lives.

Obviously, I'm taking the liberty of presuming that you're using the misinterpreted version of the "yes response," given that that's what you were replying to, but the bottom line is that you're suggesting that people think 3 hours/week isn't too extreme a limit either because they recognize that they played too much themselves (though there's ample middle ground between "played too much" and 3 hours/week, so that's not much of a justification), or because they already followed such a limit themselves (which you have characterized as "playing responsibly").

Sure, that might not be what you meant, but it is what you said. If it's not what you meant, you should perhaps try to communicate more effectively.

---

adjl posted...

I "think" you said this:

Of course, to make sense of that, we need to modify the quote a bit to insert the actual subjects/objects and eliminate some of the ambiguity that pronouns suffer without context, so let's do that:

Obviously, I'm taking the liberty of presuming that you're using the misinterpreted version of the "yes response," given that that's what you were replying to, but the bottom line is that you're suggesting that people think 3 hours/week isn't too extreme a limit either because they recognize that they played too much themselves (though there's ample middle ground between "played too much" and 3 hours/week, so that's not much of a justification), or because they already followed such a limit themselves (which you have characterized as "playing responsibly").

Sure, that might not be what you meant, but it is what you said. If it's not what you meant, you should perhaps try to communicate more effectively.

You're pigeonholing and reaching there. The overarching criticism is that asking kids to play responsibly is bad if their parents didn't play responsibly, which is just fucking stupid. As for the amount of time, anything is ultimately arbitrary. Considering all of the other hobbies kids can have, a 3-hour limit on games doesn't seem insane. At a certain point, you're really just splitting hairs.

Also, even if you decided to interpret my post literally, keep in mind that the "yes" was the too extreme option.

---

Anything the Chinese government does is bad. They're North Korea lite.

Smarkil posted...

Probably because TC is too dumb to figure out polls. Or thinks he's cool or something. I really can't begin to understand why he does things the way he does, but my default is that it's out of stupidity.

Nah he's clearly just trolling as already suggested.

Judgmenl posted...

When I was a kid I was limited to 30 minutes a day.
That was in the 90s.

I was limited only whenever I visited my mom. I just waited for her to leave to play.
---

Zeus posted...

Considering all of the other hobbies kids can have, a 3-hour limit on games doesn't seem insane.

That's if they have other hobbies. Or other things to do. You assuming they have other things they like or want to do, but that may not be true. Plus, gaming could be used for other things. My BF's kids, for example, don't like together anymore. So, they play online games with each other for a couple hours on most days. It's their time they can spend together...
---

Zeus posted...

You're pigeonholing and reaching there.

I'm taking what you said at face value. If anything, any other interpretation would be reaching.

Zeus posted...

The overarching criticism is that asking kids to play responsibly is bad if their parents didn't play responsibly, which is just f***ing stupid.

The criticism is that it's hypocritical for somebody that has and/or does enjoy playing games to think it's reasonable to limit kids' play time so much that they'll be hard pressed to ever finish a game. Which... is true. Whether or not that's bad is up to interpretation, since hypocrisy is logically and morally neutral if examined in a vacuum, but it is definitely hypocritical.

Zeus posted...

As for the amount of time, anything is ultimately arbitrary. Considering all of the other hobbies kids can have, a 3-hour limit on games doesn't seem insane. At a certain point, you're really just splitting hairs.

There's obviously room for subjective interpretation, but 3 hours/week is definitely on the extreme end and mostly just serves to punish and stigmatize people that want to adopt gaming as a major hobby (note that the restrictions apply to all minors, which includes older teens that are able to make decisions about how to balance their hobby time for themselves), especially where other hobbies are not similarly restricted. If anything, I'd actually go so far as to say that it's worse for encouraging game addiction/susceptibility to microtransactions because it promotes playing games that feel rewarding to play in short bursts (and, in turn, paying for microtransactions that will facilitate that), especially with it being broken up into three 1-hour blocks.

Of course, the fact that it's specifically online games being restricted makes it less restrictive. Offline gaming remains a viable hobby, so that's not that bad (though it does pretty much guarantee that nobody can play an MMO until they turn 18, which also potentially creates greater risk for addiction because they won't be exposed to that risk in an environment where they have parental supervision and guidance to help them recognize when they're getting sucked in). That does, however, ensure gaming is seen as an antisocial hobby, since gaming online is the primary means by which it becomes a social hobby.

Mostly, though, while you could say that it's an unreasonably extreme limitation for parents place on their kids, but justify that as being a personal parenting decision, enforcing it as federal law is definitely not reasonable. That's a totalitarian decision by a bunch of old dudes who don't like video games and understand virtually nothing about how or why problem gaming becomes a thing and what protection children actually need from the modern gaming industry to prevent them (and their parents' credit cards) from being exploited. That's not "playing responsibly," that's virtue signalling the belief that video games are evil.

Zeus posted...

Also, even if you decided to interpret my post literally, keep in mind that the "yes" was the too extreme option.

Yeah, I opted to roll with the misinterpretation because that's what you were responding to. He did indeed misinterpret the poll, but your response was based on the underlying message of his misinterpretation, which doesn't change regardless of that was the "yes" or "no" option. For the sake of being consistent with your response, I opted to use "yes" to represent what he was talking about, even though that wasn't accurate to the poll's actual wording.

---