Poll of the Day > Parents sue Epic/Fornite b/c Kids won't Eat or Shower...

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.businessinsider.com/fortnite-maker-sued-parents-kids-addicted-game-2022-12

Think they got a case? (Poll Question)

https://youtu.be/lkKwyjsJGxk

"The court finds that there is no evidence for these allegations of the deliberate creation of an addictive game," the judge wrote.

That means the court doesn't actually understand anything about game design or addiction, because pretty much everything about every "live service" game is deliberately created to be addictive in various ways.

Oh like when people playing WoW would let their kids die because they were too busy.

Ogurisama posted...

https://youtu.be/lkKwyjsJGxk

I was just trying to remember if "We tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" was a Simpson's quote.

rjsilverthorn posted...

I was just trying to remember if "We tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" was a Simpson's quote.

I believe it also shows up in Futurama.

My mother would have literally cut the power off on me.

Have you ever tried just turning off the TV, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?

Muscles wtf is wrong with you?

Muscles posted...

Have you ever tried just turning off the TV, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?

Perhaps it's for the best that you didn't end up becoming a parent >.>

Be better parents. They're the adults. It's not that they're incapable of turning off and taking away the game, it's just that they can't be assed and/or want what they think is easy money.

adjl posted...

That means the court doesn't actually understand anything about game design or addiction, because pretty much everything about every "live service" game is deliberately created to be addictive in various ways.

Good on the judge. Those people chose to have kids, they can damn well choose to set boundaries and limits for them. It's not the judge's job, nor is it the company's.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

Good on the judge. Those people chose to have kids, they can damn well choose to set boundaries and limits for them. It's not the judge's job, nor is it the company's.

While there are certainly things the parents could have done to see better outcomes and I don't think there's actually much of a case against Epic here, the fact of the matter is that these games are 100% designed to be addictive and to manipulate players - especially those that have problems with impulse control or are otherwise vulnerable to addictions - into spending money. Framing this entirely as a failure of parenting places far too little blame on Epic (and the rest of the game industry) for their own get-rich-quick schemes that literally involve tricking children into gambling, which is something they absolutely should be held accountable for. The analogy to Big Tobacco is actually pretty apt.

adjl posted...

While there are certainly things the parents could have done to see better outcomes and I don't think there's actually much of a case against Epic here, the fact of the matter is that these games are 100% designed to be addictive and to manipulate players - especially those that have problems with impulse control or are otherwise vulnerable to addictions - into spending money. Framing this entirely as a failure of parenting places far too little blame on Epic (and the rest of the game industry) for their own get-rich-quick schemes that literally involve tricking children into gambling, which is something they absolutely should be held accountable for. The analogy to Big Tobacco is actually pretty apt.

Do you not think that these comapnies are deliberately making their games addictive or otherwise psychologically manipulative? Because that would be rather hopelessly naive of you.

adjl posted...

Do you not think that these comapnies are deliberately making their games addictive or otherwise psychologically manipulative? Because that would be rather hopelessly naive of you.

The power button exists. There are apps that limit game time and don't allow kids to purchase games a parent might deem inappropriate. One can even delete the games or take away the console until they get their shit together. And yet lazy greedy parents who want quick lawsuit money are ever soooo helpless to say no. I'm not defending the company I'm bashing idiot lawsuits.

EvilMegas posted...

Muscles wtf is wrong with you?

adjl posted...

Perhaps it's for the best that you didn't end up becoming a parent >.>

It's a quote from Bender, I thought everyone knew that one

adjl posted...

While there are certainly things the parents could have done to see better outcomes and I don't think there's actually much of a case against Epic here, the fact of the matter is that these games are 100% designed to be addictive and to manipulate players - especially those that have problems with impulse control or are otherwise vulnerable to addictions - into spending money. Framing this entirely as a failure of parenting places far too little blame on Epic (and the rest of the game industry) for their own get-rich-quick schemes that literally involve tricking children into gambling, which is something they absolutely should be held accountable for. The analogy to Big Tobacco is actually pretty apt.

Not really, you would be hard pressed to say that Epic is reponsable for the deaths of billions of people due to false advertising. Have they made just as much money? Sure. But at least they aren't murdering people. The problem with big tobacco wasn't that they were making money, it was the known killing of people to do so.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

The power button exists. There are apps that limit game time and don't allow kids to purchase games a parent might deem inappropriate. One can even delete the games or take away the console until they get their shit together. And yet lazy greedy parents who want quick lawsuit money are ever soooo helpless to say no.

There are solutions to the problems that Epic has created, but that doesn't mean Epic didn't create the problems in the first place. Absolving them of all blame for that, as this judge has, just enables them to keep exploiting vulnerable people and causing harm. Again, in this particular case, the non-lawsuit solutions are pretty easily available and I don't think there's much grounds to say they should be winning the suit, but for the judge to accept Epic's claim that they haven't designed anything to be addictive at face value is a testament to just how hopelessly out of touch the legal system is with modern technology and business practices.

Why is it that you hold such disdain for lazy, greedy parents who want quick lawsuit money, but not for lazy, greedy CEO's who want quick money by tricking vulnerable people into gambling addictions?

Dikitain posted...

Not really, you would be hard pressed to say that Epic is reponsable for the deaths of billions of people due to false advertising. Have they made just as much money? Sure. But at least they aren't murdering people. The problem with big tobacco wasn't that they were making money, it was the known killing of people to do so.

Direct deaths? Generally not. Financial ruin, potentially to the point of driving people to suicide? Absolutely.

The analogy doesn't require the scale of the harm to be the same, only the fundamental process behind it. Much like Big Tobacco actively denied and downplayed claims of addiction and harm for the sake of making profit, the AAA video game industry actively denies and downplays claims that they have designed their games to be addictive and predatory, banking on the ignorance of a judicial system populated entirely by people whose knowledge of video games peaked at noticing that Pac-Man existed to keep exploiting as many people as they can for as long as possible. To that end, the analogy is apt.

adjl posted...

There are solutions to the problems that Epic has created, but that doesn't mean Epic didn't create the problems in the first place. Absolving them of all blame for that, as this judge has, just enables them to keep exploiting vulnerable people and causing harm. Again, in this particular

Why is it that you hold such disdain for lazy, greedy parents who want quick lawsuit money, but not for lazy, greedy CEO's who want quick money by tricking vulnerable people into gambling addictions?

I've already explained to you. Other people have made their own points. If all you are capable of is plugging your ears and shutting your eyes then this conversation is done. No point talking to a brick wall.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

The power button exists. There are apps that limit game time and don't allow kids to purchase games a parent might deem inappropriate. One can even delete the games or take away the console until they get their s*** together. And yet lazy greedy parents who want quick lawsuit money are ever soooo helpless to say no. I'm not defending the company I'm bashing idiot lawsuits.

I don't get why people are so against opioids in medicine, if you get addicted, just stop. It's just your biology.

adjl posted...

Direct deaths? Generally not. Financial ruin, potentially to the point of driving people to suicide? Absolutely.

The analogy doesn't require the scale of the harm to be the same, only the fundamental process behind it. Much like Big Tobacco actively denied and downplayed claims of addiction and harm for the sake of making profit, the AAA video game industry actively denies and downplays claims that they have designed their games to be addictive and predatory, banking on the ignorance of a judicial system populated entirely by people whose knowledge of video games peaked at noticing that Pac-Man existed to keep exploiting as many people as they can for as long as possible. To that end, the analogy is apt.

There is still a lot of leaps to go from "Cigarettes kill people" to "So do video games". Hell, you can die from popping a zit on your face (regardless of how rare it is) so apparently I should sue all the pimple popping creators out there.

While I am not going to say the company isn't somewhat at fault, it is still overwhelmingly the individual's responsibility. Yea, the company wants you to spend money on something that probably isn't healthy but at some point you have to take scale into account otherwise the concept of personal responsibility is worthless.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

I've already explained to you.

I've addressed everything you've said.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

I'm not defending the company I'm bashing idiot lawsuits.

You applauded the judge that said they did nothing wrong. That's defending the company. Can you still taste the boot, or have you deep throated it so far that now you're just slathering your tongue all over that delicious corporate shin?

Dikitain posted...

While I am not going to say the company isn't somewhat at fault, it is still overwhelmingly the individual's responsibility. Yea, the company wants you to spend money on something that probably isn't healthy but at some point you have to take scale into account otherwise the concept of personal responsibility is worthless.

So are you against gambling regulation?

adjl posted...

So are you against gambling regulation?

Yes and no.

I think there should be a limit on the amount you are allowed to gamble with in an establishment before they cut you off, similar to how there is a limit on the amount of alcohol a bar will serve you before they kick you out. Maybe scale that limit depending on age, or require adult supervision for anyone under 16.

Which is honestly not that different with how Fortnite works today:

https://tinyurl.com/4ervbxjk

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/7/8/AAfSRzAAD-m-.jpg

Dikitain posted...

Yes and no.

I think there should be a limit on the amount you are allowed to gamble with in an establishment before they cut you off, similar to how there is a limit on the amount of alcohol a bar will serve you before they kick you out. Maybe scale that limit depending on age, or require adult supervision for anyone under 16.

Which is honestly not that different with how Fortnite works today:

https://tinyurl.com/4ervbxjk

There is a very vital difference there, though, in that what you're proposing would be a legal regulation to which gambling establishments would have to adhere to be allowed to operate (and is actually a much stricter regulation than what already exists). What Fortnite and other such games offer are voluntary restrictions that have to be enabled from the user end. Even putting aside the question of whether or not parents know about parental controls (since the game's addictive, predatory nature is very much not advertised, such that many parents won't even know to look for them), they do nothing to protect those without a third party to enable them or who figure out how to get around them. They're the rough equivalent of a casino saying "it's not our fault you didn't bring a friend to stop you before you spent your life savings on that slot machine," which is arguably true, but further regulations are imposed on casinos because that's woefully inadequate to prevent the harm that gambling can cause to those that are vulnerable to it.

Same shit happened with WoW back in the day

^was Blizzard sued? If so what was the outcome?

I dunno probably

adjl posted...

There is a very vital difference there, though, in that what you're proposing would be a legal regulation to which gambling establishments would have to adhere to be allowed to operate (and is actually a much stricter regulation than what already exists). What Fortnite and other such games offer are voluntary restrictions that have to be enabled from the user end. Even putting aside the question of whether or not parents know about parental controls (since the game's addictive, predatory nature is very much not advertised, such that many parents won't even know to look for them), they do nothing to protect those without a third party to enable them or who figure out how to get around them. They're the rough equivalent of a casino saying "it's not our fault you didn't bring a friend to stop you before you spent your life savings on that slot machine," which is arguably true, but further regulations are imposed on casinos because that's woefully inadequate to prevent the harm that gambling can cause to those that are vulnerable to it.

What you are saying is that parents can't effectively parent because they aren't trying hard enough to parent. I understand that addiction is hard to overcome, but at the same time it should be the responsibility of the person to avoid situations where their addiction is triggered. In the case of that person being a child, it is the parent's responsibility.

In this case, legally, if the company is providing a way to limit your child's play time, I really don't see legal recourse to sue the company because you didn't utilize it. I would LOVE for this to bankrupt and ultimately kill Epic for my own selfish means, but come on, this is just idiotic.

you sent going to have withdrawals if you stop playing

Allocate gaming time for your kid. It isn't rocket science.

Not at all.

Parents sue Epic/Fornite b/c Kids won't Eat or Shower...

is not something that which one? pertains to. I dont know how to answer the poll.

Reading is difficult

adjl posted...

I believe it also shows up in Futurama.

It doesn't, but the muscles quote does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2SOxSGGcR4

Y'all give him no slack.

What a frivolous lawsuit.

Remember when somebody sued McDonald's, saying that his coffee was hot.

This coming from a board that worships pokemon

DrPrimemaster posted...

It doesn't, but the muscles quote does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2SOxSGGcR4

Y'all give him no slack.

It doesn't matter, it's a horrible joke to make.